Slimming the crowd?

For perhaps those small few who may happen upon this blog or even read semi-regularly, I find no way to cleverly mask my own manner-of-being, who and how I am, those elements in which I believe and live toward passionately. I realize I am attempting to keep this blog anonymous, which conflicts a tad with my last statement. Nevertheless, as an ultimately unique life, I see no point in remaining "politically correct," but rather perceive much use in existing as a transparent soul, into which one can see and ask easily.

That being said, I must address an argument imposed upon other living beings (humans and other animals alike). That is, I tire of being informed of the "overpopulation" of some creatures. As some may realize, this frequently arises within the context of the hunting season, which for some creatures and some regions exists incessantly. "We are really doing society a benefit here, there is just too dern many of them," they state. Thanks for the favor guys. Nonetheless, I continually fail to find killing other living, soulful beings for sport a favor for any loving piece of this thing we call life. This is, however, not my argument...

My argument resides in the utilization of the concept of "overpopulation." It simply does not work and breaks down rapidly. Overpopulation implies the existence of a "correct" population. If such is the case, who determines the correct population? Us humans, the reigners-supreme of the world? Unfortunately, such an approach rests upon an unfounded assumption of superiority. From what source did we gain the keys to Gaia's kingdom? Even from a theological perspective, about which I am very interested, such an interpretation is either literalism or is a questionable reading of Biblical text. For instance, many translations utilize the word "steward" in regards to the relationship between animals and humans. Utterly regardless, though, humans have received no formal statement of the proper balance of humans:animals. There is no "objectively correct" ratio. For Christian individuals, look to the compassionate St. Francis of Assisi as a model. He treasured animals as God's children, preaching them, giving thanks for them, caring for them, and instructing that they too give thanks for their existence.Let us lightly put down the theological/biblical element for a moment, though.

Let us pretend we are wandering, random humans. As our suburbs devastatingly move into the surrounding countryside, we realize, "Oh no! The deer, they are eating all of our flowers!" The response? "Clearly, there is an overpopulation problem." I inquire, what does that mean? There are too many? That, again, implies an objectively correct or preferable number of animals, an optimal number at which animals properly exist. Anything beyond this is just being greedy on their part, right? Rubbish. Do deers exist merely for our sport? Do cows exist simply to provide the ingredients for steak? Are puppies bestowed upon us by the universe to entertain us and obey us. Spiritual or not, I challenge such thoughts. (If I don't have you on board with this, read below entries) From a purely scientific lens, if we have been "lucky" (for randomness/chance is all then it could be, scientifically) enough to exist as humans and not the fly you swat, there still remains no universally correct number of animals. If it is all a universal mistake, how could there be any Truth, any "correct" manner of living, in which animals must be regulated? If you find faith in a transmigration-based belief, then again, is not your humanness a blessing? If you were once the annoying fly, would you wish to be casually swatted out of existence?

We, humans, continually pilfer land from them, decrying their trespassing upon our new backyard when they need to search farther for food. "Overpopulation" remains a human-made, a socially-constructed, concept. It is not real, it is an abstraction, behind which absolutely nothing exists. Animals are more populated than we would most benefit, or like them to be? What a dangerous world would unearth if all annoyances were instantly acted upon, yes? To animals, I am sure we are overpopulated, for we steal land, hunt for pleasure, farm, control, imprison animals without remorse. Planet of the Apes regularly seems silly, as dirty humans are kept in zoos. If you view the reality of what we do to other living, feeling, loving creatures, it is actually rather harrowing.

Relational, Phenomenological Animalism

Sorry for my extended absence... I have some good thoughts to get out in the coming month or so ... here is a quick tidbit

Buber illustrates eloquently the allowance of an other to be, as they are fully, freely, and recognized as a distinct and whole entity. He contrasts this well with “reflexion,” the tendency to merely acknowledge one’s existence as “part of myself.” That is, one’s worth becomes measured and determined solely through an individual’s use to the other person. The being is not worthy simply as a consequence of living; rather, one approaches in a “what use are you to me” manner. In any case, I recognize well the struggle to not consider others in such a way. Generally enfolded into the umbrella of selfishness, it remains easy (or lazy) to consider another’s worth to myself; effortful is the intention of allowing the whole of an other as is.

My relational situations with animals yields an interesting example of the above. My girlfriend and I have a dog, actually it is her dog, Steve. He is a very small, all-black Yorkie. Admittedly, my affection toward him has grown intensely and immeasurably. I love him dearly. Growing up, a dog was ever-present in the household. That is, I always felt I “knew” dogs pretty well. As my own existential journey and accompanying questions grow, however, so do my existential considerations toward animals. That is, I wonder of what they think. Do they wonder of their plight, their mortality, their forced submission to humans? With this increasingly on my mind, I am about walking Steve, an extremely loving and nervous creature, with my girlfriend’s sister in tow, visiting from out of town.

She views Steve’s “poor” and “undisciplined” behavior, such as walking around corners before his master and running quickly to the end of his leash, and begins to offer advice. “He is handling you,” she exclaims. “You have to show him you are the leader of the pack.” At one point in my life, I may have heeded such offerings, continuing to behaviorally modify my animals. As I continue to envision animal’s existential throwness, including attempts at sympathetically imagining myself in similar facticities, I can become saddened, at the leash constricting their movement and at the walls surrounding their existence. In essence, while I treasure their presence and its benefits to me, I increasingly experience a deep remorse regarding my own hand in their captivity. In essence, I am saddened by their lack of freedom. Therefore, when inviting advice from the future sister-in-law, I felt dissent. Compliance from the other (in this case, little Steve) no longer exists as my goal. No longer is the aim to solely possess him for gain. Within his terribly constricted existence, which I do believe he enjoys with me at times, can I offer him additional freedoms? Indeed, sometimes when he pulls at the leash so hard I become annoyed. More frequently, though, if I run with him when he does this, simulating a freedom-from-leash-ed-ness, I smile and laugh at his delightful and joy-filled run. Increasingly, when safe, I let him off the leash and walk with him.