Day 42. 133 pages, 60,943 words. Maybe tomorrow.
Nothing much to add for today. Had a nice week, still recovering from the operation a bit, sleeping in and generally taking it easy. Off to Maailma Kylässä today, to stock up on spring rolls and ginger beer.
Had an espresso from my birthday coffee bean hand-grinder and aeropress today, it was pretty damn good but over very quickly. I had to resist the temptation to make another one. Will probably be buzzed from it for a while.
Enjoyed an interesting argument on Facebook about where the line is drawn between pet and food, on a spectrum of cat/dog – rabbit – horse/cow – chicken/duck. I came down on the side of “all of those can be pets, and all of them can be food,” and for some reason this got me marked as an evil prick, which was amusing. I’m mildly curious to try dog meat but you can’t buy it here (not at any shops I go to…), and I’ve tried lynx so I assume cat is similar. It’s not great.
Anyway, the right to live and the will to not be eaten is universal to all animals, which I think was the point of the campaign (the original question was posed by a billboard from some dumbarse group like PETA). If you eat one but not another, that shit is cultural. You’ve been convinced, by the animal’s role in your culture, that it is closer to human and further from livestock.
And yes, I’d prefer animals not to be treated cruelly in battery farms and hormone-poisoning and force-feeding situations, but I still eat McNuggets. Being a sentient apex omnivore necessitates a disconnection of empathy where your food is concerned. I guess my empathy is more readily disconnected than others’. Which is good, because meat is delicious.
I held off on my debate A-bomb, which was an intellectual exercise on eating human flesh. Naturally I wouldn’t do it because there are strong legal and health reasons not to. Beyond those, what do you have? It was a sentient being? I was capable of communicating with it? It was able to tell me it was okay to eat it when it was dead? Would that be different to eating human flesh from a person who had expressly forbidden me from eating it after death? Yes, it would be different, but how? Would that be different to murdering a person and eating them? Again, yes, because of the law. Killing a human against its will is murder. Killing an animal against its will is considered murder by hippies, but not by the law (theft applies, but not murder). And so on.
Anyway, WordPress is out of text space and I am out of time. So I’ll leave it there.