Politics of dog food and moral virtues
Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abd Razak
Comment
New Sunday Times - 10/05/2008
IN the current climate of food scarcity, increased prices as well as concern over a worldwide economic meltdown, the discussion over being served "dog food" behind bars seems quite topical and timely.
Putting the controversies aside, the question of people eating dog food or pet food is not entirely new.
Rather than dying of starvation, pet food serves as an alternative for survival in some places in the world.
Some argue that the stuff that make up hamburgers are no better than food fit for animals. It is the packaging, branding and promotions that may deceive us.
What animals eat and what we humans eat is about the same, except that we disguise ours better, at times to a ridiculous extent, so that we perceive ours as "food fit for the gods".
The so-called "very rare" steak that is served in fine restaurants is essentially no different from those served to the carnivores in captivity.
It's the lack of garnishing that differentiates it from "human" food.
Conversely, there is nothing wrong with serving our pets "well-done" steaks, complete with the usual elaborate condiments. So, will that be "pet" or "human" food then?
The crux of the matter is not about eating animal food as such. Rather, it borders on the question of dignity. Dignity is what gives humans the edge over animals, anytime.
The irony, of course, is humans are perfectly capable of behaving like animals and, sometimes, their behaviour can be worse when it comes to satisfying their greed for power, wealth or fame, which they deem they must obtain at any cost. Unfortunately, of late, too many of them have stooped too low. This leads to all sorts of controversies.
It is not for nothing that "politics" is dubbed as the art of the possible or, more recently, the art of creating confusion as much as possible.
We have seen people say just about anything as long as they are perceived to be powerful, even if they have to lie through their teeth to achieve their aims. They will exploit every opportunity that opens to them to be seen as wealthy.
Similarly, those who want to appear famous. The more desperate they are, the more animal-like they tend to be: aggressive, arrogant and threatening even in august places.
They seem to have no qualms about forsaking their dignity and moral beings as "humans".
Like animals, they show no remorse, guilt or shame. Yet, naively, they deem themselves as champions and heroes of sorts.
Preoccupied by their own self-interest, the thousands who have been without a decent meal almost daily, let alone eating so-called pet food, do not seem to register on their radar.
Instead of drawing heated media attention to any one individual, it is more worthy to belabour the fate of the many dire cases, as a matter of urgent public interest. We have wasted so much time already.
Comment
New Sunday Times - 10/05/2008
IN the current climate of food scarcity, increased prices as well as concern over a worldwide economic meltdown, the discussion over being served "dog food" behind bars seems quite topical and timely.
Putting the controversies aside, the question of people eating dog food or pet food is not entirely new.
Rather than dying of starvation, pet food serves as an alternative for survival in some places in the world.
Some argue that the stuff that make up hamburgers are no better than food fit for animals. It is the packaging, branding and promotions that may deceive us.
What animals eat and what we humans eat is about the same, except that we disguise ours better, at times to a ridiculous extent, so that we perceive ours as "food fit for the gods".
The so-called "very rare" steak that is served in fine restaurants is essentially no different from those served to the carnivores in captivity.
It's the lack of garnishing that differentiates it from "human" food.
Conversely, there is nothing wrong with serving our pets "well-done" steaks, complete with the usual elaborate condiments. So, will that be "pet" or "human" food then?
The crux of the matter is not about eating animal food as such. Rather, it borders on the question of dignity. Dignity is what gives humans the edge over animals, anytime.
The irony, of course, is humans are perfectly capable of behaving like animals and, sometimes, their behaviour can be worse when it comes to satisfying their greed for power, wealth or fame, which they deem they must obtain at any cost. Unfortunately, of late, too many of them have stooped too low. This leads to all sorts of controversies.
It is not for nothing that "politics" is dubbed as the art of the possible or, more recently, the art of creating confusion as much as possible.
We have seen people say just about anything as long as they are perceived to be powerful, even if they have to lie through their teeth to achieve their aims. They will exploit every opportunity that opens to them to be seen as wealthy.
Similarly, those who want to appear famous. The more desperate they are, the more animal-like they tend to be: aggressive, arrogant and threatening even in august places.
They seem to have no qualms about forsaking their dignity and moral beings as "humans".
Like animals, they show no remorse, guilt or shame. Yet, naively, they deem themselves as champions and heroes of sorts.
Preoccupied by their own self-interest, the thousands who have been without a decent meal almost daily, let alone eating so-called pet food, do not seem to register on their radar.
Instead of drawing heated media attention to any one individual, it is more worthy to belabour the fate of the many dire cases, as a matter of urgent public interest. We have wasted so much time already.