Nobility

When I was in middle school we were informed our mascot would be changed from the Judson Royals to the Judson Jaguars as some found the concept of a Royal to be offensive. I'm not very descriptive because the school officials weren't. All I remember was a brief allusion to racism through royal oppression. That is the sense of the word "nobility" that I do not wish to portray.

Nobility is a theme I've tried to apply to my life. Some years ago I found myself in a quagmire of excuses. For example I was friends with a lot of Vegetarian/Vegans, yet not one myself. The culprit: excuses. Still, I would make myself feel better by constantly labeling my friends as being "noble." And it's that sense of the word that I strive for, the concept that you conduct yourself better than you are expected to (and hopefully for non-egoist reasons). That, despite the climate of human self-obsession, you still find it necessary to put the well-being of life-that-is-not-your-own above, well, your own. So, before I sound preachy, let me just say I fall well short of being noble.

At this point I'm vegan, try to mind my consumption, make conscious effort to treat people better, attempt to forsake material possession, and constantly ponder the path toward making the world a better place. And who doesn't? It's one of the fundamental characteristics of mankind, whether by the mechanics of nature and evolution or the wanderlust towards the transcendental nature of death. We seem to have this natural desire towards an idea of "betterment." But obviously we fall short. First of all, we occupy a very distracting world. Our senses were developed as mechanisms to survive and succeed the natural world. Now they are the target of exploit and from every avenue possible. Our ears are the fastest path to the brain and at one time were strictly directed to alert us to predator and prey. Now our environment is mired in noise pollution and we are more apt to masturbate with sound in the iPod generation. Does that necessarily make it wrong? No, but it is a far cry from our natural design, and thus is a deviation from equilibrium. So, although we feel naturally inclined to ascend to a sense of equilibrium (, enlightenment, Nirvana, etc), we are also deviated from a sense of equilibrium, in which case it's hard to say our lifestyles aren't the cause. What's the point? Live and let live. Much easier said than done though.

Like I said, I'm vegan. My primary reason is that we live in an affluent society hinged on abundance, and as such it only makes sense to extend that wealth to other creatures as well. As I don't need to eat an animal to survive, I don't. That's not to say I judge you, just that I judge myself. And I judge factory farming. The practice is atrocious and nonsensical. I feel that people who would degrade any living creature to those standards also degrade themselves. I don't see any reason in raising food for human consumption that your practices force into disease and poor health. How can you sustain your life with the deterioration of your sustenance? It's like growing trees to clean your air but watering its roots with nuclear waste. And the proof is in the pudding: factory farming produces nutritionally insufficient food. We have a dependency on farming subsidies that our congressional representatives would say is necessary to compete with European Union subsidies, yet most of those subsidies go to support factory farms, with the vast majority of subsidies going to the 10 largest farming entities, and the rest to the next 200. That environment is obviously devoid of equilibrium. Yet beyond all that lies the fact that we have teeth that insinuate our diets to contain animal flesh. So if animal farming practices were to cease on the Earth would I then continue to be Vegan? Likely not, as I would likely need to keep my options open for survival. My point is that my choice to be Vegan is not a universal solution, but merely a coincidental one. But does that create a paradox, robbing Peter to pay Paul?

One of the unfortunate side effects of living in this era and in this society is the impending obligation to get a job. Concerning the concept of nobility finding a job worth doing in itself can be formidable. Say you admire the farmers. They put in an honest day's work and for their toils they make a living by making food available to others. Food is a need we all have and the farm life is a relatively less-unscrupulously competitive field, so would that not make it noble? It is often looked to agriculture as the source of modern man's plight. Agriculture makes possible the sustenance of a larger population, and one of the characteristics we've observed of many animals is the capacity to populate when conditions allow for it. Nevermind individual weakness, as a society we are relatively incompetent when it comes to moderation. In that sense farming could be considered quite evil, but necessary to society nonetheless.

This question goes deeper, far deeper than I'm willing to go right now, lest I fatigue your eyes. And again, this is not to preach, but to ask. This is obviously not a question that can be answered in a single session on a single blog. But one thing that's comforting to think of is something JD Salinger traipses around in Franny and Zooey, that enlightenment is not a point of departure but a journey. We don't have to answer the question just now, some people don't even have to ask, and perhaps just thinking about it makes a difference.

Of course, it's equally feasible that none of this shit really matters anyway.