Sea KittensIt got me thinking.. the above, in a way, does illustrate a problem of perception, although to me it illustrates it in a way of which PETA would disapprove.
Disclaimer: The below are my personal mores -- I do not expect anyone else to share them. A significant contributory to my overall system of beliefs, such as they are, is the notion that if a system is balanced and built properly at its core, the overall system needs no exhaustive analysis, and intuition can guide the rest with great accuracy. I find this to be the case in almost every system, though the concept is both simpler and more complex than the expression thereof. ..
The fundamental problem with hunting or fishing is not the act of hunting or fishing itself, but the intent behind the act. Killing a living being, separating its spirit from its body, is an act infused with great power.
Words and language fail me; there exist no terms descriptive enough to express this, but I'll try nonetheless.
When you kill a living being to stay alive, or to protect your life, those who depend on you for protection, or the well being of another, or for predation, it's a natural, neutral act. It needs no defense, and demands no apology. However, there's a certain power associated with it.. a fundamental love, appreciation and respect for that thing which you've killed, which you must honor as feels most appropriate to you.
To kill a baitfish to catch a big fish to eat for dinner does not lack respect. To hunt deer and use the flesh, bone and skin does not lack respect.
The problem begins when an attitude of depersonalization is adopted. When you begin to treat an animal merely as a walking, slithering or swimming source of protein, or as a nuisance, and to treat its death without the consequence it affords, you strip away the love, the respect and the honor.. you refuse to grant the respect that should be afforded a living creature who dies for you, by your hand.
When you refuse to accept that all living things* deserve your respect, whether you take their lives or not, and that you accept the gravity of their death by according it the honor that their life deserved, you begin to destroy.
You destroy the seas. Why not? Fish can't feel pain, right? They have no consciousness. They're not self-aware!
You destroy the land. Why not? GOD put all this here for us, right? Subdivisions make more money than trees!
You destroy the air. Why not? After all, it's just another resource.
You destroy the animals you kill, or callously caused to be killed. Why not? I mean, I don't care where the meat comes from, as long as I don't have to see it or smell it while it's still alive!
You destroy the ecosystem that exists around you. Why not? I hate spiders! I'd kill them all if I could.
You destroy, you rape, you consume, you waste, or by method of action encourage the same.
You destroy a little of yourself and everyone around you; destroy the future; desecrate the care of those who came before.
Everything is a number. Everything is a resource. Death is a statistic, and the individuality of no creature is recognized. In this enlightened era, even the individuality of humans is ignored except for the most notable.
We devalue ourselves, disrupt our world, destroy the other creatures that live thereon, and ignore the future.
Not just for money.
Not because we care about nothing.
Not because we're evil.
We do all these things, directly or by proxy, because of a socialized lack of respect for life. Cattlemen have not always kept their cattle in conditions calculated to keep them alive just long enough to get them to market at a minimum price, with an acceptable mortality rate. Fishing concerns have not always destroyed the sea and its inhabitants, with no concern for the balance of the fishery. Building concerns have not always destroyed coastlines and consumed all available land just to compartmentalize an overgrown society, and government has not always diverted rivers and streams to feed the metropolis.
Certainly practical concerns factored in to this in no small part, but there was also respect for the stock, for the health of the fishery, for the land, for the river. Those who took were also custodians of the taking. Now we have commoditized so far beyond reason that at the top level everything's a number, and at the bottom level everything's a job. The sparkle of life in the eye of the next Ruth's Chris filet mignon is no longer taken with any iota of respect for the meal, but with a callous hand or by a machine on a conveyer belt.
We commoditize supply for commodity people, in commodity housing, themselves just another resource.
To what end?
~Foxy
*- In my lexicon that laden term is stretched to mountains and rivers, sea and plain.. it's a gestalt that envelops all that forms and functions as life, whether flora, fauna, mineral or energy, and has my respect.
PS. I am aware that none of this is particularly 'novel'. Many cultures embrace various aspects of this at some level, though most embrace these things at a low priority, quickly overridden by the needs of the masses. But it's what feels right to me, at the core, as a predator among those who deny their own predation-by-proxy. I avoid taking life but do not eschew it.