Happy ending or happy editing?

img_1882I have never been a big fan of any zoos. As a kid, zoos are more like a stinky place to go, and the animals are either not moving or too far to see. I especially remember one panda in the zoo in my city, reached a pretty old recordable age — thirty six if I’m not mistaken — always had his/her butt to the fans, admirers or visitors. I was not amused. Zoos in China never cultivate me any enthusiasm about caring animals, the myth of them and so on, rather, I name the stuffed animals every time I got after the zoo visiting. You know, just to make them human, and create a happy ending.

But today, “culling” as a keyword stuck into my mind after reading the article in New Yorker “Killing Animals at the Zoo“. I didn’t know about it, that they are killing healthy animals in the name of culling, and when Parker writes the reason to kill the healthy male giraffe is “genetically unnecessary”, I felt the coldness of words, of how human brain works. The logic! I saw machines that made by people, functioning. Surely as they state, surplus animals could be exchanged but there is no fairy-tale world, once there is the birth, there is the death. But did the baby Marius got the right to choose his euthanised death? No. Genetical engineers had it. It reminds me an article also from New Yorker I read years ago, it was about an institution called BGI in China, I think, about genes and research. Is it really soon that we could edit life and death, starting the practice from animals?

On the other hand, there is a public dissection including school kids. While the newly wed are talking about how to educate their future children about where do they come from or about death, kids are displayed with dismembering a dead animal scene. Yes, it’s a more direct introduction. Is it good ? Maybe Danish people are right, as the first country to legalise pornography. They are as open as we could ever imagine, but still, I hold my opinion on it. Being exposed to such an act, even with the purest scientific purpose, the seed of cruelty could emerge and grow. Is it because “science” has been unlimited exaggerated, and “feelings” have been neglected? Maybe a balance could be better.

More and more often, I see photos on a Chinese media mobile portal from car accidents suicide sites and so on, bloody photos have been published with few blurs. When these have been normalised by the media, people’s gonna “tolerant” more bloody photos or scenes. It’s like a training. And once the education is missing in this specific part, it is not a promising road.

Somehow, I still believe in happy endings, and this is under the condition of knowing there could be as much cruelty as I don’t know in the world. I still feel cold-blooded toward the words “genetically unnecessary”, when rare and precious in the mammals world is the top priority, they could edit a precious giraffe, and kill the un-wanted ones, what if once again, we think Hitler is unique, will the moral boundaries be set up towards it?


Ian Johnson: China Discovers Alternative Education : The New Yorker

I like to read articles on China issues in New York, but I do find certain patterns in each article.

First, you have to introduce this place due to the lack of knowledge regarding to Chinese geography.

Second, mention culture revolution and 1989. Sometimes I don’t see it as a necessary to mention it, especially when you subscribe each issue, and every issue if there is an article talking about China, they will mention them. Without mentioning these “famous” events, there still will be a possibility for New Yorker to cry for freedom.

Last but not least, the author has to rise the “Yellow Peril” issue. Like in the end of this article, the author questioned that Chinese people are willing to take risks and pay lots of money to get suitable education for their kids, but as Europeans, they can only running after these rich parents to fit their demands. How sad, should we be alert?

I enjoyed reading New Yorker, but at least, articles on China should have some diversity.

Evan Osnos: The Confucian Revival in China : The New Yorker

It is funny that only when National Studies Web goes public will arise people’s nostalgia of the culture that should be cherished. It might be exaggerated but not much.

Listen to this, “Qufu has adopted comparisons to Jerusalem and Mecca and calls itself ‘The Holy City of the Orient’. Last year, it received 4.4 million visitors, surpassing the number of people who visited Israel.” But, does this make Qufu more holy than Israel? Does this make Qufu the destination of our pilgrimage? What kind of pilgrimage? Is it political pilgrimage or religious pilgrimage?

When we put down all the culture and historical baggage, we will truly understand what should be “holy” for us as Chinese.