I intended this blog to be about art, photography and films, but I don't think it would be of any disadvantage to add a bit of flavour by every now and then through in a wild card topic, especially on a day like May 1st. After all, the slogan of this blog is "What you've never asked me about, but what I've always wanted to tell you."At one of the many Walpurgis parties I attended yesterday (if you're invited, why not show up and make your friends happy?), I met two very agitatorial persons. Two of these young idealistic persons who tend to make up the voting base for the former communist party, when those who believed in the Revolution have perished. Interestingly enough, they didn't think that the current leader Lars Ohly was radical enough.
One thing that I'm always bothered by with these leftist wannabe-proletarians, that buy into it as if it would be the latest style from Versace, is that they always assume that I'm either conservative or liberal, despite that I often find myself rather far to the left on different issues and grew up in a working class family, with my father being active in the trade union and my mother having some semi-political assignments for the city council. "It's because you've got a carefully combed hair and are well articulated" as a friend put it, also I've been at Cambridge. They always also use those cheesy arguments for their political stance such as "The heart is to the left" and "The blood is red!" No kidding, Einstein! As if physiological facts would mean anything to politics, like the stars and planets in the sky would mean anything to your future. I feel that the popular socialism on the "far left" needs to refine itself in a more meaningful way to actually make an impact on politics. As of now are they're only appealing to the radicalised and emotionally guided youth, who are more interested in keeping up some moral principle than to achieve actual results through political action.
Veganism
Eventually the conversation came to the topic whether if one ought to eat meat. Since I myself am a vegetarian since many years, was I more than interested to hear their arguments. Which were as following:
- Humans are not predators, so why hunt? Humans are indeed predators, and as a matter of fact the agricultural trend of our species is only about 10 000 years old. Evolution doesn't work that fast that our instinct to kill for meat ought have disappeared. Not to forget that hunting and eating high protein sources propelled the development of the human brain during that same evolution. To be frank, it isn't until the past century we have both the knowledge and means to avoid eating meat, since the available food sources hasn't been that diversified enough (at least in Northern Europe) to allow us to exclude meat from our diet completely, even if we wanted to. Also, it has taken some time to understand the metabolism and what we really need - science has now a rather good and almost complete understanding of that. Small scale hunting of wild animals is much easier to defend from a moral perspective, than the large scale breeding of domesticated versions of pigs, cows and chicken. Especially easy is it to defend when the wild animals doesn't have any predators like bear, lynx, or wolves any more (in Scandinavia) to limit their population and prevent them to damage the forest. Also, isn't it more humane to be shot from afar than to be eaten alive by a bear?
- The animals eat meat because they need it to survive! Technically all food we eat we need to survive. Starvation does still lead to death. Meat is happens to be full of all the stuff that you need. It's a short cut to get a proper diet. But the question is if our intestine is fit for just that? No, our inherent immune system and bacterial flora is adapted for a rather large proportion of grain and fibres.
- If you eat animal meat, why don't you eat human meat? It's speciesism! There very few examples of species that kill others of the same species for the sake of food. Most commonly known are insects that eat each others during mating. Those human tribes that have resorted to cannibalism for cultural reasons have either perished due to diseases or just stopped do it. It's obviously a not sustainable way to promote your population group. Why evolution would favour such a behaviour at all, is absurd, since the disadvantages are obvious and it's not in the individual gene's interest to limit their own spread in a population. (Do read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for further insights on evolution) Among humans the most common reason to resort to cannibalism is famine. The appeal to equality between species, is a dubious argument, due to the very nature of Nature. For many reasons I fail to see why we ought to see other species equal to ourselves when it comes to moral rights. To base a decision of not eating meat on that kind of point of view is fallacious.
- Animal experiments are completely needless! No, they aren't! Ever been out walking or riding your bike and it started to rain? Just happen to use hair gel that day? Sooner or later it's going to get into your eyes and it'll itch and feel uncomfortable. But you will not be blinded, despite the massive cocktail of all kinds of chemicals. How do we know? Because of animal experiments. There is no other way to know that, because chemicals interact and behave differently when they are a mixture and when they are all by themselves. Also, try to get volunteers to try out a new experimental drugs without any safety tests on animals done on it in advance. Safety tests on animals are part of stage one in the development of a new medical drug. To see if it has any effect (on animals) is stage two. Tests on humans is stage three.
An argument for why we shouldn't exploit the animals for products such as honey, milk or eggs, was unfortunately not addressed. I would love to hear those arguments! As goes for industrial production of honey, does the bee know any difference? And isn't most honey produced by semi-hobby bee keepers anyway, from bees that fly in wild? Also, does the hen really notice any real difference? They aren't quite known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Also, in Sweden is it almost impossible to find any eggs from hen that have been locked up in cages all their life. Milk, however, is more problematic in my view, since you have to kill the calf (so it won't drink your milk and if it's from New Zeeland, its stomach will get cut out and send frozen to Sweden for the rennet to make cheese) and they usually must stand in a booth to get milked properly. But then again, they aren't known to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I've never really liked people who preach their opinions to the masses, since it's all about to articulate the thought that "I'm right, and you ought to comply!" I like them even less when they aren't even listening to your arguments, and just repeats their own. I've lost count on how many times I heard the phrase "Humans are not predators!" Emotionally driven people by all means, but I can't sympathise with those who doesn't comply to reason and that confess to a narrow-minded view of the world.
The Photo
This is one of rather few propaganda-like photos I've ever taken. The model was my former flatmate Carl William, who isn't particularly to the left in politics. As accustomed in all classical political propaganda is a handsome person depicted. The bricks in the background fill the purpose connect him to the industries (which were made out of bricks in the 19th century and early 20th). The gaze is steady and determined. He is literally looking forwards and does not with the old to remain. The cap enhances the impression that it's early 20th century.
50 mm, f/4.8, 1/800 s, ISO 400. Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-135 mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment