speciesism, the idea that one species or even one breed can be superior to another.
The hypocrite : It is good when i kill you, but bad when you kill me.
This moral problem permeates the food chain.
So, life is bound with a problem.
A moral ethical problem,
rooted in arrogance and hunger.
The answer :
Protest the system by meat reduction or vegetarianism.
Vegetarianism isn’t based on nutritional facts,
it is based on moral statements.
“Primordial sin” of the Bible - Abrahamism - is based on paganism and their guilt for needing to kill life to preserve life. Ouroboros. Life consumes life to preserve itself in the indifferent flux of existence.
Life appropriates and exploits the accumulated energies of another being.
They developed sacrificial rituals of honouring the animal and then their own enemies…after they had killed them.
This evolved into our thanksgiving holidays and our conceptions of primordial sin, which we are taught as an allegorical tale of going against god’s rules to explain why the one-god can be both absolutely good and allow evil to persist within his “creation”.
An appropriation and corruption of Indo-European traditions…we call pagan, or heathen.
It is the guilt a hunter feels for a prey he had to empathize with to successfully trach down and kill.
The slaughtered is sanctified through the rituals of sacrifice…and the hunter mourns his own inevitable death at the hands of another.
Speciesm is possible only if there are intermediating phases of evolution, and genetic isolation of populations.
We can add memetic isolation as a new factor only applicable to man and his ideological isolations from other men.
Breeds, types, kinds, are to other species what race is to the species homo sapient.
Denying this requires an explanation as to why man is excluded and how does man evolve physically without evolving mentally/psychologically.
If natural selection has been usurped by social selection then in what way, and to what degree, does this negate the consequences of natural selection, given that human civilizations are not more than 3000 years old and evolution works on larger time scales?
Do we revert the species dog and cat to a common ancestor when we train them to behave in accordance with our human rules, or do we simply supress their natural impulses?
When we train our pets to behave in relatively uniform ways, in accordance with out ideals, are we erasing thousands of years of naturally selected drives and potentials?
Is it not possible that, just as an animal behaves in risky, self-destructive ways, urged on by a mysterious impulse to replicate its genes, that a manimal would also be urged to behave in self-destructive actions - choices - motivated by a mysterious inner impulse to replicate the meme, i.e., ideology, dogma.
An animal need not know why it behaves in this way once a year, no more than a manimal needs to be aware of why it does so all year long.
In fact awareness would be inhibiting…