Planning so far
progressing ideas on the blog issue
I have still not decided yet on how to manage this project, including thoughts about the viability of this outlet. But it might be that once started it will lead its own life. Although I am pro-choice minded I also am aware of the fact that any abortion has its toll. Luckily for me this matter only has functionality as criterium, which would be a very unethical stance when it concerned a living organism.
What I found out about the blog environment is that most of it can be edited and redirected, and when this suits my designing plans it will not only last longer, but might also become a portal to more than my initial plans are leading to...
progressing ideas on the other issue
Apart from the blog issue the world turns around, and the daily events in Holland become more and more dominated by the national referendum on the ratification/approval of the "Treaty leading to a European Constitution", most of the time falsely referred to as 'The European Constitution'. This issue, being much too complex for the average mortal to decide on, leads to much discussion and debate in our country, of which most is based on rumour and conjecture. This can be partly explained by the fact this conceptual treaty really is a book of almost 500 pages thick, which was composed by the European Convention during a few years, and (being very boring in nature) it could never keep and hold the attention of more than 1% of the inhabitants of the 'old continent' I suppose...
Another part of the explanation can be attributed to human nature itself: we really are relatively stupid organisms (a pity that some of us are more stupid than others), so that when we are forming any opinion we can be certain of one thing: our scope on the matter is much too short to really have a valid opinion on the matter at all.
An example might illustrate this: an article on animal welfare in this treaty is about the definition (law) of animal rights, which should lead to more proper handling of our fellow organisms. Some people think this is a big step forward (which really is the case), but others point out that in the same article reference is made to traditions that also should be taken in consideration before deciding on animal rights (for instance bullfighting could form an exception). Their claim is that in many instances a law about more civilized formulated animal rights will be overridden by the right of peoples exerting their customs, thus only leaving hollow phrases on the matter.
The points made here are that the animal rights law is trying to make the life of our livestock more bearable than could be, while being just trading objects exploited and made ready for human consumption, which is the real underlying tradition that always will prevail. And that the advantages of this legislature will primarily benefit the humans that will be consuming the better quality produce of this enormous sacrifice our fellow organisms are presenting to us.
In short: it is trade that matters foremost, and the real European civilians are appointed to be legally the best protected species of them all.
This same article (III-121) is for some another reason for being supportive to the treaty, as it is for others another reason to vote against it in our countrywide referendum. Both groups look at this article from a different angle while they all support the idea for more animal welfare, and both are excluding from their decision the fact that we are killing our livestock anyway.
The point is that this treaty that should be leading to a constitution contains a broad spectrum of subjects that are all addressed to in terms of values, thus becoming the consensual body of identity on which the European Union should be based. This body of evidence can never be complete, nor will it be clear to anyone in its exact meaning. Thus it can't be uniformly supported, and will always be a source of dispute.
That is why and how a treaty comes into being anyway. It should be accepted in a broad sense, and not rejected because of suboptimal details.
So our animals don't have any right to decide on how they live their lives, and when to die because it is superimposed on them. This is a law that will never be inserted in any constitution whatsoever because it is taken for granted by the majority of us and thus never problemized to such an extent that it should be defended by any law.
Likewise many normalities are not subject to any body of law because they either are above the law (eg natural disasters like tsunamis or earthquakes), or below the law (necessary evils like diseases or accidents). To the latter also belong the so called necessities of life, like food gathering and self defense.
Thus our civilization is only a thin body amidst natures cruelty, only separated from it by the extent of our own not really controllable laws.
I have still not decided yet on how to manage this project, including thoughts about the viability of this outlet. But it might be that once started it will lead its own life. Although I am pro-choice minded I also am aware of the fact that any abortion has its toll. Luckily for me this matter only has functionality as criterium, which would be a very unethical stance when it concerned a living organism.
What I found out about the blog environment is that most of it can be edited and redirected, and when this suits my designing plans it will not only last longer, but might also become a portal to more than my initial plans are leading to...
progressing ideas on the other issue
Apart from the blog issue the world turns around, and the daily events in Holland become more and more dominated by the national referendum on the ratification/approval of the "Treaty leading to a European Constitution", most of the time falsely referred to as 'The European Constitution'. This issue, being much too complex for the average mortal to decide on, leads to much discussion and debate in our country, of which most is based on rumour and conjecture. This can be partly explained by the fact this conceptual treaty really is a book of almost 500 pages thick, which was composed by the European Convention during a few years, and (being very boring in nature) it could never keep and hold the attention of more than 1% of the inhabitants of the 'old continent' I suppose...
Another part of the explanation can be attributed to human nature itself: we really are relatively stupid organisms (a pity that some of us are more stupid than others), so that when we are forming any opinion we can be certain of one thing: our scope on the matter is much too short to really have a valid opinion on the matter at all.
An example might illustrate this: an article on animal welfare in this treaty is about the definition (law) of animal rights, which should lead to more proper handling of our fellow organisms. Some people think this is a big step forward (which really is the case), but others point out that in the same article reference is made to traditions that also should be taken in consideration before deciding on animal rights (for instance bullfighting could form an exception). Their claim is that in many instances a law about more civilized formulated animal rights will be overridden by the right of peoples exerting their customs, thus only leaving hollow phrases on the matter.
The points made here are that the animal rights law is trying to make the life of our livestock more bearable than could be, while being just trading objects exploited and made ready for human consumption, which is the real underlying tradition that always will prevail. And that the advantages of this legislature will primarily benefit the humans that will be consuming the better quality produce of this enormous sacrifice our fellow organisms are presenting to us.
In short: it is trade that matters foremost, and the real European civilians are appointed to be legally the best protected species of them all.
This same article (III-121) is for some another reason for being supportive to the treaty, as it is for others another reason to vote against it in our countrywide referendum. Both groups look at this article from a different angle while they all support the idea for more animal welfare, and both are excluding from their decision the fact that we are killing our livestock anyway.
The point is that this treaty that should be leading to a constitution contains a broad spectrum of subjects that are all addressed to in terms of values, thus becoming the consensual body of identity on which the European Union should be based. This body of evidence can never be complete, nor will it be clear to anyone in its exact meaning. Thus it can't be uniformly supported, and will always be a source of dispute.
That is why and how a treaty comes into being anyway. It should be accepted in a broad sense, and not rejected because of suboptimal details.
So our animals don't have any right to decide on how they live their lives, and when to die because it is superimposed on them. This is a law that will never be inserted in any constitution whatsoever because it is taken for granted by the majority of us and thus never problemized to such an extent that it should be defended by any law.
Likewise many normalities are not subject to any body of law because they either are above the law (eg natural disasters like tsunamis or earthquakes), or below the law (necessary evils like diseases or accidents). To the latter also belong the so called necessities of life, like food gathering and self defense.
Thus our civilization is only a thin body amidst natures cruelty, only separated from it by the extent of our own not really controllable laws.
posted by mxl at 4:04 AM
0 comments
