Funnel

I have been thinking about some pretty big topics lately, so I thought I'd vent a little bit of it here (that's what this place is for anyways).

First of all, animals.

In my linguistics class we were talking about animal communications and comparing them to human language. (My post from the forum below, if you want to read it) When I wrote my reply for the topic, I was imagining some counterarguments and trying to refute them.

"If you think animals are equal to humans, then why don't they have concepts of ascetic?"
You don't really know that, do you? The best example of this is actually just between humans. If we can take random people from all around the world and ask them if something is art, I guarantee we will have a variety of people who think "yes" and "no". As humans we do not have a defined sense of ascetic, do we? If we do, it seems to be based around a subconscious understanding of the human form (we are universally attracted to attractive humans and shapes/forms that suggest such features). If this is the root of our concept of ascetic, then who is to say that animals do not have this? A spider's web is made for practical/instinctive purposes, but no two webs look exactly alike. Who is to say that spiders do not have any appreciation for the intricacies of their webs? Can we actually dissect/observe the mind of a spider to prove that this isn't so? I actually don't know, and if you do not either, then what are you really arguing?

"Why don't they have culture/language/technology like we do?"
Again, how can you really prove they don't? As a long metaphor for humanity, the manga called Magi features a chapter about an alternate world where humans and other races all coexisted on semi-equal terms. Humans, who did not have claws, or thick hide, or webs we quite ill-equipped to preserve their species against the others who found them quite tasty and wanted to eat them. One day "god" gave them the power of magic, that is to say, they randomly acquired this ability. The first thing they used it to do was to suppress the communication of all other species. After that, they enslaved those species and destroyed their homelands. To get "revenge" they also forced them to breed so they could eat their children. Then they built themselves up to create fantastic cities and trinkets and things for themselves- all the while maintaining their grip over the other species and ensuring that none of them could be considered even slightly as equals.

To be honest, to me this metaphor is not so different from reality. In legends where man finds fire, they use it to ward off other species and ultimately dominate over them. To say that other species lack intelligence is unfair considering we have been overpowering the whole world and not letting unique ecosystems develop naturally. If you think that our ability to dominate proves we are superior, then you are really no better than imperialists and propogators of genecide who believe "something" they have gives them the right to oppress and even kill masses of other humans.

My point is that animals could be more in-tune to other aspects of life that we are unaware of. For example, considering the plethora of emotions that humans have, if a species were to have more complex emotions how could we really tell? We could "describe" or theorize about them, but those species would have an understanding of those emotions that we can not comprehend because we do not feel them. We have no way to observe them. Perhaps to animals all our "math" and "theorizing" and "imagination" are understood intrinsically. How could we know? And if there really was so much they could understand than we could, who could really say that we are superior?

Maybe I'm a hypocrite, I eat meat. But does that really matter if I'm making good points? When I eat meat I admit that at those times I'm not thinking about the animal that went into that food, and when I do then my thoughts are merely theorizing as well. I have not personally killed an animal for food, I just contribute to the demand in a cycle that breeds and murders them beyond my vision. I know it is terrible, and I do not know what really can be done. Perhaps this is what Germans felt like during the holocaust. Or perhaps this is what everyone feels like because we are all ignoring it and trying to focus on the "flavor" and our "intelligence".

I have a question. Is it human instinct to project a minority ahead of everyone else for the sake of "growth"? Is that why we have leaders of leading nations of the leading species of the planet enjoying lives of ease and luxury that no one else is allowed? While the lowest of the low are literally cockroaches and insects to be eliminated in troves? So what about us in the middle? The animals we eat are really not so far down the pyramid as the consumers who live and die to profit a rich minority.

Which brings me to the second topic I have been thinking about, consumerism.

I have been thinking about all the stuff we use and throw away. The drive we have to get new things and replace "old"/"outdated" things. I keep thinking, why don't we put the technology into things that will actually last? And I get angry because I realize, we really could. It's not like we don't have the capacity/technology to make things more energy efficient, eco-friendly and sustainable. Why did I just open a box of boxes of individually plastic wrapped things, instead of just getting those things themselves? I just threw away all that packaging for the sake of what? You might think there is no reason, but there is. Packaging companies. There is a reason for everything useless thing you throw away, and every reason is a company.

I work at a sub sandwich shop for minimum wage, and I get so pissed whenever I think about anything relating to my job. The shop is part of a chain, which means the owner gets a portion of the profits of the store, for investing in the location/renting the building, etc, meanwhile the person above him gets a portion of those profits for managing him, and the guy above him above him above him gets a huge fat portion of those profits and the profits of every location of that store everywhere just for having one good idea. The idea wasn't actually the sub shop, it was the idea to sell the shop itself as a product. The company produces chains that produce shops that produce food. But the people making that food are replaceable insignificant figures. If a cent of that over-priced sub could go to relief of starvation in third world countries, think of all the money that could be donated...

Then I just think, why are we paying money to these companies anyways? Why can't we all get affordable food? If companies can sell one sandwich for $9 to a couple hundred Americans in hundred of locations a day, what would it be like if there was no company-we paid for cost to make the item, and the rest went to feed other people. Would there really still be hungry/starving people?

And here's what kills me! People bitch all day about their taxes going to help other people (because they think a lot of those people don't deserve it) but you are okay with that huge chunk of your money going to company owners living in mansions sitting on uselessly expensive furniture and barely doing anything but "managing" the people who are actually doing the work? I think your priorities are so fucked up.

Maybe it's because I don't make a lot of money. I make minimum wage and I don't bitch about the taxes being taken out. I think, man if that couple of dollars is getting funneled into a fund that helps other people that would be awesome. If someone was getting health care or education from that couple of cents, how great would it be? But no, actually how much am I paying for other people to die? How many cents are going into wars between companies? How much am I paying for other people, who are already wealthy, to stay wealthy? Why are people getting mad that they might pay taxes to make underprivileged people's lives better when they are willing to pay way more than their taxes for overpriced items whose sole purpose is to make the already uselessly huge sum of money under the ass of the upperclass bigger?

Here's the thing. You're going to have to pay taxes no matter what. They might go down, they'll probably go up, but you're going to have to pay them. SO, why not make them go towards something that will actually do some good in the world? Corrupt people are already taking your tax dollars. Why are you worried about a few theoretically corrupt poor people who would use the system to get ahead, when you already have thousands of corrupt rich people doing that blatantly and for everyone to see? Especially when some of those poor people really need it, and none of those rich people do. The poor people want that money so they can survive another day, the rich just want to have more money.

Better yet, why don't you stop trying to buy more new items and use the money you would have spent to save a life. You can do it so easily, and you aren't even trying.

I don't make enough to even cover my own living expenses. Sometimes it feels like I'm going into debt just by living my life, but I know it's an exaggeration. I'm not donating my money because I put things above the lives of the people I could donate it to. Some of those things might be worth it in some sense, my own livelihood, my education...but how many stupid extra things do we really put above the lives of others? If a dollar a day can make a difference, why get a coffee or buy anything brand-new?

Sigh.

Ok topic three, gender roles.

I could talk about my thoughts on people transitioning, but it technically doesn't have anything to do with my life. If anything I just wish English had more adaptable pronouns to help these people out.

What I have really been thinking about is men. Or rather, the "traditional male gender role". What does that mean? Well, what kinds of roles need to be filled by men, exclusively (that is, women would have a hard time or be unable to fill those roles)? Some of the ones that come to mind are manual labor/physically strenuous jobs, soldiers, and fathers. I have a hard time thinking of any else (and arguably some women could fill those roles) because women can make equally good if not better versions of anything else.

Well what I have been thinking about lately is that the first two wouldn't really be necessary if the world put less effort into materialism/consumerism. Technology can already replace most jobs (especially manual labor and strenuous jobs) and basically anyone who has been trained can operate such technology. And wars are really just the product of cleverly disguised economic/power endeavors. If the world was more concerned with human welfare than profit, then it would really be a better place... but maybe not for men.

I think, in a peaceful world/society, men are almost totally unnecessary. Now here's where that last role comes in- fathers. The sad thing is, I don't know anyone who would say they have a "good" relationship with their father. I won't go into my own personal relationship with mine, but most people I know feel that the majority of their growth from childhood was from their mother. And in many families fathers are not present at all (and those children only feel that lack if they experienced "losing" him or they notice other kids have fathers), and all of the people I have met like this have grown up to be astonishingly sensitive/empathetic individuals. Bad mothers do exist, but if you think about it, as long as one had even a decent mother then a father was basically unnecessary for you to grow up to be a good person. He paid the bills, maybe he disciplined, that's about it. But for me and many people I know, he wasn't the only one doing those things. In fact, even if he was gone then those things were still somehow provided for by mothers.

The men that I have known who have made extremely amazing fathers (in recent years as my friends and acquaintances are at the age to have families) have all been judged/ostracized for being "non-traditional" made role models. Some of these men have been stay-at-home dads, gay fathers, and even single-fathers. All of them have been criticized at some point for filling a female-gender-role. And I just want to point out that if that is true, then the world doesn't need male-gender-roles anymore.

If peace and equality are really the goals of the world, then we should be striving to end war, which makes soldiers obsolete. And if you realize that technology has the ability to make the world a safer and more accessible place, then manual labor is also obsolete. All other jobs can be filled as equally capably by women...

...my final point here is not that the world doesn't need men (though with in-vitro technology that is also a valid argument in my opinion), but that traditional gender-roles are obsolete.

As with most things that are considered tradition, at some point you have to realize that the only reason you do them or believe in them is because you were told to. The values that actually matter in this world do not require the confines and restrictions of tradition.

Anyways that's probably enough ranting for a while. I could go more into any of the above topics, but I'd rather not go too far for today. I probably will end up writing more about them as I think about them in my life (and inevitably get enraged over the injustice and stupidity in the world), but for now I'm going to leave them there.

In case you are interested, here is some of what I had to say in my linguistic classes discussion board (mentioned in the first topic):

Why is it we are okay with eating deer, bears, and other wildlife in nature or domestic, but we have laws about hurting horses, cats, and dogs? Why are they set apart and not the others? They can be domesticated with time, too so whats the difference?

I think the reason people designate some animals as "ok for eating" and not others is that people do not fully think about or appreciate what the food they eat really is. They appreciate taste, and they appreciate how it was cooked/prepared, but most people do not want to think about the fact that is was alive (and how it lived, etc). So when the food is suddenly connected to a familiar idea (e.g. family pet, or "friend") it could be disturbing. Maybe the fact that most people purposefully ignore the lifestyles of animals designated for consumption is reflective of their lack of respect for the animals as living creatures.

Truthfully, I do not know much about how other cultures deal with this, but I have a vague understanding that many "ancient" people respected and revered even the animals they ate, and had some appreciation for the sacrifice of that animal's life for the sake of their own self-preservation.

Have linguists overstated differences between human language and animal communications?

It's interesting that this question compares the specific type of communication, "human language", with animal communications as a category. That's not comparing "apples and oranges"; that's like comparing "apples" and "fruit". I may be pushing some boundaries a little here, but aren't humans technically animals? I think we, as humans, do not understand other animal communications enough to determine that they do not have language. They could very well have language that is not percievable by us, because it is so specific to a species. It is also quite arrogant to assume that the languages that we have are more advanced/complex than animal communications. This is not just because we could theoretically be unable to percieve their possible "languages", but also because if we compare aspects of communication that are more comparable we might find that animals do it better than we do. For example, if we compared gestural/body language in humans to other species, we might find that animals are more sensitive to gesture (which might account for why people and their pets can seemingly communicate/understand each other) and may even be able to understand more complex things from them than we can.

If people have not already extensively compared similar subcategories of communication, I think it is because humans are always trying to find a way to justify their dominion over other species. If we found that other species are more advanced than ours, then instead of being "rightfully at top" we have been oppressing our equals, even more cruelly and horrifically than we have oppressed one another (and you cannnot deny that humans oppress each other). People always try to find justification for their actions, especially when they know they have done something unjust to another... and that is why separating humans from other animals is such an instinctive and deep-rooted part of the way we observe other species.

If I sound like I'm being too serious or unrealistic, my apologies. And by the way, if we are indeed going to compare "apples" to "fruit", then perhaps the difference in human language and animal communication is not really overstated. After all, there isn't anything quite to the degree of similarity to an apple as an apple is.