Learning from Dogs
Back to the beginning.
The grey smoke from the fire drifted up into the still air of the night sky. It had been a good day for them. Their small community out here in the wild lands. Eight of them had been foraging since the sky had first become light. They had found nuts and plants and fruit aplenty, perhaps sufficient to provide food through one more darkness, maybe two.
Jogod and Omo sat together with their loving animals. Those two tiny, helpless, shivering, baby wolves that Jogod and Omo had rescued so many moons ago. Now grown to such beautiful animals and now so much a part of their tribe that Jogod and Omo could not imagine ever being without them. The wolves were not outsiders. They were part of the community, even to having names like all the others members of the tribe. The young female wolf had been called Palo and the young male had been called Toto. So quickly did they come to know their names. So quickly they came to speak with Jogod and Omo in their strange voices. So quickly that Jogod and Omo came to understand those voices; know what so many of those sounds meant.
The fire at the start of darkness was another part of the way they all lived. For it offered some warmth before the long night. It made the animals that would want to harm them stay away. Now with the fire burning and having Palo and Toto sleeping in the entrance of their cave, they could sleep so more deeply than ever before. Palo and Toto had become their ears and eyes. They knew when danger was coming close. They knew how to wake the sleepers in the cave so that they would make noises and shouts to make the creatures that would harm them go away.
Having fire to keep them warm and safe had been long part of their lives. But this very day their fire had given them something very different. It had given them new food. Good new food.
Jogod, with Gadger and Kudu, and with Palo and Toto, had been deep in the land of tall trees when they saw an animal that they had seen before at times. An animal with a head on a long, slender neck, a body covered in brown hair with rows of white dots, a body on long, slim legs. It was eating the leaves of a tree, did not hear them until, too late, it tried to run as Palo and Toto lunged at it. Palo and Toto grabbed the animal, held on to its back legs. It could not run. Kudu came up and threw his arms around the slender neck. Gadger brought down his wooden club hard between the soft ears of the creature. It became still and fell to the ground.
Jogod had carried the dead animal across his shoulders back to the cave. They had lit their evening fire as they always did. But in this new darkness they also had sticks in the fire, each stick had some of the meat of the animal in the heat of the flames. They had tasted and then eaten some of the hot meat of the animal and it was good. This hot animal meat seemed to comfort them in a way unlike the fruit and the nuts.
Jogod held a stone with a sharp edge and cut meat from the animal for Palo and Toto. Palo and Toto knew that what they had found for these animals who walked on two legs was good. Good for all. Palo and Toto knew they could find other animals like the one they had found today.
After they had all eaten, it was time to sleep in the cave.
Jogod felt good. He rested down and put his arm around Omo. They slept.
Then Toto came to lay with Jogod and rest beside him, and then he slept. Then Palo came to lay with Omo and rest beside her, and then she slept.
Such was the moment of these happenings. This moment when the trust between man and wolf became the power of faith of each in the other. The faith that they would forever be joined. The destiny for wolf and man for the rest of time.
718 words. Copyright © 2013 Paul Handover
Learning from Dogs 
A brilliant book idea, wonderfully executed, and cleverly scheduled to end just in time for Christmas (especially allowing for the fact that some people are so busy they take days to get round to reading it).
LikeLike
In responding to being emailed my electronic Christmas cards this year, a retired Vicar sent me one of his own making that referred to the evidence for the existence of God that is all around us in Nature. (e.g. “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” [Psalm 19:1] and “…and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” [Acts 14:17]). However, just as looking at the night sky makes me feel very small and insignificant, so looking at nature makes me feel like an accident in a protein factory and a temporary defiance of Entropy. Despite this, I believe there is evidence for the existence of a spiritual dimension – and a God. However, as with many of your other readers, I do not find it by looking up at the sky or looking around me. Quite the opposite, in fact, I can only find it by looking inside myself. Happy Solstice, Christmas and/or Re-birth.
LikeLike
To complete my trio of responses to this post, I hope Paul will allow me to quote a lengthy extract from one of the essays I wrote during my MA in Environmental Politics. I may have to consider serialising this but, in the present context, I should like to invite readers to ponder the nature of our relationship with the natural world as follows (emphasis added here to final paragraph by me):
—-
If anthropocentrism is a way of thinking “…that regards humans as the source of all value and is predominantly concerned with human interests”, then, in simplistic terms, ecocentrism is one “…that regards humans as subject to… ethical, political and social prescriptions… equally concerned with both humans and non-humans” (Neil Carter, 2007: 14). However, as with most things in life, it is not as simple as these definitions imply. For example, from an anthropocentric perspective, it is possible to be concerned about the welfare of individual domesticated animals; and yet not be concerned about the survival of entire endangered species.
Equally, one of the biggest debates in ecological politics may revolve around how one defines ‘moral persons’ (Rawls) or legitimate ‘recipients of justice’ (Garner), although many would probably agree with what Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) said: “The question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” However, the contentious and unresolved nature of this debate has led to the appearance of terms such as ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’; which may be applied to anthropocentrism and ecocentrism alike (with ‘deep’ denoting a more extreme position in either case). Therefore: “Rather than define different perspectives according to which side of the ecocentric/anthropocentric divide they lie, they can be located along a continuum, which moves from ecocentrism through various gradations of anthropocentrism to ‘strong anthropocentrism’”. (Carter 2007: 36)
Once it is recognised that there is a range of possible positions that may be adopted (rather than a choice that has to be made), it is possible – as Robin Eckersley has done – to characterise at least five different positions, which are as follows:
1. Resource conservation – the wise use of natural resources for human benefit: Eckersley suggests that the conservation movement was founded upon the Judeao-Christian notion of humans having ‘dominion’ over the Earth; rather than any duty of ‘stewardship’, as exemplified by Gifford Pinchot (the first chief of the US Forest Service). (Eckersley 1992: 35)
2. Human welfare ecology – an appeal to enlightened self-interest: Eckersley cites Barry Commoner’s ‘four laws of ecology’ as: (1) everything is connected to everything else; (2) everything must go somewhere; (3) nature knows best; and (4) there’s no such thing as a free lunch. (Eckersley 1992: 37-8)
3. Preservationism – seeking the aesthetic preservation of wilderness areas: Whereas Gifford Pinchot wanted to preserve nature for development (i.e. maximise the utility of natural resources for human benefit), John Muir (of the Sierra Club) wanted to preserve nature from development (i.e. minimise the human impact on the natural environment). (Eckersley 1992: 39)
4. Animal liberationism – the prevention of cruelty to certain animals: A comparatively modern, radical, development; which can trace its heritage back to ‘humane’ societies formed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such as the RSPCA. (Eckersley 1992: 42)
5. Ecocentrism – seeking the preservation of nature for its own sake. (Eckersley, 1992: 46)
With regard to the latter, given that Eckersley recognised the fact that these positions lie upon a “wide spectrum of differing orientations towards nature”, whose end-points are anthropocentrism and ecocentrism (1992: 33), this could be better defined as deep ecocentrism. However, even using these five labels, it is not hard to see why it is difficult to categorise people: For example, the human welfare ecologists could be regarded as quite ecocentric (if they recognise the validity and/or importance of each and every one of Barry Commoner’s ‘four laws of ecology’); whereas animal liberationists could be regarded as quite anthropocentric (if they are only concerned about domesticated pets and/or individual animals).
The ecocentric end of the spectrum has also been described as that of ‘deep ecology’ (Devall and Sessions 1985: 70), and ‘biospherical egalitarianism’ (Naess 1989: 170). However, whilst preferring the term ‘biocentric egalitarianism’ for the latter, Carter points out that – as indeed was conceded by Naess (1989: 28) – food is an essential requirement for life and, therefore, an entirely egalitarian position is untenable:
“Certainly, any principle along the lines of biocentric egalitarianism would be impossible to implement. Taking it to the extreme, how could a human justify killing any animal of fish, or consuming a vegetable, bean or berry? All involve some restraint on another entity’s capacity to live and flourish.” (Carter 2007: 36)
LikeLike
Wow! What incredible reflections. Thank you, Martin. I shall need to read your third comment a few more times because it contains ideas not previously encountered. However, what seems clear to me is that man cannot much longer defy the force of nature. When the rising temperatures prevent the growth of crops and cause the seas to be too warm for fish then we will understand our relationship with the natural world.
LikeLike