As another example consider Africa, most if not all of Africa is relatively westernised or civilised, certainly contacted, though there are hunter gatherer bushmen in Southern Africa, and there could still be relatively uncontacted or very remote and native, indigenous or primitive people’s in other parts of Africa, in such as the Congo for example. In the 1980’s in Ghana you still saw people who had never seen a white man before, especially young children would be frightened and cry at the sight of a “bruni” (white man). This is rare today. Therefore, the vast majority of Africans would go to prison for killing a westerner. However, would we incarcerate a bushman for killing a westerner? Possibly not! This really highlights that it is subtle or technical primitiveness that determines an individual’s innocence or whether they live under our or western laws or if they should go to prison for homicide etc. For example, if a bushmen lives in a mud hut and has to hunt wildebeest or gazelle to eat meat, then technically they are primitive, and therefore less responsible, and therefore more innocent. Therefore, they can get away with murder. Prison is a better dwelling place than a mud hut and the free food in prison would certainly ameliorate the situation. Therefore, technically if you live in a brick house and do your shopping at a supermarket, then you are technically advanced and therefore more responsible and therefore less innocent, therefore, you would go to prison for homicide. Which would you prefer? Most people would say Persimmons, Shoprite and ASDA, but then you have to watch yourself! Do not for example go drink driving (as mentioned another African custom) and accidentally kill someone. However, some people, especially bushmen would say mud huts and gazelle!
Author: Technical compassion.
Consider compassion, how can Australopithecus or Lower Palaeolithic man be compassionate toward animals, when they themselves were not yet masters of the animal kingdom or even worse still prey themselves? It is impossible, compassion simply did not exist. Compassion is technical, in that you must, for instance, first attain advanced weapons, technologies and infrastructure such as gunpowder, muskets, rifles, nuclear weapons, automobiles, militaries, police, emergency services, roads, buildings, bridges and skyscrapers etc before you can be compassionate toward animals. It is not a case of hey compassion for compassion’s sake like the Buddha. Compassion is not free of charge, it is a definite and tangible deal or bargain. Only now that I am invincibly safe and secure from wild animals in my city, town or fortress and surrounded by guns, and now that I have an overabundance and surplus of food, energy and resources etc can or will I be compassionate toward animals. It is like saying to ‘bear’ “I have a nuke now, therefore I am compassionate toward you.” This is something bear will never understand, in that it is ironic that once you attain nuclear weapons that you are therefore by definition compassionate toward animals. To reiterate, compassion is something technical, it is only attained through a collective effort, through taming the wild and through civilisation. You can only be compassionate once there is no competition. View All Posts