Desire/appetite – a licence to indulge?

As I sit here with a plate of warmed up food at lunch time, I am thinking about appetites.

I have three beautiful cats; each is completely different to the others. The oldest and a male, Astro, needs a good 23 hours of daily sleep, he must be about ten years old. He has spent most of his life on my side of the bed. The next is a male and about 3 years old, his name is Nancy. He is anything but a “nancy boy” (as the politically incorrect expression goes), he is an incredible hunter. They all get a lot of good food, thus there is no need to hunt. We all know that cats are carnivores and they kill things, not always to eat. He catches poor birds and proudly brings them inside for us to admire. Even though it distresses us, we shower praise and admiration upon the gloating beast. On the odd occasion he eats the poor creature. He prefers being outside. The youngest cat is a female with the most adorable nature and she has the name of Stormy. She loves to be near us, especially when we are working. She has an appetite as big as her eyes and loves to beg (but politely) for food.

So the cat with the nastiest appetite is Nancy. His nature as a cat means he has carnivorous appetites that he likes to indulge at the expense of lesser life forms (like birds and lizards). His desires have a negative impact on his environment. His desires are a force of nature, impassionate and remorseless.
The appetites and lack of hunting skills of the other two cats, do not have any such negative impact on their environment.

These animals are driven by their appetites, what about us as humans?

To my mind there are several reasons for the domination of man over all other species on this planet, regardless of their size or power. It must be our reasoning ability and having opposable thumbs. As a specie, we are not primarily driven by instinct.

I would like to think that reason dominates our decision making, but I am probably wrong.

Appetite or passion are probably the strongest driving forces in our current society. I know that I am looking at it in a simplistic manner, but I would like to stick all emotions under “passions”.

We would like to think (as modern people) that we have progressed in various societal norms, like the removal of prejudices. The French Revolutionary aims were liberty, equality, and fraternity. The last word tends to have Christian undertones, so it is of less value in our current times. There has been too much exploitation of words such as patriotism by unscrupulous politicians, so that word too is out of vogue among the more “advanced” nations.

When I look back in history, it is clear to see that those who are driven to make sacrifices and commit all their resources to achieving various ideals, are those who achieve in many areas of endeavour. Self-denial, planning and intense levels of work allow success in science, business and arts to be reached.

Yet I have seen much change, mostly through history books and the observation of our current society, not as an expert but as a keen amateur. I am well aware of the dangers of being passionate about a subject and the objectivity of impartiality, yet I wonder if either can really be achieved? Scientists and other professional fields would like to believe they are impassionate, but I have my doubts.

In a previous article called Temptations, a tongue in cheek look at marketing, it is apparent that nearly all of modern day industries are driven by the appetites of mankind.

The lot of women has been difficult when one looks back in time. They have been subjected to the more powerful male, who has dominated religion, business, in fact almost every single aspect of society.

The powerful maternal instinct of women to look after their children has tended to give her a domestic role, outside those areas considered as glamorous, such as business, finance, science and even the military. The emancipation of women has changed our society, where she too can consider her own development and her own interests. Contraception, however controversial it may be, especially to those of a religious background, has given unparalleled freedom. For many women, they can think in terms of their needs and appetites, before considering marriage and children. There are those who would rather have a pet than a child; a pet is much easier to care for and much less demanding.

Relationships today are based upon personal preference and personal attraction. Gender selection and sexual orientation is a matter of personal preference. Most Western Countries no longer enforce their norms. In some religions, especially Islam, homosexuality is treated with condemnation and severe punishments can follow.
Can you still remember from history where marriages were arranged by the parents? Their children had no say in the matter. When I saw movies about it, I was horrified. Everything should be love, in all relationships, love should be the “spark”, the start.

Really?

Being dispassionate and looking at the survival of society, must emotion enter the equation? Should something as vital as marriage be driven by “flights of fancy?” What should society run on? Taxes or poetry? Where there are no citizens, a society cannot exist (obvious). Where there are no children, there is no future! Am I being dramatic? If I were a taxman, I would want to give tax incentives to those who sacrifice and have children. If the irrational nature of love were removed from parents, how many children would be desired?

What would you want? A child where there is no bond or relationship, or a nice sports car? I would certainly choose the sports car. Why would you want an ego-centric child where endless service is required?

If relationships depend upon appetite, why not indulge any appetite conceived of? Joseph Stalin was an atheist, and to my mind a remarkable man. He did not let the lives of nations stand in the way of his objectives; collectivism and industrialisation were to be achieved at all costs. He used propaganda to suit his own purposes. He must have been extremely effective because there are many in South Africa who still advocate communism. He was not a man to trifle with power.

Obviously societal mores are there to protect all sectors of a community. A lot of these values were created based upon old religious values, to protect the defenceless such as children. If desire or appetite were solely determined by strength and power in its various forms, then why not paedophilia, necrophilia or bestiality? Why not torture and murder? What defines depravity? What defines religious fanaticism? Why should a child be prevented from taking drugs or using weapons or having sex?

Where does one draw the line?

The opinion of the majority of a community, is that the benchmark? If so then what about Nazi Germany? Or Communist Russia, or China?

The obvious answer is “we may not infringe upon the freedom of choice of another human being”, how far is the intensity of persuasion allowed to go? When does it become bullying?

I may chuckle about overindulgence of nice foods, but what about other appetites?

Surely there is more to the organism of man than sheer logic or appetite?