The logic of popular activism. Also, eating as self-defense.

I am a philosopher. That is, I was a philosopher. That is, I studied philosophy in college. That means, essentially, nothing.
There aren't many philosophers anymore, people who do real philosophy, above explaining Kant to business majors. I do neither. But the desire to philosophize persists, so I spend lots of time taking simple events and assessing them with the steely logic of Aristotle.
Feats of reason often happen when they are least expected. The other night, as my jaw snapped shut on a bit of tri-tip, I wondered, "If humans are animals, and we find eating people ethically repugnant, then why don't we also avoid eating other animals?"
Immediately and clearly, my philosopher's brain saw only two options:
• Eat people
• Don't eat animals.
Desperately needing the rigorous logic I learned in those Philosophy classes, but not wanting to do any real jail time, I decided I really should feel bad about eating animals.
I went to PETA's website for a little re-education.
Before it had time to load I was drawn to the first thing that came up. A link: PETA2.com. Why would I waste my time at the original website if there's already a number two?
As that page loaded, I asked it: “Why not eat animals, PETA2?” It responded with a concise and logically explosive argument:
Premise: Ethan Hawke has a dog.
Premise: PETA2.com has free iPods.
Conclusion: You should not eat at KFC.
There it was, Ethan with his dog on the gossip page, iPods on the iPod page, anti-KFC vitriol tagged everywhere else. But those are just the explicit terms, and it can be difficult for a non-philosopher to pick out the various implied premises that support the conclusion. They are:
Ethan Hawk has a dog.
PETA2.com has free iPods.
- Dogs are too cute to kill.
- You want an iPod.
- Dogs are kind of like chickens.
- KFC kills chickens.
- KFC doesn't offer iPods.
It's bribery and cuddliness-by-association, but that alone isn't enough. Logical arguments are also founded on a set of assumptions. The assumptions in play here are:
- You are twelve
- You are confused easily
- You think celebrities are gods
They see the cute puppy, all floppy-eared and doe-eyed, on the same page as Colonel Sanders disemboweling a hen, and say, "Yes, I should stop eating that." They wait, patiently, for their iPod to arrive.
Whatever austere opinion, whatever impassioned plea PETA.com has made for the responsible stewardship of Earth's creatures, PETA2 does infinitely better with marketing, celebrity worship and free iPods.
They're beginning to catch on.
Since my own celebrity worship has long since become resentment and jealousy, and because I already own an iPod, I was about to close the browser in disgust at this cynical activism. Then I saw something from my own childhood. There, on PETA2.com, was Davey Havok, lead singer of AFI – the Goth-punk skateboarding Wiccans who also play music.
That eye liner. That lip ring. That razor sadness. That bone-deep mournful ache. Those vinyl pants.
God that guy is cool.
Peeking out from behind his black, satiny devil's lock, Havok's sharp eyes transfixed me. Beckoned me. Told me of the Church of Havok, which has among its bylaws the following: "and we shall all follow a vegan diet."
Take me into your fold! Yes. I shall take up the red paint, the foraging.
I was about to sink again into the adolescent languor of pop idolatry, but National Geographic Explorer was playing somewhere in the background. It spoke quietly to me about animals.
Explorer said there is a class of animals called "predators", meaning animals who eat other animals [some even eat each other]. Most of these so-called "predators" would eat me if I got close enough. Unlike other herbivores, or "prey" as they are often called – e.g. the zebra, the Stegosaurus – vegans don't have the herd mentality and striped skin needed to avoid predators. Nor do they have plate armor and a spiky tail to fight them off.
In denying their inner omnivore, vegans even lack the only real defense available to a plucky though tender, hairless ape: the foresight to eat first.
Forced to decide between Davey Havoc's cultic wrath and the business end of a mountain lion or Allosaurus, I decided to keep my animal-eating skills sharp by vigilantly eating less dangerous [cuter, often pre-killed] game.
As of this post, I have not yet been forced to use my skills to preemptively eat a feral cat or Velociraptor, but I live deep in the channeled scablands of Eastern Washington, and nature favors the prepared.
[A shortened version will bookend the Reader's self-styled eco-consciousness issue]
17 Comments:
I came to know man, greedy and sloth, pressured the masses, raised up the cloth. I came to know man, healthy and pure, after the lion had come with the cure.
He broke through the shackles, the pain, and the hate.
Paving the way so that I could create.
Thus spoke zarathustra.
JK
When they tell you to eat a vegan diet, they always forget to add, "And take B12 tablets to ward off pernicious anemia, because B12, which is essential to human health, is found only in animal foods." lol
That was a nice little lyric JK. There's something inescapably compelling about Nietzsche, but i think our interpretations of the madman myth are quite a bit different. Though you'll probably never come back to this page, I feel let of the ubermensch to retort in kind:
***
Zarathustra Spake Thus
Though oft mired in shackle and toil and fuss,
a Will to Power exists always in us.
And whether in ascendency or dullardly shame,
With Each lays the praise and also the blame.
For not on the shoulders of giants stand we tall,
but on the camels, lions and babes in us all.
***
The differences are subtle, but profound.
And sayeth me: What's all this hubbub about how humans "aren't physically equipped to eat meat."? I see that one all the time. What are my canines for anyway, climbing trees?
And truth be told, my digestive system has a complete fit when I stick too much greenery down my gullet.
Thus spake Seinfeld: "What's up with that!?"
Exactly right Omni and Don.
The best argument against not Veganism itself but the argument that "Vegetarianism/Veganism is MORE NATURAL" goes as follows:
EYE TEETH.
BTW, "Pernicious Anemia" is a kickass term
Well, not everyone has eye teeth. I hear that shit's congenital. Buyer beware. The last thing you want is a baby that can't eat french bread.
In other news, I'd just like to shout out to all the ladies out there that my eye teeth are quite well developed. Tearing open enemy tanks with naught but my four most prominent teeth is not unheardof. On the other hand, tearing open enemy tomato slices in my sandwich is a virtual impossibility because my 'fangs' create a slight gap between my incisors.
As a result, I wander the streets eating discarded meat and only consuming vegetables when they are at their utmost crispness or can be dealt with directly by my molars.
I have come back to this page.
a Will to Power exists always in us.
If you could do me a favor, and prove and disprove this statement.
I am wondering what your interpretations of power are. Power is a broad term.
I am always willing to learn
thank you
I do not agree with most of nietzsche's works, however the imagery is wonderful.
Also, do you have any suggestions for someone who is trying to organize politically?
Thanks again,
JK, (lost in the midwest, trying to help)
"my 'fangs' create a slight gap between my incisors."
Mike isn't kidding, but he is understating.
The condition is serious. Known as the "Shefflerian Gap," it often causes retardation. Check your textbooks, it's in there
***
JK: The concept of "power" is prevalent in philosophy, especially post Hegel, but the "Will to Power" is something that Nietzsche takes great pains to outline. It is the backbone of his proto-existentialism.
Here is a good summary of his thoughts.
Out of this the most important sentence is: "While such statements are likely to offend the moral sensibilities of even the most amoral audience, it's important to note that Nietzsche understands these activities to be "beyond good and evil." "Good" and "evil," he says, are moral interpretations applied secondarily to phenomena that simply are."
That is, Nietzche's Will to Power is not proscriptive. It does not tell us how we ought to live. It attempts to give his view of how life works.
It works sort of like with hamsters. I have to keep chewing on stuff to wear down my eye teeth and close 'the gap'. Otherwise, they (my eye teeth) become too long and I can't eat or participate in my normal day-to-day activities. The lack of food and social interaction could possibly lead to late-onset retardation.
"The lack of food and social interaction could possibly lead to late-onset retardation."
Thus compounding the early-onset retardation.
...and making a complete mockery of the congenital retardation?
I don't mean to get in the middle of your love-fest but I couldn't let that one go.
I learn lots of new Shefflerian facts here. Mike, it's appropriate that you live in the general vicinity of the Sabre Tooth Cat of 10,000 years ago. It went extinct because its fangs grew too long to allow it to eat. So say the Brea Tar Pit Docents.
That's pretty interesting Don, was it a hamster thing with them too or was there no stopping the teeth at all?
That is, were they unable to eat enough to continually pare their teeth down or did they eventually just evolve stupid huge teeth?
By the way I find NO supporting documentation of this - it's from the staff at the Tar Pits - but one theory is that the Sabertooth evolved stupid huge teeth which ulitmately became useless and then hindered their "fitness" for survival. Personally I find that to be a stretch, but I was hoping to scare Mike.
The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and that's when hunting humans showed up here too. Most likely a combination of that and climate change led to the large extinction then that included both hunted and non-hunted animals.
I do know that the California Sabertooth (Smilodon) is our official state fossil. I'm just full of useless facts.
And finally, in my stream-of-consciousness reverie here, anyone ever think that maybe the Noah / World Deluge stories may have come from the earliest generations after the worldwide Ice-Age "melt off"?
Geez, I better get back to work.
Thank God you're commenting again Don.
Firstly: "anyone ever think that maybe the Noah / World Deluge stories may have come from the earliest generations after the worldwide Ice-Age "melt off"?"
Constantly. And the fact taht almost every culture has mythos surrounding a great flood would support something to that effect.
Especially close to Noah's tale are the First Nations of the Northwest here [substitute canoe for Ark, seriously]. Of course, answersingenesis would probably suggest that they ahve that story because Indians are a lost tribe of Israel . . .
To your original point, having read Guns, Germs and Steel, which presents pretty good evidence that man was the cause of pretty much ALL extinctions [giant sloths, pygmy rhinos, etc] since whenever he started walking upright and sharpening obsidian, I'd say your guess is much better.
Further, though, the evolutionary workspace that it would require for an entire species to grow too big teeth is pretty long, and I can't imagine that the teeth lengthening would have been so homogenous that, at some point, the smaller-fanged cats wouldn't have started winning the feed/mate game [reversing the trend].
"I can't imagine that the teeth lengthening would have been so homogenous that, at some point, the smaller-fanged cats wouldn't have started winning the feed/mate game [reversing the trend]."
True, exactly. And besides, there would have to have been a whole series of "population-isolating events" that would have to have forced the mutant long teeth to have starved out. Not only that, then, the free-roaming shorter-toothed cats wouldn't dissappear but would continue as a parallel evolutionary line and thus not go extinct, for that reason anyway. So, come to think of it, that story's not a stretch, it's just silly. Who the hell are they hiring up at La Brea anyway?
One point about man's (or any newly introduced species in an ecosystem) effect on extinction. All it would take to trigger the extinction of many species would be to wipe out or severely reduce an "anchor tenant". I don't know the scientific term. But if newly arrived hunters wipe out all the whooly mammoths, for instance, a cascading effect would roll through the saber population and then through every species of flora and fauna in the environment. A whole continent can lose a huge number of species in a small amount of time by tipping the balance just a bit.
Now, I wonder how humans' new advances in teeth-whitening will affect our species. Stay tuned.
Damn Don, we should work at La Brea.
God knows I could use a job . . .
. . . And many ecosystems are so intertwined as to make every species an 'anchor' as you called it. Dunno if that's the correct term either, but it feels good.
Post a Comment
<< Home