"In 2012, are we able only to see and no more to watch?" or "Nature and perversity"

Before discussing the idea of “Nature and Perversity”, the first purpose of this paper is obviously the perception of the image in 2012 and how Facebook has changed the way we see and therefore to look at things.

In 2009, Europe saw the emergence of a life "permanent online" with the development of the "Smartphones" and Internet flats for mobile phones. Being constantly online and being able to exchange instant information about the most trivial of our existence, Facebook has ceased to be global to become local. English was no longer the language of reference in non-English speaking countries and suddenly people stopped to read on Facebook that what is said in a local environment remains very local. The volume of information became unmanageable for "Facebookers" with over one hundred "Friends". How to read the entire menu tasted the night before at the other end of the world through an acquaintance of past holidays when the subway is crowded and every jolt of the wagon make us lose the thread of the text. The absolutism of the image entered at this time in a new era. Our brains used to the absorption of 24 frames per second can, in record time, assimilate all the messages contained in video clips and other advertisements. The problem is that most of them only act on our subconscious. We go through all this information and what we notice, what we want also to comment, with the most common clichés, we do not know the deep reason. Whitney is dead? “R.I.P”! Robert has a birthday? We need to find the application that sends a picture of a cake directly on his wall! The concepts of friendship and to like have become completely watered down. Exchanging few words in a cafe is enough to create a virtual friendship (Facebook Friend) and reading a comment became liking it (I like) - which is why there is no button "Dislike" because it has nothing to do with our opinion -. This text asked me a lot of time writing, how many of my 1087 "friends" will press the "I like" and how many will read it at least so far? If you got there, you no longer need to read the rest, simply write with letters "I liked it" as a comment, I'm curious about the result. So, reading has become so difficult and so uninteresting that we have only the images left, which we believe so well to understand that the comment is superfluous. No, the image should be expected as the first factor of a sorting activity leading to a higher intellectual one. Marcel Proust wrote with reason that the view is the most common of the five senses because it prevents us from thinking! And if we stopped to see the pictures to start watching them!
The Cartesian conception of human superiority is based on the thought (as opposed to instinct): "Cogito ergo sum". This idea, very French, established the nature as a danger and an obstacle to modern civilization, and this already in the 17th century. How to behave in 2012 when man puts now nature in danger? Does being French change something?
Make no mistake, the subject of this paper is to determine what can be considered pervert by civilized citizens in two areas that seem so disparate: hunting and homosexuality. However, thinking about it, we see an interaction between the two. In primitive societies who hunted to survive (by eating and destroying their predators), homosexuality was often seen as a danger, as an obstacle to the reproduction of the species. In current Western societies where survival depends more on the preservation of wildlife and the environment as reproduction, homosexuality seems much more accepted. If the two are opposites, is it implying that you must be a vegetarian if you are homosexual? If we look carefully we see that the animal itself despite its primitiveness is not free from homosexuality.

Sigmund Freud wrote that the sexual act without intent to procreate defines perversion, which is much larger than homosexuality and actually sounds very fun. Would the idea of hunting without consumption of the spoils define a notion of perversion? Even without knowing the meaning of the great Sigmund, it would be normal to disapprove such an aggressive and gratuitous practice. The settlement of the society related to agriculture is no longer a question, the dilemma between the lenses of Abel and the hunting of Cain went well. If agriculture can be felt as an evolution towards civilization of primitive societies, livestock farming is also definitely. Could our problem with the meat being directly induced by a certain anthropomorphism that we have with animals? We are disturbed by the presence of eyes, a tongue or ears because it reminds us of our own body. This is for once quite primitive! We are able to think on the purpose and context, then our reaction should be influenced by it. Here is the crucial point. Rather than spread on very subjective notion of "perversion", allowing very questionable behaviors overflows, should we not wonder about much more objective data such as the preservation of endangered species necessary to maintain a ecosystem essential to the survival of humanity? The overpopulation of wild kangaroos threatens Australia so their hunting is welcome, but not using them for food is ridiculous. Not using their skin would be also stupid! With the same logic hunting of the lynx or the elephant is completely unthinkable today. In terms of animal farming in order to exploit their skin or fur, what is the threat to the ecosystem? None, but then ethics demand that the rest of the animal is used for other purposes.
If our impulses incline us to react in certain ways, the desire to prove our human existence forces us to control them. Racism is a very primitive impulse present in children. The child learns that the difference of color is not a danger for him and opens to the possible enrichment through the difference. It is the first step towards a better and intelligent society where multiple sexual orientations and culinary diversity complement one another in harmony!