Image courtesy of: http://www.eoi.es
I recognize the worth of feedback of any type. Yet I must admit that those which have been reflected upon deserve to be shared; especially an honest criticism that pushes me to grow and improve. I believe it’s a great way to show appreciation on one’s work. Somehow, it’s a more complete way to say, “Good job!”
Two weeks ago, I received this kind of comment for the first time. It came from Alberto Carbajo, my best friend in college, currently residing in L.A., California. He is also a very treasured confidant. I just feel really lucky to have access to thoughts from a brain like his. So dear Alberto, from the bottom of my heart (or pen, or keyboard, or laptop…) I CAN NEVER THANK YOU ENOUGH!
And to you dear reader, please don’t hesitate to leave any comment, opinion and/or impression to the contact page, the Reply Section of any post in this blog or you could also write to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Without further ado, let me share with you Alberto’s feedback (minor edits have been made).
As for the bear… I want to get in a debate of “justice vs policy”. Not all policy is just. I feel justice goes on a case by case basis and can vary depending on the observer. Whereas policy is like painting with a thick brush. In this case the policy is kill the bear because I guess once it has tasted human flesh they’re more likely to kill more humans? Is that the thinking behind it? We had a similar incident a few weeks ago in which a kid fell into the gorilla pit at the zoo and to rescue him they were forced to kill the gorilla. The gorilla wasn’t being violent and there was the option of tranquilizers but the rationale in that case was that shooting the gorilla was the safest thing for the kid.
Either way unfair and unjust for the animals but we live in a society that values humans over animals for better or worse. I would argue for better but that’s a different debate.
As for the argument that bears have been around for longer I don’t see where that leads. Fish have been around for even longer and nobody cares about fish the same for trees and even further for virus and bacteria.
It’s a rough world and ultimately it’s like Nietzsche argues in beyond good and evil. The world is divided in the powerful and the weak. The weak see the powerful as evil when the powerful may not care one way or another about the rest. And the only way for the weak to change the situation is for they themselves to become powerful first so that they are in a position to change things.
What all this rambling means is that the bear will always be weak relative to humans (although Crosby might disagree).
In defense of humans they are the only animals on earth that worry about the survival of other species and act upon it. Sure, we may be responsible for mass extinctions but at least we’re aware of it. And we act upon it (although petty squabbles get in the way).
Alberto, you hit home when you mentioned about the kid falling into the gorilla’s pit. I’ve been trying to put myself in the mom’s shoes and I sincerely can’t imagine how I would react.
I guess my questions are: why are human lives more important than an animal’s? Because humans have dictated so? I consider this ugly arrogance, especially in a terrain supposedly reserved for the latter. Don’t we ourselves take precautions when we have to pass by a street known to be a gang’s “turf”? When we share a common habitat with any living creature, we should be aware of consequences and be a good sport…
As to the fact that animals have been around longer: it’s just a way to show us that we don’t have the right to simply apply our rule of law on what has been functioning well way before our existence. I suppose I’m trying to imply RESPECT in that sense.
As you said, being “powerful” is relative. In the wilderness, humans are nothing without any weapons (or animal repellant sprays). Perhaps the bear killing Crosby is the way the “weak” are taking the chance to gain strength so they could position themselves to change things.
And finally, YES! I agree about humans being aware of our own barbarities and how we try to make up for them. What I was trying to say is perhaps we’ll find it easier not to commit too much brutality in the first place. That way, we won’t have to squabble about how to act upon it. (Okay, okay, I know, I know, the productive model, wealth acquisition, progress, our children’s future… all suggesting different debates on their own.)