...

As a whole, Mankind believes their pre-eminence is a result of strength and endurance. However, it seems to me that this sense of entitlement and superiority is not grounded in fact. If you consider Man’s historical accomplishments, you will find that he does one of two things: he constantly mimics the natural world or he pillages it (ironic and hypocritical if you ask me). He has no reverence for the species that provide for him; he ignores the kinship between himself and others. Yet he still stands on a pedestal when viewing the world.

Many of the drugs man takes are called antibiotics. By definition an antibiotic is a naturally resistant substance produced by bacteria. Even though man labels the drugs as antibiotics they should actually be referred to as semi-synthetic antibiotics. This is because, in a nut shell, scientist take the substance that bacteria produce, mess around with it a bit, and then market it in a pill. This is an example of how mankind mimics nature.


Most of Mankind has culturally evolved so as not to feel compassion- “the feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it” (41)- for any species but their own (and even this can be debated). However, for all of our moral, scientific, and technological development and “superiority” why has it occurred to so few to extend their humanness (being “gentle or kindly in demeanor or action” (43)) and sympathetic imagination to other species? Unfortunately, though Man considers it “immoral and anti-empathetic” to blatantly mistreat animals, he is to consumed with his selfishness to make any revolutionary, behavioral changes (Dick 13).

Not only does Man belong to the same kingdom as the species he suppresses, but he is also unquestionably dependent on them. Just as a child is expected to respect the elders that provide for it, Man should respect the resources and beings that provide for him; yet, even when he is fully aware of the implications of his actions (particularly the suffering and pain he forces on other living beings) he chooses to disregard his life source. Bentham phrases it best when he says, “animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things” (46).

(Sorry about the crude picture!) Though we have discussed this before, I feel that, in the case of this DB, it is necessary to reiterate the cruelty man subjects many animals to. I don't believe there is anything wrong with eating meat, but I have strong objects to the way animals are treated in slaughter houses. Moreover, I do not condone using animals for clothing products or entertainment.

Not only does man show limited regard for the natural world, but he also refuses to acknowledge the depth and spirit of it. In the following quote the French philosopher Derrida is referring to a cat: “… Seeing oneself seen naked under a gaze that is vacant to the extent of being bottomless, at the same time innocent and cruel perhaps, perhaps sensitive and impassive, good and bad, uninterpretable, unreadable, undecidable, abyssal and secret… offers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human” (26). There is a complex simplicity to this description that captures, in my opinion, the cat’s complete disregard for the pettiness of humans. Though Derrida is referring to being naked under the cat’s gaze, I think the basic theme of his argument can be extended to any unnecessary luxury Man feels he needs.

Above are just a few examples of the luxury items that many people need to define who they are. I think it is interesting that we are the only animal on the planet that will go to such lengths to developing