Sunday, November 3, 2013

Uncanny Goodness of Being Edible to Bears

      Being killed is unfortunate, but is being eaten unnatural? The idea of being eaten by bears makes us uneasy, Hatley explains why. He reminds us that when we enter nature we become part of the web of life, we are no longer lawyers, doctors, teachers, businessmen, and students. We are flesh, and therefore we are prey. We retain our humanity in nature, but nonhuman beings are not obligated or able consider that their prey has feelings and mortality. When we as humans take on the role of the prey we retain only one thing, our flesh. We are now a means, to the end of the predator.
     Is it inhuman for a predator to treat us as it would any other prey? What differentiation can the predator make between human flesh and typical prey flesh, which would cause it to reconsider ingesting us? We cannot project our own societal standards for dining on humans onto natural beings. Hatley explains that “in the wilderness we willingly enter into the risk of being killed and eaten by wild animals,” in doing so we acknowledge that the rules and regulations of civilization do not apply in nature. (Hatley 15) Therefore, I don’t find it surprising that most people who have been mauled or partially eaten by a bear have no resentful feelings toward the animals. For on what grounds can these people reasonably detest their predator? The morally oblivious grizzly bear that kills and eats a human in nature is no different the morally oblivious eagle that kills a salmon and eats it.
     I choose to methodically cut away the numerous tendrils of the innumerable beings wishing to take a bite out of me. (Hatley 14) I do so not because I have a fear being eaten, but because I wish to avoid an unfortunate and untimely death. It is natural for me to want to avoid death, regardless if it how it happens. But, once I am killed what difference does it make if I am eaten by a nonhuman after my death? At least my body would be useful for the animal that eats me. Hatley acknowledges this type of standpoint, but exaggerates it when he uses Mr. Peacock as an accurate example. Instead this illustration paints a caricature of how to cope with being eaten. And wrongly emphasizes that Mr. Peacock was indifferent about being killed, which quite frankly I find impossible.  I agree with that we should not bear a grudge against the animals that would eat us, because it’s natural (Hatley 24.) But, that doesn’t mean I will not avoid being killed by them, because death is unfortunate.


1 comment:

  1. I agree with Mitch in that it's easy to logically come to the conclusion that we shouldn't begrudge animals who want to eat us, because it's natural and normal and in no way ill-intentioned by those animals. But it's also very difficult not get a little panicky at the thought of being eaten, a feeling which is also completely normal and natural as it seems most animals seem to exhibit some kind of fear or panic when they too are faced with possibility of being eaten. It seems many animal's main active objective in life is to avoid being eaten so they themselves can do things like eat and reproduce.

    ReplyDelete