The Great Zebra Debate Insults My Intelligence

I, a human blogger, am writing about zebras today. Stuff like this always turns out well for everyone involved.

You see, it was reportedly someone of my species who discovered these wonderful animals. God’s idea was supposedly to improve horses’ figures at the cost of their skins. Because humans enjoy fancy rugs.

And then, as can be readily observed, folks of my species started spending their time trying to convince lions to stop eating these animals. But lions are more stubborn than senators and they can be difficult for humans to communicate with. But our attempts show how we’re environmentally enlightened.

So we support zebra use because we’re stylish and we oppose zebra use because we’re ecostylish. This fits a prominent definition of convenience wherein the object of convenience is viewed as benefiting a preconceived desire regardless of what he or she does.

Seriously. That’s a factual definition. For instance, zebras conveniently avoid lions and tigers because it’s not appropriate for such “weak” and “slow” animals. And when they do go for interspecies friendships, they’re still considered “slow” and “soon to be dead,” but in a different way. And no action can break the cycle of convenience because anything will be twisted around to fit.

It’s a convenient cultural construction, not biological reality, that zebras are slower than lions. If we redefine speed to something more inconvenient, zebras and lions can live together in harmony.

Modern zebras demonstrate their interspecies acumen by sneaking up on their new lion friends. (Photo credit: Robin Hutton)

And with that in mind, the conservation of zebras insults my intelligence. There’s simply no way to think about a zebra that will not result in the animal getting killed. That’s not fair to the zebras.

Even though they’re probably pretty tasty…

Oink!