What are the principles of life? Human beings set the standard based on their own values - parasitic beasts eat people, so they should be eliminated; and it is only natural for humans to eat livestock such as pigs, dogs, cattle and sheep. This is of course narrow. Humans eat pigs, dogs, cattle and sheep for their own survival, while parasitic beasts eat humans for their survival. What is the difference in essence? Even if we try to think about it, as long as we pretend to be objective, we have to admit that it is all for survival. The problem is only "who is stronger" and who can survive, not who is born "deserving more" survive". But the ending of the film is really good: Even so, even if human beings are not more "should survive" than other creatures, since we are born human, we should go all out to maintain human values interests come first. As a human being, it is undoubtedly extravagant and hypocritical to "protect the earth" at every turn. Human beings "protect the earth" are ultimately for their own interests. Cry without laughing" Earth. As a human being, maximizing one's own interests, eating pigs, dogs, cattle and sheep, and at the same time giving good conditions for the growth and reproduction of pigs, dogs, cattle and sheep based on their own long-term interests, seems to be more in line with the harmony of the earth than empty talk about "equality of all living beings". . The harmony of the earth may have been quietly realized in the process of each creature's pursuit of maximizing its own interests.
The above is the point of view in the film. I would like to add a little more. Although it is a kind of precious honesty to admit that "all beings are not equal", but after a brief reflection on history, it seems that the relationship between human society and other creatures is constantly changing from "inequality" to "equality", which is related to human beings. of the overall progress. The reason for such "synchronization" is not a coincidence, but has its own logic: pushing the "equality of all beings" to the extreme is naked eating of the weak and the survival of the fittest, which points to the animal side of human beings; Today, we have not only relied on the achievement of the utensil level that Marx called "tool-making", but also on the continuous progress of the human spiritual world, which has become more and more tolerant, peaceful, free, democratic, and equal. is the social aspect of human beings. There is discrimination within human society. It was especially serious in the past. White people discriminated against black people, men discriminated against women, and the upper class discriminated against the lower class. Why has this kind of discrimination been spurned today, at least in theory and on the table? If the "inequality of all beings" is pushed to the extreme, since human beings have a superior position because they are stronger than other creatures, then by analogy within human society, the strong human beings also have a superior position compared with the weak, which is in the extreme " All beings are not equal” logic (scientific name “Social Darwinism”) is established, so why is it spurned today? There is no need for advanced theories. As long as everyone feels and judges based on their natural conscience, they can find that the extreme logic of "equality of all beings" has only an animal side, which essentially degrades people to ordinary animals at the spiritual level. And gave up the sympathy and love that are unique to human beings and human beings. Humans are not a simple race where the strong kill the weak. There is only food in the eyes of tigers, leopards and jackals, but human eyes will always have tenderness and compassion. Of course, the unremitting pursuit of "equality" by human beings is not only out of "tenderness and compassion", but also has a practical side: "equality" within human society can improve the situation of the inferior and ease the tension between the superior and the inferior. , maintain harmony, and promote the overall welfare of society; the appropriate "equality" between human beings and other creatures can improve the situation of other creatures, meet the unique spiritual needs of human beings, and ultimately benefit from the improvement of the ecological environment. It needs to be emphasized again that everything human beings do is fundamentally for themselves. Even if you raise a puppy, you will spend a lot of money to build a kennel for it, dress it in floral clothes, and feed it with exquisite food. In other words, it seems to be purely altruistic behavior, but it is actually for their own spiritual needs; Because when you are bored, wandering is still boring, and it is more difficult to endure if you do not wander. This is still a self-interested behavior after weighing the interests. It can be said that in terms of purpose, the pursuit of "equality" by human beings is still self-interested (although this "benefits" includes both material and spiritual aspects); but what is valuable is that under the guidance of self-interested ends, the exercise of its means But hand-painted a moving picture of harmony. It can be seen that the legitimacy of the means is more important than the legitimacy of the end. However, this has nothing to do with the purpose of this article. Let’s stop and return to the topic.
In the triangular relationship of livestock, humans, and parasitic beasts, the relationship between livestock and humans has been discussed, and the following table (Table 1) is drawn for reference, but the more troublesome is the relationship between humans and parasitic beasts. Why is it more troublesome? The trouble is that the tension between the relationship between livestock and humans can be tolerated. Humans not only feed on animals, but also raise animals, protect animals, and treat animals with kindness. The two can go hand in hand, and there is space and room for "harmonious coexistence"; The beast is a ferocious monster. If it is not completely eliminated, it will slaughter human beings endlessly until it is eliminated. Either you or I will die. At the end of the film, the parasitic beast was wiped out, but there are still remnants, at least Parasite is not dead, and the parasitic beast on him is not satisfied with sucking blood like "right" (みぎ), it must have been preying Humanity. If you agree with Mayor Hirokawa's statement that "the crazy population growth has made the excess population a toxin to the earth, and parasitic beasts are the antidote to reducing the population", then the problem does not exist; but as mentioned above, the means The legitimacy of the population is more important than the legitimacy of the purpose. Perhaps the purpose of reducing the excess population has its legitimacy, but it can be through legitimate means such as family planning (the “legitimate” here is relative), using war, feeding people Unjustified means such as beasts are obviously inappropriate, trampling on human dignity, and can easily make the situation out of control. Then, what about driving the parasitic beasts to extinction for the purpose of ensuring human safety? Presented in the film. When Goto's cells were slowly merging, Shinichi was in a tangle: should he kill this "weak" and "invincible" parasitic beast before Goto's cells were fully fused. Although the fusion success rate is only 50%, once the fusion is successful, many human beings will inevitably die because of this, which may include their family members, lovers, and friends. If you stand from a completely detached, "equality of all living beings" or "too high forgot your feelings" perspective, "the heaven and the earth are not benevolent, and all things are dogs", nature has no feelings and allows all things to develop freely, then it should be allowed to Free integration, success or failure is destined by heaven. On the surface, this is the most "objective and fair", and it also conforms to the "life criterion" of respecting life and life equality. Therefore, after many battles with parasitic beasts, I understand parasitic beasts. Xin Yi, who believes that beasts are also lives, chose this option; from Gotou's point of view, of course, it should be allowed to live, and then continue to prey on humans and grow and develop; from a human standpoint, at least There are several important factors that must be considered: safety of human life, respect for all life and the belief in the equality of life, reduction of excess The contradiction between the legitimate purpose of the population and the illegitimate means of reducing the population through parasitic beasts. The third factor has been analyzed before, but we can only draw the conclusion that parasitic beasts cannot be used to reduce the population, and we cannot further deduce whether to drive out the parasitic beasts. Two main and irreconcilable factors. The safety of human life can be broadly understood as an egoistic and individualistic tendency here, and the belief in respecting all life and the equality of life can be broadly understood as an altruistic and collectivist tendency. Every human being has real and vital interests at this moment, especially for the parties who have to make a choice, which is related to the safety of family members, lovers, friends, and of course their own lives; and respect all lives and lives The belief in equality is a kind of altruism and terrestrialism that sounds very lofty. For the collective biodiversity and life equality of the earth, even the human life is sacrificed. Attentive readers may find a little problem: Isn't this the same way of looking at the problem from a detached point of view? Yes, the key point is here. Excessive altruism and collectivism are just like this, overstepping their own duty, stealing the power of God or gods, and demanding that human beings do things that have become immoral due to excessive morality. After experiencing a more intense inner struggle than the battle with the parasitic beast, the male protagonist resolutely chose "righteousness to destroy the beast", which I see as the victory of individualism over excessive collectivism, honesty over moral fanaticism. . Attentive readers may find a little problem: Isn't this the same way of looking at the problem from a detached point of view? Yes, the key point is here. Excessive altruism and collectivism are just like this, overstepping their own duty, stealing the power of God or gods, and demanding that human beings do things that have become immoral due to excessive morality. After experiencing a more intense inner struggle than the battle with the parasitic beast, the male protagonist resolutely chose "righteousness to destroy the beast", which I see as the victory of individualism over excessive collectivism, honesty over moral fanaticism. . Attentive readers may find a little problem: Isn't this the same way of looking at the problem from a detached point of view? Yes, the key point is here. Excessive altruism and collectivism are just like this, overstepping their own duty, stealing the power of God or gods, and demanding that human beings do things that have become immoral due to excessive morality. After experiencing a more intense inner struggle than the battle with the parasitic beast, the male protagonist resolutely chose "righteousness to destroy the beast", which I see as the victory of individualism over excessive collectivism, honesty over moral fanaticism.
The "weak" and "invincible" Goto died, and the parasitic beast was gone. However, Parasite with a healthy brain is still there, and other residual parasites are still there, and the problem has not been completely solved. When the situation is under control, it seems a bit excessive to drive out these parasitic beasts, especially Parasite, whose brain is still sound, killing it is tantamount to killing a human being. But if left unchecked, it is bound to cause human casualties. When the effectiveness of the two principles is comparable and it is difficult to choose, it seems a good idea to seek some technological breakthroughs. The film mentions that parasitic beasts do not use the host's body as their only food, and there can be other substitutes, but they are just unpleasant, but now the taste of parasitic beasts is obviously not a priority issue, so the remaining parasitic beasts can be strictly imprisoned, allow it to survive. When it dies, it is used for autopsy.
After reading "Parasitic Beast: The Principles of Life", I felt a lot of emotion, but I didn't think about writing it. Because the title "Guidelines for Life" is too enlightening to people's thinking, it is suddenly moved, and it is drafted into one article without citing it.
Table 1:
Local pictures, please re-upload local pictures, please re-upload local pictures that take livestock as food (animal side, the strong eat the weak, survival of the fittest)
for human purposes (self-interest)
, please re-upload local pictures to protect animals (social side) , higher than the spiritual pursuit of animals) The means are more important than the ends
In terms of means (justified)
View more about Parasyte: The Maxim reviews
