Eating the Unknown

When children first begin to eat meat, do they realize that they are eating an animal? And whether they do or not, does this constitute as their first encounter (assuming they haven't encountered pets) with an animal? I doubt children are aware of what they are eating during there first few years. And therefore it might not be considered their first encounter with an animal, assuming their consciousness must play a role in the encounter. I'm not sure what implications any of this had, it is just something that came up.
When do people become aware of what they are eating? Because of being disattached from what we eat by having others kill, grow and prepare our food for us, many never know exactly what they are eating. We obviously become aware of foods, but much is prepared with ingredients we are not aware of. What we may call a chicken nugget is usually much more than a nugget of chicken. Of course many have also become aware of this, and wish to know what they put into their bodies, hence the movement towards organic foods, etc. This is a great reaction to chemically induced, mass produced foods, however, it is not always accessible and affordable. And I wonder whether it is necessary for everyone to adopt this way of eating. Organic foods are healthier, but many have survived quite easily without eating organic. And more than half of the world's human population is malnurished. Almost everyone of those persons would take any parcel of food available to them, organic or processed to shit. While I think people who can afford to shift their attention towards eating healthier, organic, etc. should do so, as one should take care of their own bodies first, I also think the world as an entirety should put more energy into feeding fellow humans. The two can be done simultaneously, but it is important that people eat before they eat as healthy as possible. Or not; maybe hunger and starvation has a necessary role in the cleansing of the overpopulation of humans on the planet.

Q's

If science can give scientific explanations for the origins of ethics, etc., does this render theological explanations as useless or impossible? I ask this question pertaining to anything actually. Does a scientific explanation of anything render all theological explanations of that situation as something not worth bothering with? Is it possible that scientfic explanations are a component within something greater than science itself and beyond what science can explain? Is science limited, or is it possible for science to explain every phenomenon present to consciousness? As far as ethics, is it possible that the possible origins of stemming from social evolution was inevitable in the blueprint of the development potential within consciousness? What I mean is that humans reaching the state of ethical development was an inevitable step in the unfolding of the universe.

Widening the Gap

This is something that came to me after Christina pointed out our lack of equal treatment to domesticated animals: If a domesticated animal (dog) does something harmful (i.e. pitbull biting a human), is there some lawful punishment the dog can be given so it will not commit the act again other than putting it to death? If it were a human, other things could be done, such as send the human to a correctional facility, because the human has the potential to reason out his/her wrongdoings and change his/her behavior. If a human commits assault, there is a lawful punishment. I don't think we can create laws to punish animals other than having them be put to death. Perhaps there are training schools out there, that I am unaware of, that can train the dogs to become less aggressive, but we have no guarentee that the dog willl not perform the harmful act again. Perhaps the owner or trainer of the animal should be punished for not being in control of the animal it is responsible for. I love dogs as much as anyone, I just see the gap between animals and humans widening here in the fact that we can create laws for ourselves and hold ourselves accountable for our actions, and learn about our behaviour and change it through laws, which animals cannot do, nor can we do it for them.

On another note, something that animals can do, which humans cannot, was pointed out by Noah, which also widens this gap. It is impossible for humans to find an ecological niche, as we are always rapidly evolving and adapting to our surroundings. While every other species finds a niche in their habitat in which their obligations are already set and they are expected to behave in a specific manner. Humans can not find their place and get comfortable with it and have a routine of actions, as every other species can and does. Last week it was mud huts and hunting for food and this week it is a condo suite on the 40th floor of a downtown skyscraper and Chinese take out; who knows what will be next week. This appears to me to be a drastic difference between humans and every other species. How come every other species has their niche, while humans do not? Why can other species not evolve to develop the ability of reason in which they would use to forever progress themselves? Instead, they just waltz along in the backround, and sometimes we observe to take in their beauty.

Google

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-energy-2030.html



http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/



This may be old news, but its new to me (thanks Ben Todd), and encouraging news all should here, considering the negative shit we are lambasted with from the mainstream media. I still think, considering the environmental situation, among other things, all is going to hell, but this is the kind of thing I want to see before it all comes down. I want to see great effort from the human heart and mind to rise above greed and pride, and do what we can to salvage some of our greatness, before it all goes under.
When Murray Bookchin suggested we need to evolve into a "free nature" in which humans "intervene in the natural evolution", it was natural for me to throw up a red flag. But considering we've already intervened in the natural evolution to a point where we are facing the destruction of our own species, among others, we might as well intervene some more to attempt to patch the rotten sore on mother earth we've created, rather then letting her do it by herself (which I am confident that she inevitably will do if need be).
Bookchin also states that communal interest must be placed above personal interest in his ecological society. I think that if everyone took care of themselves and put their energy into that which is in direct relations to them on a daily basis, it will follow that the collective will benefit as a whole. The problem is people don't take care of themselves first, and they put their energy into concerns out of their reach, when the root of these problems lies within each of us and the way we perceive the world and conduct ourselves on a daily basis.

Anti-Sentience

If sentience is the capacity for pain and pleasure, are those who advocate for the practice of remaining indifferent to pain and pleasure, so to transcend the effects of the mundane, physical world (i.e. Eastern mystics) anti-sentient? If sentience is then taken out of the equation of determining which living beings should be given ethical consideration, does this make all nonhumans more like humans, or does it separate humans from nonhumans even more? Would the non-sentient still give sentient creatures consideration because sentient creatures are unaware of the deluded nature of pain and plasure, or would s/he give them less consideration because s/he sees pain and pleasure as fleeting illusions, as it would not matter if they received one or the other, and whatever happens to them, happens? Because humans alone can grasp this, and become indifferent to pain and pleasure, does this create a larger gap between humans and nonnhumans? Would this ability make humans superior, because they can avoid these disturbances?

Biosphere as Human Dominion

Murray Bookchin argues for an ethics in which "humans complement nonhuman beings to produce a developmental whole - not as dominant species but as a supportive one." Can humans be a supportive species while also being a dominant one? The act of willfully supporting nonhumans is an act of domination in the sense of excersing a power over other species that they do not have. Sure, other nonhumans support humans, but they don't take the initiative to do this willfully. Perhaps, humans are obligated to support nonhumans, being a dominant species. Again, it is humans who need to make the recognition of support to all species, and this could be because everything else is within their domain; and in their domain, because humans alone can willfully cause help or harm to the whole. The ability to do this would come from the development of our "second nature" as we evolved into social beings, according to Bookchin. And to agree with what I said about our ability alone to help or harm the whole, Bookchin says our second nature "contains both the danger of tearing down the biosphere and, given a further development of humanity toward an ecological society, the capacity to provide an entirely new ecological dispensation." (pg 468) Whether true or not, perhaps humans need to see the biosphere as their dominion in order to take the steps necessary to preserve it. I am not speaking of a dominion in the sense that we can do anything to whatever lies within it because it belongs to us, but more that it is our responsibility alone to take care of it in order to preserve it for our existence and the existence of everything else within it that is a vital component of its preservation and component of its beauty and uniqeness.

Climate Change at Walden Pond

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/28/walden-pond-flowers.html

Here is an interesting article about the effects of climate change in the woods at Walden Pond, where Thoreau lived while writing Walden. The temperature here has increased 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and 27% of the species Thoreau documented cannot be found there anymore and another 36% may be gone soon.

Thoreau often stated that in nature could be found the most sublime society. As far as the society humans have devleoped today, Bookchin says, "social development... often becomes more problematical for themselves and nonhuman life." The findings in the above article show, in one sense, this quote to be true.