It's not at all important that I write this, but I was having the following thoughts over breakfast this morning.
Do I care about the environment? Whether I care or not is my own business, and to try and prove that I did would be pharisaical, anyway. The fact is, I get the impression that even the noisiest campaigners would do anything for the environment except make a sacrifice. However, I pose this question here about myself simply because I think my attitude has changed, and I'd like to record some thoughts I've had about that change.
There is a sense in which I am a country rather than a city person. Cities are exciting – I understand this – and are generally held to be places of opportunity and open-mindedness (though this judgement itself betrays some narrow-mindedness in the implied criticism of country culture). However, I feel most relaxed and at ease among trees, by the verdant banks of a flowing river, on the windswept cliffs overlooking a raging sea, etc.
I sympathise with the predicament of humans (a predicament, of course, that I'm in too), being dumped by god or evolution in an environment for which they seem spiritually unsuited, but at the same time, I don't think humans are especially great. I don't find myself impressed by human cultural products in the same way I'm impressed by the non-human products of nature, and when I see human pride in human achievements, I'm filled with a sickened disgust at what seems to me a psychotically shallow hubris.
The other day, someone told me about a geologist who was being interviewed on radio. This geologist related the following anecdote. Apparently, he was giving a talk on geological disasters and he said that at some point in the future there would be a geological disaster that would wipe out the entire human race. A woman in the audience raised her hand and asked the following question, "What, even Americans?"
It's easy to laugh at this, of course – and we should – but the same group egoism extends to the entire race. In that sense, we are all Americans (to a greater or lesser degree) inhabiting a quaint, exotic planet.
The answer to the woman's question – in case you were wondering – is yes.
I think the problem with the environmental movement is that it has an element, though disguised, of this same group egoism. Animals, I would guess, don't have the same egoism. Individuals and species appear and disappear. They do their best to survive, but I guess that they don't have the same horror of non-existence as humans have. I feel personally sad when species disappear, and I don't think the current rate of disappearance reflects at all well on human beings, but we essentially live in a universe of change where nothing is permanent. It seems to me important to come to terms with this fact first of all.
I guess – I suppose from impressions more than anything – that the world's problems are caused by two main factors: corruption and overpopulation. Who is willing to tackle these problems? In the first case, the only ones with the power to tackle the problem are the ones who actually are the problem themselves. In the second case… no one. Well, that's not quite true. Some attempt has been made to tackle this problem in China (laudably, if you ask me), but, generally, telling people to limit their fecundity is seen as a no-go area.
So, with these problems having no solution, we at least should not act surprised if HMS (or SS) Earth begins to capsize in the not-too-distant future. Not – as others have pointed out – that it will be the planet itself that's in danger. A number of species will be in danger, however, most significantly from our point of view, us.
I was wondering about the egoism thing. I think this is at the root of the disgusting hypocrisy from which no human seems to be free (and naturally, I'm a disgusting hypocrite even to write this). For convenience I sometimes call myself vegetarian, and there are environmental considerations in this decision of mine. (I will actually eat meat and fish if it's served, but currently do not buy either.) Meat production takes up an incredible amount of water, for instance, and the seas are being recklessly over-fished. However, the morality of vegetarianism, even, is not unproblematic for me. For instance, what if everyone stopped eating meat? The fact is, almost all meat consumed by humans is from domestic livestock. That livestock only exists because humans have bred and maintained it. If people stopped eating meat, would humans then release this stock into the wild and make sure it had a habitat in which it could survive? I don't think so. I think that would be the end of all domestic livestock breeds (I'm not sure of the extent to which this would eliminate actual species).
It's precisely this point on which I differ from many vegetarians. I think there's a kind of urban liberal attitude that it's better for the animals not to exist than for them to exist in the slavery of the food industry. I doubt the animals themselves have such an attitude. I expect that they are following the life urge simply to exist and reproduce in whatever circumstances they find themselves.
The hypocrisy of people trying to be good or do good is easy to point out, because we're all human, but meat-eaters are hypocrites, too. How many of them would be prepared to kill with their own hands the food that others kill for them? And, having said that, those who would be prepared to are often the kind of people you don't want to meet, anyway. I would say that I do have respect for people who can kill their own food and who do it without brutality or sadism.
It's been said – I haven't done any research myself – that primitive peoples used to worship the animals they hunted and ate. To me, this is the correct attitude. If you despise the food you eat, if, that is, you consume something you despise, how can it lead to anything other than sickness?
Morrissey, a famous vegetarian, once said something like, "People get terribly upset when animals eat humans, so why don't we get upset when it's the other way around?"
I think this is logical, but what I would say is that the answer to this is, we shouldn't get upset when animals eat humans.
Let me put it this way, God – or the universe if you like – eats everything. God devours human beings, and all life, with the maw of the earth itself. To devour, therefore, is godly, but also to be devoured, since this is to give life. Therefore, if we honour animals as gods for the life they give us when we eat them, we should be pleased to sacrifice ourselves to them, and be honoured by them, in turn, as gods.
One possible contributory solution to the population problem would be to allow people who want to die to be eaten by animals, so that they may in this way affirm their position as egoless sacrifice and as gods. To begin with, of course, they could be 'put to sleep' first, as in, humanely killed. Or they could just be sedated. But it's conceivable, if the right culture emerged, nurturing the right attitudes, that people woud be able to see such a death as a final fulfillment and affirmation of their entire life. If it came to be seen as a positive thing in this way, perhaps the human population could undergo healthy culls in the way it did before we were technological monarchs of the glen.
Anyway, it's just a suggestion.
Justin Isis writes:Interested to hear your thoughts on hunting, trapping, forestry, etc.? I consider myself suited only to cities, but I grew up in the country and there was a definite culture of this kind of thing. Many of the hunters, trappers, fishermen and forestry types I grew up around were educated, literate, and considerate. In other words I think your combination of liking the country and being vegetarian is interesting, since to my mind the country is very much associated with hunting, trapping, butchering animals by yourself, etc. And being eaten by animals is everyone’s inevitable fate. Eaten by worms…and flies…and beetles…who will inhabit you first as hotel, then as banquet hall…
How many of them would be prepared to kill with their own hands the food that others kill for them?There are really two factors here – laziness and squeamishness. There is something intrinsically vile about plunging one’s hands into a mass of slimy, pungent offal – the biological horror of flesh. And yet, when I pass the carcasses in the butcher’s window, I begin to salivate, because meat is also a sort of intoxicating manna. I suspect the latter feeling trumps the former in most people.And, having said that, those who would be prepared to are often the kind of people you don’t want to meet, anyway.Guilty as charged, I’m afraid.I’ll write more later.
Naturally this reminds me of this paraphrase from Wittgenstein that I’ve read:”A new born child has no teeth.””A goose has no teeth.””A rose has no teeth.”This last at any rate, one would like to say, is obviously true!It is even surer that a goose has none. And yet it is none so clear.For where should a rose’s teeth have been?The goose has none in its jaw. And neither, of course, has it any in its wings; but no one means that when he says it has no teeth.Why, suppose one were to say: the cow chews its food and then dungs the rose with it, so the rose has teeth in the mouth of a beast.This would not be absurd, because one has no notion in advance where to look for teeth in a rose.
Crikey, lots of comments.I will respond, and I think I’ve even neglected to answer comments on a previous post, which I should answer. In the meantimes, I’ll probably post another YouTube song for no good reason at all…
However, I feel most relaxed and at ease among trees, by the verdant banks of a flowing river, on the windswept cliffs overlooking a raging sea, etc.One of the problems I have with vegetarianism is the implication that plants are soulless, inanimate objects — I have always considered plants to be living animals with a presence. I remember, as a young child, being very afraid of a tall plant standing in the living room. It seemed to me to be so strange for everyone to be sitting nonchalantly whilst this gangly creature was poised in the corner. Now, I understand that plants probably do not have minds in the traditional sense, but what about insects? Jellyfish? What about brain-dead humans? At what point does the flesh end and the mind begin? These are not questions I struggle with while I am demolishing my bacon and eggs.I don’t find myself impressed by human cultural products in the same way I’m impressed by the non-human products of nature, and when I see human pride in human achievements, I’m filled with a sickened disgust at what seems to me a psychotically shallow hubris.This just sounds like defeatism and self-loathing to me. It’s a bit like God’s statement before he knocks down the Tower of Babel:“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”Hubris! Serves them right! How dare they get ideas above their station! How dare they try to overcome! How dare they challenge the might of the universe! Etc.. Speaking of Christianity, I’ve been watching a fantastic series on church architecture recently:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tlwfb/Churches_How_to_Read_Them_Dark_Beginnings/
unarex writes:I hate when I am taking a walk along a waterway and see a few turtles sun bathing on rocks with a styrofoam cup floating not too far from their shells. It makes me sad to think these turtles can never get too far from humans. I dated an idiot who once said the reason why humans did whatever we wanted: “because we can.” His ego made me ill but there was sadly some truth to what he said b/c he was right. Though our difference (and why I inevitably dumped his ass, among many other reasons) is that he sympathized with this while I did not. There’s a certain humility that is felt when you’re staring into the Grand Canyon (I recommend all try it someday) as you realize what a speck of shit we all are. I hope to return to it soon. For some reason, realizing how unimportant you are can actually do you some good and bring happiness. I’d also like to be able to write about the human race without using the pronoun “we” and instead use “them.” Sometimes I feel like “them” is the more natural choice of word… for me anyway. If that is the case, then what does that make me?
Originally posted by anonymous:If that is the case, then what does that make me?Homo superior? Obey the spinning Bowie head!!!
That guy really should have cleaned his stylus and given the record a good brush before taping that.:wait: Bloody hell! Wrong song, wrong video. Let’s try that one again:
Hunky Dory is groovy… :flirt:
Hello everyone.Getting round to this at last. Hope you don’t mind if I don’t answer everything at once.Originally posted by anonymous:Interested to hear your thoughts on hunting, trapping, forestry, etc.? I consider myself suited only to cities, but I grew up in the country and there was a definite culture of this kind of thing. Many of the hunters, trappers, fishermen and forestry types I grew up around were educated, literate, and considerate. In other words I think your combination of liking the country and being vegetarian is interesting, since to my mind the country is very much associated with hunting, trapping, butchering animals by yourself, etc. And being eaten by animals is everyone’s inevitable fate. Eaten by worms…and flies…and beetles…who will inhabit you first as hotel, then as banquet hall…I suppose that the country, in England, is not as wild as all that, and some might say it’s not much different to simply being provincial, but I did grow up around farmland, and I did wander (those being the days when children were allowed to wander by themselves). I would also add that one of the things I found really almost intolerable about living in Japan was the impossibility of just going for a ramble over hill and dale. In other words – this is not theoretical, it has made a difference to me in my life.My thoughts on hunting and trapping and so on are various and not very defined, so I can’t really sum them up here readily. Simply put, I’m not someone who thinks that killing is always wrong in all circumstances. What’s more, considering the fact I have eaten and enjoyed meat, and probably will do again, I find it hard to be self-righteous about these issues, even if they continue to concern me.But I do find human complacency and human cruelty disturbing. When hunting isn’t cruel, it can often be complacent, or rapacious.As I’ve indicated, I have some respect for what we’re led to believe were the attitudes of the original hunters (and respect or not, it would be ridiculous to sniffily expect them to be/have been vegetarian). The extent to which these attitudes transform into arrogance is the extent to which I have a problem with hunting.Basically, the world is changing, as we know, and I suppose it’s impossible to summon back the attitudes of the past. By the same token, not all presently existing attitudes are… validated by precedent. In other words, even though they have the precedent of history and tradition – or seem to – the fact that we live in a changing world means that they may still come under question.In terms of our being consumed by animals being inevitable, I agree, of course, and that was part of what I was saying. It’s just that we’re largely in denial of this. If we were able to embrace this, then… well, that’s what I was writing about, anyway. Denial of our part as the eaten in the food chain – denial of death, basically – builds a kind of dam, which will burst sooner or later. In other words, it’s a set up for disaster. But maybe it’s all one in the end, anyway.Originally posted by lesoldatperdu:One of the problems I have with vegetarianism is the implication that plants are soulless, inanimate objects — I have always considered plants to be living animals with a presence. I remember, as a young child, being very afraid of a tall plant standing in the living room. It seemed to me to be so strange for everyone to be sitting nonchalantly whilst this gangly creature was poised in the corner. Now, I understand that plants probably do not have minds in the traditional sense, but what about insects? Jellyfish? What about brain-dead humans? At what point does the flesh end and the mind begin? These are not questions I struggle with while I am demolishing my bacon and eggs.I agree with this, too. That is, this does represent a flaw in the vegetarian argument, depending on what the argument is. (I suppose, basically about the morality of taking life.) As I’ve already said or implied, I’m a hypocrite anyway, at least in the sense that I’ve strayed this way and that, and actually in more senses than that, but, for my own part, the answer is simple: Would I have a problem if I had to kill the thing I’m eating with my own hands (or a knife/blunt object/even gun)? In the case of plants, I generally wouldn’t have a problem.Originally posted by lesoldatperdu:This just sounds like defeatism and self-loathing to me. It’s a bit like God’s statement before he knocks down the Tower of Babel:I can see it both ways, really, which is often my problem. This does give me the opportunity to say that my story ‘Suicide Watch’ contains many thoughts around this philosophical area:http://ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=3104I'm not insensitive to the idea that human aspiration is often crushed by guilt, etc.Originally posted by anonymous:I hate when I am taking a walk along a waterway and see a few turtles sun bathing on rocks with a styrofoam cup floating not too far from their shells. It makes me sad to think these turtles can never get too far from humans. I dated an idiot who once said the reason why humans did whatever we wanted: “because we can.” His ego made me ill but there was sadly some truth to what he said b/c he was right. I think that’s the most suffocating thing, when people are not even capable of questioning themselves. Sadly, it seems the rewards of this world are generally for those who don’t question themselves.Well, I’m going to bed.I’ll try and address more points later.