In Which I Get Het Up

My roommate is moving to North Carolina. He says there's not much to do in his new town. I suggested he learn to fish, which of course he refused: he's extremely averse to animal cruelty, and has told me on multiple occasions that he would defend his pets with physical violence against anybody who would maltreat them. He also, with much attendant stink and greasy mess, cooks fish every week in the skillet.

I have a lot of contempt for this particular kind of hypocritical cowardice, which I find to be so very common. Few things bother me so much as that person who says "I don't want to hear about it--I'd prefer to stay ignorant [as to the actual ramifications of my actions]." If people make the decision to eat flesh, they shouldn't live in denial as to the costs and consequences of that decision. The fantasy that the processed product wrapped in hygienic plastic and placed on a Styrofoam tray--all of which is calculated to encourage this distance from the actual acts of killing and butchering--can somehow be divorced from the suffering of a living creature is self-serving and delusional.

My roommate takes a womanish approach to violence towards animals, in that he's the only man I've known to employ this particular disassociation. I've observed it in many women, though, who express great fondness for animals--even and sometimes especially chickens, cows, and pigs--and who are repulsed by the concept of killing animals but who nevertheless eat meat. The more common masculine approach that I've observed is to revel in the irony of eating flesh--to acknowledge that there is pain involved, but to laugh it off. This defense comes closer to admitting to the reality that eating meat engenders pain, but then retreats all the farther from that reality for it.

I believe I have heard Ted Nugent posit that all people should be compelled to kill and butcher an animal, so as to be aware of the process. God help me, but I think I agree with him. Not in any other regard, mind you, but I do think it is perverse and quite possibly psychotic for people to claim to love and empathize with animals one minute and sink their teeth into a steak the next.

For, in the end, I have a lot of contempt for a civilization that esteems it progress that the average individual be removed from violence, but that perpetrates violence on a scale that beggars the efforts of all previous civilizations, and is able to effect this violence largely by keeping it out of sight and out of mind.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." It's so damn true.

And I wonder if we had to kill and skin and gut and butcher our own meat if we would opt to eat so very much as we do. (Personally, I'd have zero problems killing and gutting an animal--I'm a vegetarian for other reasons, in that I could not accept the environmental costs of the production of meat). I'm reminded of 9/11, in which so many people were shocked that that kind of violence could be visited upon American soil, as if Americans hadn't been going into other countries and taking their resources without effecting an equitable distribution of compensation and flooding them with an American material culture to supplant their own and as if these actions would not make those people really mad at us. But if we looked really long and hard at where and how we got our oil and how we dealt with the Arab world, I don't think it would've come as much of a surprise, and I wonder if we'd allowed ourselves to contemplate the real costs of our energy in a serious way if we might not have altered our course prior to 9/11. Just as if I wonder if we were to throw out the laptops that allow us to push a button that launches a cruise missile or an unmanned drone to blow up a target fifty miles away if we'd have as much war as we do now.

We look at immediate, intimate, interpersonal violence and say it is diseased and dangerous. I look at dispassionate, depersonalized, formatted violence and say it is far more so. We outsource and abstract the actual costs of things, but how long can such a system persist that is so ignorant of the sources of its own success? And even if it could persist into perpetuity, what would be the real cost, the real ethical and human cost, of this denial of cost? And if we were to examine the consequences of our actions and choose to go on in the same old way, would we not then be callous? Yes--but give me an honest, callous cruelty over a cruelty that affects the image of innocence any day.