Lately I've been wondering if me eating less meat has any affect on anything at all. So I decided to do some calculations...
The average American person eats .5 pounds of meat per day. That's a decent amount of meat - 8 oz. I guess you figure that a 4 oz. piece of meat for two meals a day would equal 8 oz. Using that number, if I abstain from eating meat for a year, I would save 180 pounds of meat.
I want to have kids around the age of 25, and I think that's pretty doable. Right now I'm almost 19. If I eat a meatless diet for the next six years, I will have saved 1,080 pounds of meat.
Once I have kids, I'm most likely going to be cooking the majority of the meals (with possible help from my husband). If I cook the meals, meatless meals, for the entire time that my children are in my house - say I have two kids four years apart (about the average number of children for American families) and a husband for a grand total of four people in my family - I would save 15,840 pounds of meat in those 22 years. Granted, my kids could eat meals in other places, and maybe my husband has meat here and there - but I'm trying to have the best possible scenario. Also, maybe my kids don't eat as much when they're younger, but most certainly may make up for it in their adolescent years.
By that time, I'm 43 years old and have saved 16,920 pounds of meat. My kids are out of the house and making their own decisions. But maybe I have convinced them to be vegetarian - or at least influenced the amount of meat that they want to eat. Say they eat half as much as a normal person, .25 pounds of meat per day, taking into consideration what I have taught them for the past 22 years about our current meat industry. By the time they have potentially have kids, they have saved another 630 pounds of meat each if they have don't have kids for seven years after leaving the house, for a total of 1,260 pounds. Who knows how they raise their children. I'm assuming it would be with less meat...but I'll leave that out of the equation for clarity.
Fast forward 32 years to age 75. My husband now eats .25 pounds of meat a day instead of none because he really likes it. That's another 5,760 pounds I save by abstaining and 2,880 pounds he saves for a total of 8,640 pounds of meat.
I'm going to be optimistic and say I live to be 100, which is definitely possible with the rate at which modern medicine is advancing. Realistically, myself age 75 to 100 would not be eating .5 pounds of meat per day - probably more like .25. My husband's still eating .25 pounds. By abstaining from eating meat from age 75 to 100, I save 2,250 pounds of meat. My husband saves the same amount by having .25 instead of .5, just like he has been for the last few decades. In total that's 4,500 pounds of meat between us.
Add all those numbers up and in my lifetime, I have saved 31,320 pounds of meat.
With an average chicken, you can get about 2 pounds of meat. Cows provide an average of 585 pounds. Pigs give you 200 pounds. And cats I'm just going to estimate (since where would you easily find on the Internet how much edible meat a cat produces) - 8 pounds.
That's about:
15,660 chickens
53 cows
110 pigs
or
3,132 cats.
I include cats because I want to induce a squeamish reaction. If I tell you that in your lifetime you will eat 10,000 chickens, you may say okay, that seems high but I can see that. If I tell you that you will eat 3,132 cats - that's repulsive. I agree, it's repulsive. I would go out on a limb - literally as in even climbing a tree - to save one cat. Would I do that for one chicken? Something to think about.
But even if you don't care about the lives of animals, save your cats - if I abstain from eating meat for my whole life from this point forward and reasonably influence those around me, that's 15,660 chickens soaked in fecal soup and contaminated with E-coli that my family and I don't eat. That's 53 cows' feces that doesn't contaminate the environment - because yes industrialized cows produce toxic waste. That's 110 pigs that won't spread Zoonotic diseases, which are the cause of about 90% of all influenza.
So I come back to my original point...is being a vegetarian worth it? I didn't address in here occasional meals containing meat, which is very likely. Or the fact that maybe I'll eat fish. Or maybe my kids will go out to eat all the time because they don't like vegetarian food. Maybe my husband decides that he will eat a .5 pound breakfast sandwich every day from Starbucks with bacon and a beef patty, which is disgusting but maybe. There is an infinite amount of permutations of how much eat can be eaten and when. 31,320 pounds of meat is on the high side and is a rough estimate that could be majorly subject to change - especially if the meat industry changed its procedures and habits.
Even though that's a high number, looked at in relation to the amount of animals farmed industrially even per day it's miniscule. It is easy to become so overwhelmed with the amount of change you can't enact, and forget about the amount of change that you can. Change is like the domino effect which I hinted at earlier with the influences that I could have on my family. If we don't start anywhere, we don't start at all. Maybe my kids didn't eat meat for the rest of their lives and influenced a good number of people. Maybe enough people stop eating meat over time that the market has to respond to the consumer demand and the system has to change. Maybe not. All I know is that I don't want to throw my hands up in the air right now and by the time I'm 100 say that I haven't even made a conscious effort. If my eating habits only stop one cow from being brutally killed, one person from becoming infected with E-coli, or are as impactful that they stop a Zoonotic pandemic that originated from one pig, then I have succeeded.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Similarities
As humans, we gravitate towards living beings that are similar to ourselves. Of course, we also enjoy the presence of differences, but we feel comfortable and safe and understood when we find those beings with which we have things in common.
I believe my kitten is one of the most adorable creatures on the planet. He has gigantic ears, massive eyes, and a tiny little nose. In fact, I think he's cuter than my gorgeous German Shepherd, Lola. Why do I think that Charlie (little kitten) is so cute? Because he resembles a human baby. Humans are attracted to people and animals that resemble babies because of their nurturing instincts. Naturally, we want to care for our young, the young that we once were. Baby features trigger that fatherly and especially motherly response - to care for little versions of ourselves.
Now, I still think that Lola is a pretty awesome dog, and she's pretty as well. She has big brown eyes, pretty sleek hair, and she's usually happy. She's also very athletic and occasionally she can get agitated, though not normally aggressive. Why do I like her so much? Well, I think that she resembles myself. We are attracted to animals that have qualities that we would use to describe ourselves. I think that I have a very similar personality to my dog. As we discussed in class, one of the main reasons that people feel so compelled towards lions is because they are the kings of the jungles - they are big and powerful and rule over all - possibly reflecting some people's conceptions of self.
What about pigs and cows and chickens? I wouldn't necessarily look at them and call them cute, but I also wouldn't look at them and call them ugly. I also can't say I don't have anything in common with a cow, but I can't really name many things that I do. What about fish, like a trout or a halibut? My initial reaction is that I have zero things in common with either of them outside of the fact we all need oxygen to survive. But do I feel drawn to a goldfish? Maybe...it's small and vulnerable. My personal theory, and I know it is the same for some of the people in my class, is that we are more likely to kill and eat animals that are less like ourselves.
When it comes to humans, we are drawn towards people with which we have things in common. In our romantic relationships, generally we are attracted to people that are like ourselves. Jumping to a bit of Freudian theory, we try to find mates that most closely resemble our opposite sex parent. In our friendships, there's usually one or two things that bond us, that make us friends in the first place. People don't often go up to someone randomly walking on the sidewalk and ask if they want to be friends. Also, we love groups - work groups, church groups, sports groups, book groups, etc - which all have common threads.
I think that there are a couple of reasons that humans are drawn to similar humans - we feel that we understand them and can connect with them better since we have things in common.
There is a certain type of person that is usually a result on generic personality tests called "the connector". The connector is a person that remembers everyone they meet, is very outgoing, and is not slow about talking with and connecting with people even in a large group setting. They're the people that many people enjoy knowing because they make you feel special and known. My theory is that we all have at least a little part of us that wants to be those connectors - to be able to relate to all kinds of people. Since not all people can naturally be connectors, we try to be by finding people we think we can connect with because of our similarities. Being with people that resemble ourselves makes us feel comfortable, feel wanted, and understood. Humans are social creatures and we have an innate drive to want to connect with people - and the shyest of us do so by connecting with only the people that make us feel the safest, the ones with which we have the most in common.
Getting back to how this relates to animals - why do we scorn cannibalism? Why do most humans think that is one of the worst offenses? Why does it disgust us so much? Because it is the closest we can get to eating ourselves without physically chewing on our own arms. Why would it be impossible for me to kill my kitten and eat him? Because I think he's adorable - because he resembles myself as a human baby - vulnerable, large features, in need of motherly care. Why would it be impossible for me to kill my dog and eat her? Because she's like me in a lot of ways - as abstract as they may be. Why do I scorn the consumption of lion meat? Because I view lions as having human qualities - king like and powerful rulers (as culturally subjective those connotations may be). Why would it be a little bit easier for me to eat a cow? Eh, not as much in common, or so I think. What about a fish or shellfish? That's pretty easy for me to do - what in the world do I see that reflects myself in a shrimp?
I am, and I think it's safe to say that the majority of humans are, drawn to give life and protect those beings that look like us and possess our qualities (in our opinions - which can differ greatly from culture to culture and person to person), and more apt to disregard the lives of those that don't. Why? Because it goes back to humans' desire to connect, to be wanted, to be understood. I feel slightly more understood by my cat than I do by a rainbow trout. It's also a survival instinct - we want to be with other beings that make us feel safe, with beings that we can predict since we think we know more about them from having similarities. Why would we want to take life away from something that makes us feel validated and protected?
Is this a good phenomenon? Not necessarily. Is this theory a stretch? Maybe, however I think that it's worth thinking about. What if there was an undiscovered breed of chicken that looked a lot more like swans? Would we eat them? What if there was a fish in the oceans the size of shrimp that looked like little dolphins? Would we eat them...? Say the world ran out of all forms of industrialized food to date - what would we eat first? The "cute" and "powerful" animals - or the weak and not as cute ones?
I believe my kitten is one of the most adorable creatures on the planet. He has gigantic ears, massive eyes, and a tiny little nose. In fact, I think he's cuter than my gorgeous German Shepherd, Lola. Why do I think that Charlie (little kitten) is so cute? Because he resembles a human baby. Humans are attracted to people and animals that resemble babies because of their nurturing instincts. Naturally, we want to care for our young, the young that we once were. Baby features trigger that fatherly and especially motherly response - to care for little versions of ourselves.
Now, I still think that Lola is a pretty awesome dog, and she's pretty as well. She has big brown eyes, pretty sleek hair, and she's usually happy. She's also very athletic and occasionally she can get agitated, though not normally aggressive. Why do I like her so much? Well, I think that she resembles myself. We are attracted to animals that have qualities that we would use to describe ourselves. I think that I have a very similar personality to my dog. As we discussed in class, one of the main reasons that people feel so compelled towards lions is because they are the kings of the jungles - they are big and powerful and rule over all - possibly reflecting some people's conceptions of self.
What about pigs and cows and chickens? I wouldn't necessarily look at them and call them cute, but I also wouldn't look at them and call them ugly. I also can't say I don't have anything in common with a cow, but I can't really name many things that I do. What about fish, like a trout or a halibut? My initial reaction is that I have zero things in common with either of them outside of the fact we all need oxygen to survive. But do I feel drawn to a goldfish? Maybe...it's small and vulnerable. My personal theory, and I know it is the same for some of the people in my class, is that we are more likely to kill and eat animals that are less like ourselves.
When it comes to humans, we are drawn towards people with which we have things in common. In our romantic relationships, generally we are attracted to people that are like ourselves. Jumping to a bit of Freudian theory, we try to find mates that most closely resemble our opposite sex parent. In our friendships, there's usually one or two things that bond us, that make us friends in the first place. People don't often go up to someone randomly walking on the sidewalk and ask if they want to be friends. Also, we love groups - work groups, church groups, sports groups, book groups, etc - which all have common threads.
I think that there are a couple of reasons that humans are drawn to similar humans - we feel that we understand them and can connect with them better since we have things in common.
There is a certain type of person that is usually a result on generic personality tests called "the connector". The connector is a person that remembers everyone they meet, is very outgoing, and is not slow about talking with and connecting with people even in a large group setting. They're the people that many people enjoy knowing because they make you feel special and known. My theory is that we all have at least a little part of us that wants to be those connectors - to be able to relate to all kinds of people. Since not all people can naturally be connectors, we try to be by finding people we think we can connect with because of our similarities. Being with people that resemble ourselves makes us feel comfortable, feel wanted, and understood. Humans are social creatures and we have an innate drive to want to connect with people - and the shyest of us do so by connecting with only the people that make us feel the safest, the ones with which we have the most in common.
Getting back to how this relates to animals - why do we scorn cannibalism? Why do most humans think that is one of the worst offenses? Why does it disgust us so much? Because it is the closest we can get to eating ourselves without physically chewing on our own arms. Why would it be impossible for me to kill my kitten and eat him? Because I think he's adorable - because he resembles myself as a human baby - vulnerable, large features, in need of motherly care. Why would it be impossible for me to kill my dog and eat her? Because she's like me in a lot of ways - as abstract as they may be. Why do I scorn the consumption of lion meat? Because I view lions as having human qualities - king like and powerful rulers (as culturally subjective those connotations may be). Why would it be a little bit easier for me to eat a cow? Eh, not as much in common, or so I think. What about a fish or shellfish? That's pretty easy for me to do - what in the world do I see that reflects myself in a shrimp?
I am, and I think it's safe to say that the majority of humans are, drawn to give life and protect those beings that look like us and possess our qualities (in our opinions - which can differ greatly from culture to culture and person to person), and more apt to disregard the lives of those that don't. Why? Because it goes back to humans' desire to connect, to be wanted, to be understood. I feel slightly more understood by my cat than I do by a rainbow trout. It's also a survival instinct - we want to be with other beings that make us feel safe, with beings that we can predict since we think we know more about them from having similarities. Why would we want to take life away from something that makes us feel validated and protected?
Is this a good phenomenon? Not necessarily. Is this theory a stretch? Maybe, however I think that it's worth thinking about. What if there was an undiscovered breed of chicken that looked a lot more like swans? Would we eat them? What if there was a fish in the oceans the size of shrimp that looked like little dolphins? Would we eat them...? Say the world ran out of all forms of industrialized food to date - what would we eat first? The "cute" and "powerful" animals - or the weak and not as cute ones?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Influence
I want to work for a Non-Governmental Organization.
In class today we analyzed the non-profit, Heifer International. We scrutinized their website to see if they are a legitimate organization, looked up their allocation of funds data, and evaluated the language that they used on their website. Heifer International is like online shopping for charity. There is a page with tons of "things" that you can buy for people in need like clean water, cattle, goats, vegetable seeds, stoves, and even send a child to school. The can also be made in someone else's honor.
The organization looks legitimate enough to me, however I had a very strange sort of feel when I looked at the catalogue of items you can purchase. The catalogue appears on the screen like something you would see on Nordstrom.com. There are little teaser pictures showing what the item is with a title. When you click on the picture, it brings you to the item page with a bigger picture and a short description of the item.
More prominent than the feeling of shopping online, I felt like I was playing Neopets or the Sims. I felt, just like playing Neopets, like I was in control of this little world somewhere far away - that these little boxes of items I could purchase with my set amount of money was like a game. Now, I don't have any idea as to how I would set up the Heifer International catalogue differently, but I think that discussing this reaction and feeling that I had is important.
In class today we analyzed the non-profit, Heifer International. We scrutinized their website to see if they are a legitimate organization, looked up their allocation of funds data, and evaluated the language that they used on their website. Heifer International is like online shopping for charity. There is a page with tons of "things" that you can buy for people in need like clean water, cattle, goats, vegetable seeds, stoves, and even send a child to school. The can also be made in someone else's honor.
The organization looks legitimate enough to me, however I had a very strange sort of feel when I looked at the catalogue of items you can purchase. The catalogue appears on the screen like something you would see on Nordstrom.com. There are little teaser pictures showing what the item is with a title. When you click on the picture, it brings you to the item page with a bigger picture and a short description of the item.
More prominent than the feeling of shopping online, I felt like I was playing Neopets or the Sims. I felt, just like playing Neopets, like I was in control of this little world somewhere far away - that these little boxes of items I could purchase with my set amount of money was like a game. Now, I don't have any idea as to how I would set up the Heifer International catalogue differently, but I think that discussing this reaction and feeling that I had is important.
Neopets Shop Inventory for the Pharmacy in Neopia Central
Heifer International Gift Catalogue
The sentiment that I had slightly reflects a bit of control. The intentions of this organization are undeniably excellent. It would be very hard to argue that this organization was founded to be a detriment to people in developing countries. However, I also think that the ideas of this organization can be analyzed through a paradigm critiquing imperialism. Historically, Western ideas have shaped lots of the world. Heifer's catalogue reflects bits of imperialism in my mind. It is Western cultures imposing our control on other people. It felt to me like I was the designer of a developing country - I could choose what was most important to spend money on, where the improvements were most needed, etc - as if I know that with my limited experience.
In Global Health 101, we talk a lot about NGO's - non-governmental organizations. When I thought of an NGO before taking this class, I thought that they were perfect. After learning about the complexity of NGOs, I am more informed and have seen that they are not perfect and can have failures, even with the best of intentions. In Global Health we watched a TED Talk called "What happens when an NGO fails?". The talk showed how an NGO went to a country in Africa and built a water well system to provide clean water for the community. A few years later, they went back to assess how the wells had been performing. To their surprise, all of the wells had malfunctioned within one year and none were still working, the community now burdened with a bunch of large, non functioning metal apparatuses. Even more shocking was that they found out another NGO had done the same exact thing ten years ago, only to have the same outcome - and the non functioning apparatuses were still there in the community. The water pump systems failed because the NGOs that put them in place didn't schedule maintenance for the pumps.
What failures occur when these gifts from the Heifer catalogue reach their destination? Someone in class today asked, what if there are no male cows in a community to impregnate a cow, necessary in order to obtain its milk? What if the animal sent to a community is not suited for the particular climate? Someone found that in fine print Heifer said that they would always pick animals suited for the area, if possible. That "if possible" clause could mean that the gift is beneficial or detrimental to a family.
Now, I am not against NGOs or Heifer or charitable organizations or non profits by any means. I think that they almost always have good intentions - why else would people in these organizations get into that line of work in the first place? There are far more profitable professions. As I said before, my dream job is to work for an NGO. My intentions are to do good. However, I think it is extremely crucial to complicate matters as I have discussed in my previous two posts.
Heifer International has brilliant intentions, and I think that their way of presenting their catalogue increases consumer participation. I think that NGOs have done amazing work and will continue to do so, and they will get better and better, learning from past failures as discussed in the NGO failure TED Talk. When I work for an NGO and possibly do work overseas, I will be working for the betterment of the population I'm serving, not for my own benefit.
Just like it is important for NGOs to complicate their missions and make sure they learn from previous failures, organizations like Heifer should complicate their gifts. Now, I don't know the internal structure of Heifer International, so maybe they do just that. But as a consumer, as a member of the public that donates and works for the betterment of people, I must ask these questions when I look at that catalogue, instead of acting like I'm shopping at Nordstrom.com or controlling a game-like far away land like Neopia. If I don't, I run the risk of blindly following something that could potentially have negative side effects. I must ask questions like, how does my gifting of catalogued items in some ways induce sentiments of control? In what ways don't they? How do they improve the lives of the recipients? What is included in the gift, and maybe what crucial part is missing? In "Simplicity" I mentioned that I want to complicate the world to better understand it. Furthermore, I want to complicate the world to better serve it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Choices
Before I came to the University of Washington, I was told that I would be enveloped by the party scene, my relationship would end immediately, I would never want to go back home, I would never talk to my professors in person, I would become less religious, I would gain fifteen to twenty pounds, and I would become a full blown sorority girl - I would completely change. Well, it's almost the end of my second quarter and none of those have occurred. I have not changed; rather I have grown significantly. Things are definitely different than they were last year, but I have chosen the way in which they affect my life.
I don't like to go to parties much, they get really old. My boyfriend lives across the street and we are doing just fine and are very happy. I leave the Greek System with him almost every weekend and trek over to the Eastside to go home and visit our families and all of the people that love us. Not a single one of my classes has been taught by a TA - I even went to my professor's book release last week. I have been going to various Christian and Catholic worship places on campus and have joined a Bible study. I make time to exercise almost every day. My sorority provides me with friendships, a place to live, food, a comfortable home, and fun events...however I would never describe myself, nor would anyone else, as a "sorority girl".
The interesting thing is - all of those occurrences which I described above could have happened. They didn't because of the choices I made. I had a plethora of information presented to me before I attended UW, and many choices, good and bad, presented to me upon arrival. I chose to value health, love, friendships, academics, relationships, family, and loyalty.
Life comes down to choices. No one can make you do anything. I have definitely grown since the beginning of school, but I have made the choice to stay true to myself and to be the person that I want to be.
In Animal Planet, I have been presented with a LOT of information. At first, I thought that I had to become vegetarian because I was taking the class and because everyone else was also. So I did, and have not eaten any meat since the beginning of the quarter with the exception of a tuna sandwich, a sushi dinner, and a few morsels of pork I couldn't fish out in my mom's homemade pork fried rice. I have found it relatively easy to be vegetarian for the most part. I actually kind of like it - meat doesn't even really taste good anymore (I felt pretty sick after I ate sushi).
However, it is hard for me to abstain from consuming meat altogether. When I ate the tunafish sandwich, it was because my boyfriend's mom made me one for lunch. When I had a sushi dinner, it was because my friend came into town from California and one of her top priorities was going to sushi with me. When I ate a bit of pork, it was because it would have taken me an extremely long time to separate the tiny slivers of pork from the sticky fried rice.
Are these acts selfish? Is it selfish that I sometimes put convenience over vegetarianism? I think one could argue yes. But I see my own personal vegetarianism as moderation. It's a personal choice - I am making an effort to eat significantly less meat. If I slip up sometimes, I don't see that as a particularly awful action. The main point for me is that I am making a conscious effort to lower my meat intake for animal welfare, economic, environmental and health reasons.
I have been presented with all of this information regarding eating animals from an interdisciplinary lens. I am also surrounded by a culture that rewards eating meat, that centers around eating meat. It is my job to make a choice. No one can make me do anything. Where I am at in my life right now, I choose vegetarianism in moderation. I believe that that choice stays true to who I am. I care a lot about animals and the environment and my health and the health of others. But occasionally, I choose to give other things a temporarily higher value like convenience, social comfort, and time because sometimes they mean more to me personally in a particular circumstance. I hope that doesn't mean that I'm a horrible person.
I am going to be exposed to a lot in my lifetime - a lot of people, a lot of opportunities, a lot of ideas - and it is my job to decide, to choose, how they will impact my life and furthermore how I will use them to impact the lives of others. I'm happy with what I've done so far.
I don't like to go to parties much, they get really old. My boyfriend lives across the street and we are doing just fine and are very happy. I leave the Greek System with him almost every weekend and trek over to the Eastside to go home and visit our families and all of the people that love us. Not a single one of my classes has been taught by a TA - I even went to my professor's book release last week. I have been going to various Christian and Catholic worship places on campus and have joined a Bible study. I make time to exercise almost every day. My sorority provides me with friendships, a place to live, food, a comfortable home, and fun events...however I would never describe myself, nor would anyone else, as a "sorority girl".
The interesting thing is - all of those occurrences which I described above could have happened. They didn't because of the choices I made. I had a plethora of information presented to me before I attended UW, and many choices, good and bad, presented to me upon arrival. I chose to value health, love, friendships, academics, relationships, family, and loyalty.
Life comes down to choices. No one can make you do anything. I have definitely grown since the beginning of school, but I have made the choice to stay true to myself and to be the person that I want to be.
In Animal Planet, I have been presented with a LOT of information. At first, I thought that I had to become vegetarian because I was taking the class and because everyone else was also. So I did, and have not eaten any meat since the beginning of the quarter with the exception of a tuna sandwich, a sushi dinner, and a few morsels of pork I couldn't fish out in my mom's homemade pork fried rice. I have found it relatively easy to be vegetarian for the most part. I actually kind of like it - meat doesn't even really taste good anymore (I felt pretty sick after I ate sushi).
However, it is hard for me to abstain from consuming meat altogether. When I ate the tunafish sandwich, it was because my boyfriend's mom made me one for lunch. When I had a sushi dinner, it was because my friend came into town from California and one of her top priorities was going to sushi with me. When I ate a bit of pork, it was because it would have taken me an extremely long time to separate the tiny slivers of pork from the sticky fried rice.
Are these acts selfish? Is it selfish that I sometimes put convenience over vegetarianism? I think one could argue yes. But I see my own personal vegetarianism as moderation. It's a personal choice - I am making an effort to eat significantly less meat. If I slip up sometimes, I don't see that as a particularly awful action. The main point for me is that I am making a conscious effort to lower my meat intake for animal welfare, economic, environmental and health reasons.
I have been presented with all of this information regarding eating animals from an interdisciplinary lens. I am also surrounded by a culture that rewards eating meat, that centers around eating meat. It is my job to make a choice. No one can make me do anything. Where I am at in my life right now, I choose vegetarianism in moderation. I believe that that choice stays true to who I am. I care a lot about animals and the environment and my health and the health of others. But occasionally, I choose to give other things a temporarily higher value like convenience, social comfort, and time because sometimes they mean more to me personally in a particular circumstance. I hope that doesn't mean that I'm a horrible person.
I am going to be exposed to a lot in my lifetime - a lot of people, a lot of opportunities, a lot of ideas - and it is my job to decide, to choose, how they will impact my life and furthermore how I will use them to impact the lives of others. I'm happy with what I've done so far.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Simplicity
On Friday, everyone in class gave presentations on industrial agriculture in various countries - Ethiopia, Brazil, the US, India, and China. I began to think about one thing over and over again. Simplification. We do this all the time. When we talk about a country, we refer to its culture as ubiquitous. "Chinese people do this", "People from Brazil like to eat this". It's a very easy thing to do, and can be very informative. However, I think that there can be some danger in over simplifying a society.
Stereotypes of Americans include that they love fast food and are glamorous and are sexually promiscuous. None of those are true for me...or most of the people that I know. Sure it can be true for some people. How much of what we know about other countries is what we have heard from others as overarching themes of the country's culture? How much of what we know about other countries is actually us having been there or talked to a significant amount of people from that country. Wouldn't someone talking to me get a much different impression of Americanism than talking to someone from Wisconsin or from Alabama or from California?
When we talk about a group, a culture, a country, it is so easy to label them ubiquitously. That's not necessarily a bad thing - we can't possibly have direct experience with every aspect of every group. Labeling helps us learn and grow and distinguish one thing from another. However, cultures and religions and countries and PEOPLE are so much more complex. I think that we need to remember that. Labeling a group of people without recognizing that there is so much more depth can be destructive.
For example, in my presentation I talked about Structural Adjustment Programs. SAPs were put in place by the IMF and the World Bank to reschedule the debt in African and South American countries. Conditionalities were imposed on these countries including severe austerity measures, privatization of business and market liberalization. The problem was that not all of the countries these programs were imposed on were the same. They were very different countries with very different economies and needs and regulations. But labeling all of them as third world developing nations that desperately need help is so dangerous. These programs had very poor outcomes that created long term destruction in many of the countries.
Learning about the complexity of cultures and countries and people makes me want to learn and to travel. I want to directly experience the world and want to learn for the rest of my life. I want to complicate the world so as to better understand it.
Stereotypes of Americans include that they love fast food and are glamorous and are sexually promiscuous. None of those are true for me...or most of the people that I know. Sure it can be true for some people. How much of what we know about other countries is what we have heard from others as overarching themes of the country's culture? How much of what we know about other countries is actually us having been there or talked to a significant amount of people from that country. Wouldn't someone talking to me get a much different impression of Americanism than talking to someone from Wisconsin or from Alabama or from California?
When we talk about a group, a culture, a country, it is so easy to label them ubiquitously. That's not necessarily a bad thing - we can't possibly have direct experience with every aspect of every group. Labeling helps us learn and grow and distinguish one thing from another. However, cultures and religions and countries and PEOPLE are so much more complex. I think that we need to remember that. Labeling a group of people without recognizing that there is so much more depth can be destructive.
For example, in my presentation I talked about Structural Adjustment Programs. SAPs were put in place by the IMF and the World Bank to reschedule the debt in African and South American countries. Conditionalities were imposed on these countries including severe austerity measures, privatization of business and market liberalization. The problem was that not all of the countries these programs were imposed on were the same. They were very different countries with very different economies and needs and regulations. But labeling all of them as third world developing nations that desperately need help is so dangerous. These programs had very poor outcomes that created long term destruction in many of the countries.
Learning about the complexity of cultures and countries and people makes me want to learn and to travel. I want to directly experience the world and want to learn for the rest of my life. I want to complicate the world so as to better understand it.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Difference
Today I want to focus my post on a question that Professor Garcia posed in class:
When do we embrace difference as the standard, and when do we mark it as difference?
This question fascinates me. All humans are different - that is the standard. It is impossible to have someone exactly like you, even if you are twins, because you have had slightly different experiences. Humans embrace those differences. We rejoice in our individuality because it makes us who we are.
Contrarily, we historically have also scorned difference. Wars are all about difference - difference about ideas, culture, identities, traditions, etc. I would argue that genocides are the main example of scorning difference. Jewish people during the Holocaust were killed because they were different - they were Jewish. Tutsis and Hutus committed mass slaughter towards one another in the Rwandan Genocide - the root of the problem is that they are different.
As humans we have this paradox of difference - differences are what compose our identity, and they are also what cause us to hate or scorn the identity of another being.
So when is difference embraced and when is it not?
When I think of this question, I think of immigration. The United States is a country of immigrants - that is the nature of our country. Today, there are so many negative connotations with immigration in which people label the immigrants as "different" in a bad way. I do not want to over-simplify the issue of immigration because it is incredibly complex, but I want to focus on the idea of immigrants being different. Our differences in the United States are embraced because they make us who we are. The US is a melting pot - that connotes difference in its definition. Yet some are so resistant to accepting people of other ethnicities into our melting pot.
What is the big deal with difference? Why are people scared of it and why does it make some people uncomfortable? Why do we persecute people with difference?
I believe that it comes down to power. If a group can band together because they have similarities - i.e. live in the same area, practice the same religion, work in the same business, have the same gender - they automatically have power because there is inherently power in numbers. When there is an outsider, someone that is different, someone that is unknown, that inspires fear in the group. There is always fear in the unknown. Therefore, that group of people with various similarities bands together to have some kind of control over the unknown, the being that is different, in order to ease those fears.
Regarding animals, I believe that we all have a certain amount of fear of animals because there is always a little bit of unknown. We never fully know what they are thinking, what they are going to do next - there is no way to get around it, animals ARE different than us. But we are also different from each other. We exercise an enormous amount of power over animals, probably more than we should. I think that we do that because we are always slightly afraid.
And isn't that how humans have historically acted towards each other as well? When someone is different, we are naturally slightly afraid and uncomfortable at first. However, the fact still remains - we are ALL different.
So where do we draw the line? When do we stop exercising power over smaller groups of beings that are different? The majority usually (with some exceptions) rules. I think that the way that we treat difference is inherent in humans - it is a survival mechanism. If we want to survive, we will be cautious around difference. Therefore the way that we go about being cautious around difference has got to change. Instead of controlling difference and exploiting difference, learn from difference. For we are all different - explore the question of why are we different? What can we learn from each other?
When do we embrace difference as the standard, and when do we mark it as difference?
This question fascinates me. All humans are different - that is the standard. It is impossible to have someone exactly like you, even if you are twins, because you have had slightly different experiences. Humans embrace those differences. We rejoice in our individuality because it makes us who we are.
Contrarily, we historically have also scorned difference. Wars are all about difference - difference about ideas, culture, identities, traditions, etc. I would argue that genocides are the main example of scorning difference. Jewish people during the Holocaust were killed because they were different - they were Jewish. Tutsis and Hutus committed mass slaughter towards one another in the Rwandan Genocide - the root of the problem is that they are different.
As humans we have this paradox of difference - differences are what compose our identity, and they are also what cause us to hate or scorn the identity of another being.
So when is difference embraced and when is it not?
When I think of this question, I think of immigration. The United States is a country of immigrants - that is the nature of our country. Today, there are so many negative connotations with immigration in which people label the immigrants as "different" in a bad way. I do not want to over-simplify the issue of immigration because it is incredibly complex, but I want to focus on the idea of immigrants being different. Our differences in the United States are embraced because they make us who we are. The US is a melting pot - that connotes difference in its definition. Yet some are so resistant to accepting people of other ethnicities into our melting pot.
What is the big deal with difference? Why are people scared of it and why does it make some people uncomfortable? Why do we persecute people with difference?
I believe that it comes down to power. If a group can band together because they have similarities - i.e. live in the same area, practice the same religion, work in the same business, have the same gender - they automatically have power because there is inherently power in numbers. When there is an outsider, someone that is different, someone that is unknown, that inspires fear in the group. There is always fear in the unknown. Therefore, that group of people with various similarities bands together to have some kind of control over the unknown, the being that is different, in order to ease those fears.
Regarding animals, I believe that we all have a certain amount of fear of animals because there is always a little bit of unknown. We never fully know what they are thinking, what they are going to do next - there is no way to get around it, animals ARE different than us. But we are also different from each other. We exercise an enormous amount of power over animals, probably more than we should. I think that we do that because we are always slightly afraid.
And isn't that how humans have historically acted towards each other as well? When someone is different, we are naturally slightly afraid and uncomfortable at first. However, the fact still remains - we are ALL different.
So where do we draw the line? When do we stop exercising power over smaller groups of beings that are different? The majority usually (with some exceptions) rules. I think that the way that we treat difference is inherent in humans - it is a survival mechanism. If we want to survive, we will be cautious around difference. Therefore the way that we go about being cautious around difference has got to change. Instead of controlling difference and exploiting difference, learn from difference. For we are all different - explore the question of why are we different? What can we learn from each other?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Complexity
As a class we have definitely concluded that there is a lot wrong with the way that our food is produced. It is evident that industrial agriculture, specifically factory farming, is harmful in a multitude of ways. Factory farming violates the rights of animals and their well being, violates the rights of the laborers, irrevocably damages ecosystems and the environment, and violates the rights of the consumer - their right to know where their food is coming from and to be provided with the necessary information and resources to supply themselves and their family with healthy food.
Industrial agriculture is incredibly complex. There are so many people, animals, cultures, laws, rights, companies, ideologies, motives, benefits, costs, etc. intertwined in the web of industrial agriculture. If we want the system to change, where do we start?
Do we target emotion and evoke anger and sadness in the population by very publicly exposing the horrors of factory farms? Do we target human rights activists by stating that human lives are being exploited and degraded? Do we target religious groups and argue that the way animals are currently being treated would be scorned by the various gods, going against often universal teachings of love and compassion? Do we target the corporate heads by presenting a logical chart of the costs and benefits of changing to a more sustainable way of production? Do we target EPA by explaining just how detrimental industrial agriculture is to our environment? Do we target the family next door with a new baby by informing them of Kevin's Law, enacted on behalf of Kevin, a boy who died days after consuming E-Coli infected meat?
Which of these target populations hold the most potential for change? What strategy will enact the most rapid change?
In class today we talked about the two most prominent targets - the industry and the consumer. Is it more effective to try and bring down the industry, or is it more effective to bring up the small farmer? Both work for the same ends, just different means. In my opinion, it would be a combination of both. In an ideal world, one would bring the good up, and bring the bad down simultaneously.
But if there were limited resources and we had to pick one - which would bring about the most change? Today, a vegetarian classmate shared with us an experience she had over the weekend. She went to a Farmer's Market to get her groceries and contemplated buying meat. She does not normally eat meat, but she suddenly had an ethical dilemma: would it be more effective in changing the current system of industrial agriculture to abstain from eating meat altogether ("bring down" the bad - the demand for meat) or to support locally and "ethically" raised meat ("bring up" the good)?
This for me raised another question - is anything truly and completely ethical? Is it possible to raise an animal for human consumption and treat it with unwavering love and compassion?
I have a cow named after me in one of the states in the Midwest. My aunt's best friend's son owns a small dairy farm. When I was little, they asked me if I wanted to name one of their cows. Naturally I picked my own name and named it Marly. They sent me a picture of Marly with her little name tag on in one of the stalls in the barn. Marly is and has been for the last decade or so, the best milk and baby producer on the farm. I even got to name one of her children - Madeline.
One year my aunt went to visit their farm. When she got there, she immediately noticed that one of the cow's intestines were hanging out of her rectum. She asked her friend what was wrong with the cow. Apparently, she answered, that is fairly common with cows. Then my aunt asked he same question to the son, who told her that vet visits for something as common, but yet so painful for the cow, are too expensive - maybe he would call someone out to look at it later that week.
If someone is trying to support ethically raised dairy cows, and they buy milk from a farmer that gives cows a decent life, but doesn't have the means to always give them veterinary attention, instead of buying from an industrial dairy corporation that commits atrocities against cows every day, does it count? If there is one, two, three, ten violations of animal rights on an "ethical" farm, is it no longer ethical? Should we no longer support it?
Professor Garcia told us a story that Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of Eating Animals, recounted when he came to UW. He is a vegetarian, but he told someone that he occasionally eats meat - maybe once a year. They immediately condemned him for being a hypocrite saying that if he eats meat even once a year, he can't call himself a vegetarian, and why not eat meat every day of the year at that point. He responded with, "if I tell a lie, however small, one day of the year, does that mean I should therefore tell a lie every day of the year"?
So often we think in terms of black and white, right and wrong. The reality is that things are so much more complex than that. Someone can be really good person, but they unavoidably will sin from time to time. A small "ethical" farm can occasionally make a bad decision, or assign economics a higher priority than a cow's comfort. Someone can oppose the meat industry and want to change it, but eat meat on occasion.
Where do we draw the line? Where does something cross over from good into bad, bad into good? I don't necessarily think that the line has to be drawn. Any progress is progress. Which is better - to buy the Farmer's Market meat or to not buy it? If I'm going to buy chicken, should I buy from a company that keeps them in a dark crammed coop 24 hours of the day rolling around in their own feces and chicken corpses, or one that keeps chickens in that coop 23 hours of the day, and lets them outside for one. ANY progress is progress.
That brings me back to my original question - where do we start? Well, as I have just said, any progress is progress. I would argue that it doesn't matter where we start. There are costs and benefits, some unforeseen, of all of the targeting measures that I mentioned in the third paragraph. If we preoccupy ourselves with being perfect, finding the absolute best possible solution, the most rapid solution, the most accurate solution to everything, we will get nowhere. The key is to look for ways to be progressive, to support progressive ideas. No matter how complex an issue, how many facets it has - visible and invisible - any progress towards a goal is progress towards a better future.
Industrial agriculture is incredibly complex. There are so many people, animals, cultures, laws, rights, companies, ideologies, motives, benefits, costs, etc. intertwined in the web of industrial agriculture. If we want the system to change, where do we start?
Do we target emotion and evoke anger and sadness in the population by very publicly exposing the horrors of factory farms? Do we target human rights activists by stating that human lives are being exploited and degraded? Do we target religious groups and argue that the way animals are currently being treated would be scorned by the various gods, going against often universal teachings of love and compassion? Do we target the corporate heads by presenting a logical chart of the costs and benefits of changing to a more sustainable way of production? Do we target EPA by explaining just how detrimental industrial agriculture is to our environment? Do we target the family next door with a new baby by informing them of Kevin's Law, enacted on behalf of Kevin, a boy who died days after consuming E-Coli infected meat?
Which of these target populations hold the most potential for change? What strategy will enact the most rapid change?
In class today we talked about the two most prominent targets - the industry and the consumer. Is it more effective to try and bring down the industry, or is it more effective to bring up the small farmer? Both work for the same ends, just different means. In my opinion, it would be a combination of both. In an ideal world, one would bring the good up, and bring the bad down simultaneously.
But if there were limited resources and we had to pick one - which would bring about the most change? Today, a vegetarian classmate shared with us an experience she had over the weekend. She went to a Farmer's Market to get her groceries and contemplated buying meat. She does not normally eat meat, but she suddenly had an ethical dilemma: would it be more effective in changing the current system of industrial agriculture to abstain from eating meat altogether ("bring down" the bad - the demand for meat) or to support locally and "ethically" raised meat ("bring up" the good)?
This for me raised another question - is anything truly and completely ethical? Is it possible to raise an animal for human consumption and treat it with unwavering love and compassion?
I have a cow named after me in one of the states in the Midwest. My aunt's best friend's son owns a small dairy farm. When I was little, they asked me if I wanted to name one of their cows. Naturally I picked my own name and named it Marly. They sent me a picture of Marly with her little name tag on in one of the stalls in the barn. Marly is and has been for the last decade or so, the best milk and baby producer on the farm. I even got to name one of her children - Madeline.
One year my aunt went to visit their farm. When she got there, she immediately noticed that one of the cow's intestines were hanging out of her rectum. She asked her friend what was wrong with the cow. Apparently, she answered, that is fairly common with cows. Then my aunt asked he same question to the son, who told her that vet visits for something as common, but yet so painful for the cow, are too expensive - maybe he would call someone out to look at it later that week.
If someone is trying to support ethically raised dairy cows, and they buy milk from a farmer that gives cows a decent life, but doesn't have the means to always give them veterinary attention, instead of buying from an industrial dairy corporation that commits atrocities against cows every day, does it count? If there is one, two, three, ten violations of animal rights on an "ethical" farm, is it no longer ethical? Should we no longer support it?
Professor Garcia told us a story that Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of Eating Animals, recounted when he came to UW. He is a vegetarian, but he told someone that he occasionally eats meat - maybe once a year. They immediately condemned him for being a hypocrite saying that if he eats meat even once a year, he can't call himself a vegetarian, and why not eat meat every day of the year at that point. He responded with, "if I tell a lie, however small, one day of the year, does that mean I should therefore tell a lie every day of the year"?
So often we think in terms of black and white, right and wrong. The reality is that things are so much more complex than that. Someone can be really good person, but they unavoidably will sin from time to time. A small "ethical" farm can occasionally make a bad decision, or assign economics a higher priority than a cow's comfort. Someone can oppose the meat industry and want to change it, but eat meat on occasion.
Where do we draw the line? Where does something cross over from good into bad, bad into good? I don't necessarily think that the line has to be drawn. Any progress is progress. Which is better - to buy the Farmer's Market meat or to not buy it? If I'm going to buy chicken, should I buy from a company that keeps them in a dark crammed coop 24 hours of the day rolling around in their own feces and chicken corpses, or one that keeps chickens in that coop 23 hours of the day, and lets them outside for one. ANY progress is progress.
That brings me back to my original question - where do we start? Well, as I have just said, any progress is progress. I would argue that it doesn't matter where we start. There are costs and benefits, some unforeseen, of all of the targeting measures that I mentioned in the third paragraph. If we preoccupy ourselves with being perfect, finding the absolute best possible solution, the most rapid solution, the most accurate solution to everything, we will get nowhere. The key is to look for ways to be progressive, to support progressive ideas. No matter how complex an issue, how many facets it has - visible and invisible - any progress towards a goal is progress towards a better future.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Agape
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Yesterday at Sunday mass, my priest recited this biblical passage. The topic of his homily was love. He distinguished between different kinds of love - in Greek there are four kinds. The kind of love in this passage is called agape. Agape is a completely selfless love, for the lover receives nothing in return. Agape is 100% benefitting the recipient. Agape is not a new concept to me, it was the theme of many concepts in my Catholic high school.
Last week in Animal Planet, we discussed the line between love and exploitation. Many of us love our pets; I don't know why you would get one if you didn't love animals. I am subservient to my animals the majority of the time because they are too sweet and adorable for me to be anything else. However, pet ownership brings up an ethical question that many of us don't want to face - do we exploit animals by claiming their ownership?
From a lifetime pet owner/lover standpoint, my immediate reaction is no. My pets have a pretty darn good life. My dog has multiple beds, a large back yard to run around in, delicious food, a warm house, and people that adore her. My two cats have a gigantic playground (my house) - nowhere is off limits, not even the kitchen counter/stove top. My cats are treated like princes. One night when one of my cats was extraordinarily hungry, we put a stool in between my mom and grandpa and a plate on the table so that he could eat with us as well. And let me not forget to mention, they are fawned over like new born babies - one of them isn't even a kitten, he's 12!
But is the act of ownership exploitation in even a small sense? Some could argue that a parent owns a child until age 18. Usually parents and pet owners provide the necessities for survival, give their child or pet attention, and make critical decisions for them in their best interests. The problem arises when we define "best interests". It is relatively easy to make a simple decision for a human baby - we were all human babies at one point and know basically what one needs/desires. But we were never animals. I was never a baby kitten, even though I rock mine to sleep as he purrs. I was never a dog, but I take her on walks and runs as she bolts ahead, trying to run faster with her tongue hanging out. I was never a cat, but I cuddle up next to him while he's sleeping to keep him company and provide more body heat.
Exploitation is defined as "use or utilization". I get pleasure out of rocking my baby kitten to sleep. I enjoy having a companion run with me when no one else will. I love sleeping with a fuzzy little heat radiator beside me. Am I exploiting my animals? Because they haven't specifically told me what they need/desire and because I haven't been a cat or a dog, I don't actually know for sure if they like being rocked to sleep, ran, or cuddled with. Sometimes when I hold my kitten he pushes away. Sometimes when I walk my dog she tries to turn around. Sometimes when I try to sleep next to my cat, he gets up and moves, irritatedly.
In class, someone brought up the idea of altruism - does it exist? Is there such thing as a completely selfless act? Does agape exist? If I enjoy doing things for my animals, and I "think" that it is in their best interest, is that selfless? Am I doing it for myself, or for my animals? The same question can be applied human to human - even if you know something is in someone's best interest, is performing a selfless act ever completely selfless? Don't we all gain happiness in knowing that we did something for another person? An extreme example of a selfless act is martyrdom. I find it hard to argue that martyrdom is not completely selfless. I've never been a martyr, so I can't really say much about that...
Furthermore, as someone asked in class, if everyone does gain happiness and satisfaction in knowing that their selfless acts benefitted another person, EVEN if it benefitted themselves by making them happier, is that necessarily bad?
After thinking about this question a lot, I have personally decided that the word selfless should be redefined. I don't think it matters if a person gains satisfaction or happiness by doing community service, a kind deed, or an unexpected act of compassion. A "selfless" act should mean an act that was done with the PRIMARY goal to benefit someone else. If an individual is happier after performing a selfless act, great. Isn't that the goal - to give and receive happiness and love, and agape? The world could use more of it! So yes, I believe that altruism does exist.
Regarding animals - is it possible to act in their best interest? Is it possible to show them unconditional love? We will never fully know what animals are thinking and what they want and what they need - but we can do our best. And if we gain something out of owning pets and making them our companions? I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Some may argue that humans have done animals a massive disservice by domesticating them in the first place. But now, there is an over abundance of domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are euthanized every day in shelters. Regardless if "owning" an animal and "using" him or her for companionship is unethical, I believe it is our duty to show the animals that we have claimed, and especially the ones that we haven't, love and compassion to the best of our abilities.
Yesterday at Sunday mass, my priest recited this biblical passage. The topic of his homily was love. He distinguished between different kinds of love - in Greek there are four kinds. The kind of love in this passage is called agape. Agape is a completely selfless love, for the lover receives nothing in return. Agape is 100% benefitting the recipient. Agape is not a new concept to me, it was the theme of many concepts in my Catholic high school.
Last week in Animal Planet, we discussed the line between love and exploitation. Many of us love our pets; I don't know why you would get one if you didn't love animals. I am subservient to my animals the majority of the time because they are too sweet and adorable for me to be anything else. However, pet ownership brings up an ethical question that many of us don't want to face - do we exploit animals by claiming their ownership?
From a lifetime pet owner/lover standpoint, my immediate reaction is no. My pets have a pretty darn good life. My dog has multiple beds, a large back yard to run around in, delicious food, a warm house, and people that adore her. My two cats have a gigantic playground (my house) - nowhere is off limits, not even the kitchen counter/stove top. My cats are treated like princes. One night when one of my cats was extraordinarily hungry, we put a stool in between my mom and grandpa and a plate on the table so that he could eat with us as well. And let me not forget to mention, they are fawned over like new born babies - one of them isn't even a kitten, he's 12!
But is the act of ownership exploitation in even a small sense? Some could argue that a parent owns a child until age 18. Usually parents and pet owners provide the necessities for survival, give their child or pet attention, and make critical decisions for them in their best interests. The problem arises when we define "best interests". It is relatively easy to make a simple decision for a human baby - we were all human babies at one point and know basically what one needs/desires. But we were never animals. I was never a baby kitten, even though I rock mine to sleep as he purrs. I was never a dog, but I take her on walks and runs as she bolts ahead, trying to run faster with her tongue hanging out. I was never a cat, but I cuddle up next to him while he's sleeping to keep him company and provide more body heat.
Exploitation is defined as "use or utilization". I get pleasure out of rocking my baby kitten to sleep. I enjoy having a companion run with me when no one else will. I love sleeping with a fuzzy little heat radiator beside me. Am I exploiting my animals? Because they haven't specifically told me what they need/desire and because I haven't been a cat or a dog, I don't actually know for sure if they like being rocked to sleep, ran, or cuddled with. Sometimes when I hold my kitten he pushes away. Sometimes when I walk my dog she tries to turn around. Sometimes when I try to sleep next to my cat, he gets up and moves, irritatedly.
In class, someone brought up the idea of altruism - does it exist? Is there such thing as a completely selfless act? Does agape exist? If I enjoy doing things for my animals, and I "think" that it is in their best interest, is that selfless? Am I doing it for myself, or for my animals? The same question can be applied human to human - even if you know something is in someone's best interest, is performing a selfless act ever completely selfless? Don't we all gain happiness in knowing that we did something for another person? An extreme example of a selfless act is martyrdom. I find it hard to argue that martyrdom is not completely selfless. I've never been a martyr, so I can't really say much about that...
Furthermore, as someone asked in class, if everyone does gain happiness and satisfaction in knowing that their selfless acts benefitted another person, EVEN if it benefitted themselves by making them happier, is that necessarily bad?
After thinking about this question a lot, I have personally decided that the word selfless should be redefined. I don't think it matters if a person gains satisfaction or happiness by doing community service, a kind deed, or an unexpected act of compassion. A "selfless" act should mean an act that was done with the PRIMARY goal to benefit someone else. If an individual is happier after performing a selfless act, great. Isn't that the goal - to give and receive happiness and love, and agape? The world could use more of it! So yes, I believe that altruism does exist.
Regarding animals - is it possible to act in their best interest? Is it possible to show them unconditional love? We will never fully know what animals are thinking and what they want and what they need - but we can do our best. And if we gain something out of owning pets and making them our companions? I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Some may argue that humans have done animals a massive disservice by domesticating them in the first place. But now, there is an over abundance of domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are euthanized every day in shelters. Regardless if "owning" an animal and "using" him or her for companionship is unethical, I believe it is our duty to show the animals that we have claimed, and especially the ones that we haven't, love and compassion to the best of our abilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)