Fishing is cowardice and a thick streak of blood. The shoal of trout were creating a whirlpool of swirling tails and gills just under the surface of the water. We dropped sweetcorn on hooks into the water and waited till the stupider trout took hold. Once caught they flipped about frantically, expending the last of their life-energy in one last desperate fling because they had nothing left to lose – just like the poker player, desperate and despairing, chucks in his chips in a final plea to fate. Like there’s no tomorrow. Then, once caught, the fish endured three blunt whacks on the head until they grew limp and the blood streamed.
Is this fair? Humans were responsible for all of this, this ending of a life in exchange for a pleasant meal which we didn’t need. The pain of a dying trout must be electrifying – a pain that, if it were inflicted on humans, I would consider torturous and totally unacceptable. It is socially unacceptable to kill a human, but fine to kill an animal. Is the double standard justified? Surely pain is pain, the ending of a life is still the end of a life, be it animal or human?
Humans, ironically, are not so humane. Today I watched a mother let her daughter torment anbother little girl until she cried. The mother could easily have stepped in and resolved the situation, but she didn't. Was she blinded by love, or by selfish loyalty? Is loyalty genuinely a force for good? Isn’t loyalty just the flip side of tribal instincts, fear of the other and self-preservation? If compassion enables you to reach out to a human whom you have nothing in common with, doesn’t loyalty do the opposite, and encourage you to stick with humans whom you have a connection to? Perhaps loyalty is the antithesis of compassion, a closing-ranks instinct rather than a reaching-out one.
