f the core elements of life, sensation, and emotion are so widely distributed as to encompass a huge swath of the animal kingdom, what the moral difference between a species with higher capabilities and one without? In his thoughtful 1985 essay “,” the philosopher of biology Hans Jonas takes up three activities attributed solely to humans and explores their deeper implications. As it happens, given what we know today, elephants arguably meet all three tests. Jonas’s standard is worth revisiting in this light — not to diminish its significance for , but to consider what it means for the one other animal, at least, that might share it.
Thus the romance of a world without us became a tragedy that’s about us. The complexities of life on earth with other people are just as much a part of conservation in the bush as they are of mucking around in society; and even the most righteous purpose in the world may come at a damning cost.
19/08/2015 · A Halfway Review of a Sometime Farmer ..
The Telecomics stories that began appearing in Red Ryder in 1946 were initially burlesque science fiction that anticipated the Jetsons, but after that they wandered all over the place, finally serving as a framing device for reprints of the King of the Royal Mounted comic strip (another Slesinger property). The earliest episodes have a Little Lulu look and were probably drawn by one or both of the cartoonists Lebeck called in to help John Stanley with that feature, but the more interesting Telecomics installments, by far, are those that may have been written by Stanley himself. As I noted in Funnybooks: The Improbable Glories of the Best American Comic Books, first-rate Stanley is readily identifiable as his work, but second- or third-string Stanley can be harder to identify, and the temptation may be to see Stanley's hand where it's not. The half-dozen or so Telecomics stories that feel to me like his work have their moments, but they're not top-of-the-line Stanley.
Rebecca Solnit: The Loneliness of Donald Trump | …
Involving any animals in our society — for entertainment, companionship, labor, or other purposes — places them in an awkward category. They don’t belong and cannot in any meaningful way participate in human systems of political representation, but they have interests to be represented all the same, many of which are close enough to ours that to exploit or ignore them is an obvious injustice. (The more dissimilar needs may expose them to injustice too, of course, but in ways that are less readily apparent.) But as long as there is human life there will be some use being made of animals — and the animals on whom we depend will depend even more on us.
I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup | Slate Star …
There being no native dynasty, the ones that came arrived as curiosities. Where in European courts they stood for majesty and might, and in Hindu and Buddhist settings for the wisdom and sacredness of animal life, in America they morphed to fit the national tendencies to uprootedness, exhibitionism, and making a buck — a theme suggested in a movie idea the author James Agee outlined in before his death in 1955:
Tolerance is, indeed, a pretty stupid thing to value
Trained elephants in Asia have a celebrated but disintegrating history. Numerous Sanskrit texts on elephantology reveal tremendous respect for the power and dignity of elephants and the care that was taken to understand and treat them humanely. A “mahout,” the elephant’s keeper/trainer/companion, would ideally stay with the same animal for life, almost as if in marriage (though the other kind of marriage fit into the picture somewhere, as this was a trade often passed on from father to son).