The End of Zoos

Could you round up, let's say, three humans and keep them in a holding area (a cage or a pen, for instance) and run tests on them, experiment on them, or even just charge people to see them? I assume you couldn't, in most cases today, as that would be a kind of slavery. But we have done this for a long time in our relationship with all other animals. At bottom, it’s a power relation: master-owner over slave-property; and so great a mind as Aristotle's thought of human slaves as someone's property without any comment as to how there might be a problem with it. It was just part of a “natural” order, seemingly.

Humans are quite different from any other animals we know of, but we have long believed we are not just "different" from all other animals but somehow better (in various ways). And most religions have justified the enslavement, destruction, and harm of all other animals by rationalizing that power relation, mainly with ideas about humans having some posited "soul" or "likeness to God(s)." It would be ironic if more “atheistic” perspectives wind up arguing against such a power relation, since it seems to be a case of some animals enslaving other animals; of members of one species who chose themselves as superior beings -- all pretty arbitrary and insanely self-important.

And then, presumably, there might be further implications to pursue, like comparisons to humans’ widespread opposition to cannibalism. If you won’t make a meal out of your favorite dog, let alone your favorite farmhand, what’s the reasoning behind making one out of a calf or a lamb? Would it seem like a blurb for a horror movie: Mary had a little lamb, And then she ate its flesh……

A Problem of Nihilism: Beginning of Essay 4

The following two paragraphs are as far as I got into another essay. The remainder of the envisioned writing is in notes (and the footnotes for the first essays), most of which I'll probably use in one form or another in the cartoon series.

-----------------------

 

I say that lethargy had set in; that is another way of saying "The Jerry Springer Show" became popular. With each episode giving seemingly sincere attention to an issue, the actual interest came when there was a fight (and, God willing, some chair-throwing). But it was only an early, notorious example. Its success spawned more of the same, and much of the TV programming from then on would tend toward its low standard. While they seemed to highlight the quirky facets of varied examples of the human species, one had to wonder at a vague feeling of watching hogs wallow in their filth. And since black folks were increasingly on display especially, one might think there was a problem somewhere.

Amid all this, Rupert Murdoch entered the fray like a dingo in heat, trying to extend his media empire to the US. Initially, that might have seemed a good thing as it opened some competition to the major TV networks (NBC, CBS, ABC). But his FOX network would present programming like "Married......With Children," which had cynical humor, plumbing the dregs of "real life."

A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 3

This was the last essay I completed.

-----------------------

"A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 3"

 

In light of all that was going on back then, it might be easy to overlook the reaction that followed. Alongside a "white flight" from cities to suburbs came a white backlash against more progress in civil rights. For many, that would be bound up with increased resentment of taxes (since paying taxes is thought to subsidize "welfare"). And liberalized laws with more lax social norms would encourage fears of a moral decline in society (as mirrored in the abortion issue). Being conservative had suddenly become a cool thing to be.

Another less familiar aspect of those times was conglomeration, in which large companies sought to buy up other firms. In the antitrust laws, the goal had been to try to keep a single business concern (a "trust") from gaining a monopoly on the production of particular goods, such as steel. (And so being able to set the prices.) In conglomeration, a large company would buy smaller ones that produced goods other than those it did. Or two or more companies would merge, with each making different kinds of goods. There was thus no monopoly over one part of an economy. It did tend to be unproductive, though. It rarely created new jobs -- or even "new wealth" -- but merely increased the assets held by a larger enterprise. That was accumulating capital for its own sake.

As companies sought to buy up more and more of what there was to own, they drove out small businesses that lacked the resources to compete. The same thing would happen in farming, as smallholders could not compete with large corporate farms. So less actual competition would occur -- putting the lie to clichés about "the free enterprise system" -- while fewer and fewer people amassed more and more wealth. In time, they could gain a monopoly on most of the financial assets of an economy. (And become "too big to fail.") And aside from that, everyone else would have the same generic choices at "their" local branches of supermarkets and supercenters.

A parallel occurred in the television industry as merchants found ways to make money off the public airwaves. Previously, anyone who owned a television could watch broadcasts for free, as was the case for radio listening. But with cable TV, consumers would pay a fee for access to what seemed like a great wealth of channels. It soon became clear, however, that the people in charge of such things only had so much intelligence to go around. After a decade or so, lethargy had set in. Viewers wound up with regurgitations of "infotainment" and "reality TV." The result now looks so bland and dismal that we could easily believe there was a conspiracy to try to dull the senses to the point of muting all independent thought. (Or to induce people to kill themselves.)

A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 2

For this next essay, I apologize to anyone put off by the sudden veering into political critiques and US history. That seems to be where I began heading toward an impasse, when the first essay would lead one to believe I was going to address a larger philosophical issue. (But who knows where things will wind up eventually?) The original intent, in any event, was a writing exercise of 500-word essays (in which I was working out some issues I was preoccupied by).

-----------------------

"A Problem of Nihilism: Essay 2"

 

So, those are some things to think about if one cared to. A bit dreary, I suppose. But this is not a quest for sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows.

Nor is it meant to be an argument for atheism. But doubts about any purpose to the world or the existence of God are a bit inevitable if we talk about criminal behavior and mass murder.

And that brings us to Donald Trump and our Republican Party. It all began when Rupert Murdoch sought to become an agent of conservative propaganda in the US... Oh, no, wait -- back up; it did not all start with Rupert Murdoch. Or with those Koch brothers, or that Adelson guy. Those withered old Säcke Scheiße were only the result -- the nadir if you will pardon my language -- of a still more ancient phenomenon.

It would be best to start about a hundred years ago when the US government had to be concerned with monopolies in industries and natural resources. And this was not just some fuss raised by guys who fought in the streets, waved red flags, and carried Communist Party membership cards. A few wealthy people in control of key sectors of an economy meant there was too much power in the hands of too few "citizens." As that became more of a problem, it led to antitrust laws.

But that was a small bump in the road for those who liked to have a few wealthy people in charge of everyone's lives. A reaction set in, and unchecked capitalism was soon on the march once more. Or at least it was until the stock market crashed in 1929, leading to the Great Depression. This time government had to step in for the sake of survival. A new one led by Franklin Roosevelt provided public relief through various programs and legislation and sought to put people back to work.

For some, it was a frighteningly socialistic time. And there would be more omens to come. The government had nationalized the radio airwaves in 1927. A few years later, the Communications Act of 1934 would reaffirm that the means for broadcasting -- how the people would get news and entertainment -- was "public property." (The same would apply to television as well.)

The United States emerged from the Depression by mobilizing to fight the Second World War. Roosevelt's leadership in both crises inspired some consensus about the beneficial aspects of the "New Deal." As a result, the Democratic Party would dominate the US Congress from 1933 to 1995. But the country also experienced the "unrest" of the 1960s and '70s. (Which meant the Civil Rights Movement, antiwar protests, urban riots, liberalized social norms, and so on.)