What's my point?

 My understanding of fidelity and idealism is increasingly blurred. Heretofore my understanding of it was that it was most visible when everything around you seemed to rise in your face like a tsunami and you stood there, empty handed, with no other defence except your conviction. Tact & diplomacy lost importance in the hour of a non negotiable need to speak out. You are an idealist precisely when You cannot afford it! You have a noble cause and no will to compromise. That to me was what being idealistic was. I'm not sure if it holds true anymore. 

Today adaptation seems to have replaced idealism. Compromise appears to be the safest option if we want to live in our insane society! 

Of course, everyone has some cause or other that he cherishes. But when that cause is merely to survive , you rest assured that the spirit of man is breaking. If the ultimate sense of living is to wake up and go about the business of gathering food or means to acquire food & shelter. This is a trait in an animal. In fact it is the basis on which species survive. 

What then is the meaning of "social animal"? A flock or a skulk or a parliament of owls is also a society.  In the 'animal kingdom', if we overlook the sporadic conflicts which break out, all live in relative harmony. They eat, breed and fuck off from the planet into oblivion! How is man different? 

We have four poodles. Two boys and two girls. I often try to understand their synergy. They are quite organised. I have this uncanny gut feeling that if they had speech and I the ability to understand then when they spoke, they could guide me! 

When Dilton, the runt in the litter was growing balls, he began getting aggressive towards his father. So, the wisdom of veternary sciences gave neutering as the solution. He was 'de-balled' before the balls had properly descended. However, that has not exactly helped getting rid of his aggression issue. Now he seems to want to growl at every moving vehicle on the roads! It's funny, but the point I'm trying to make is that the scientific conclusion that castration subdues an aggressive dog is to be taken with a pinch of salt. When the question of castrating the other male came, I posed a philosophical Q before those in favor of neutering Bobo. I asked them to consider if given that castration was a solution then would we have the balls to have our sons castrated as a solution to the problem of population explosion? A woman gives birth to one infant at a time but the problem of pop-exp is a problem among humans! Most animals litter more than one but they have nothing called pop-exp issue. Strays, crows, mice and now pigeons are causing problems to humans! The reason is not so much animals as we, the humans are. We move the Supreme court for justice & the court rules against the voiceless animal in favour of the human race, as if humans alone need saving not others. Man is the problem unto himself. The animals need food; man has surplus reject.

 Remove the available food, they will go, but that will never happen.