Spent the whole day today just lying in bed with a migraine. Feeling better now, so decided to write something. Not just something, but a variety of things that have been going on in my mind - mostly weird and unnecessary stuff that nobody would even care about, but still I do.
I recently started rewatching my favourite cartoons that I used to watch as a child: Pokemon, Kids Next Door, Ed, Edd n Eddy, and Courage the Cowardly Dog. While I love all of these shows and many more equally, I forgot how much I used to love ‘Courage the Cowardly Dog’. And that’s why I decided to write this. While the other shows were about fun adventures, friendships, and were lighthearted, Courage was different. It was spooky, and apart from being horror-inducing, it was also weird in a different way. More eerie than anything else, with a sense of tense loneliness. The show served as a great gateway to various genres, including psychological horror and paranormal suspense, by using childish comedy to lower the tone. I loved this show so much as a child that I always used to make something related to Courage whenever I had a new hobby. I used to draw him, even made digital art of him when I did Photoshop for a short while. I even had a t-shirt of him 😛. My favourite quote from the show was when Courage used to say, “The things I do for love.”
And moreover, the backstory of Courage is quite heart-wrenching, where he is forcefully separated from his parents and is crying in an alley. That’s when Muriel found and named him ‘Courage’. And that’s basically the premise of the show, where Muriel and her husband Eustace keep getting into trouble and Courage saves them every single time. Now, it was quite ironic to me and probably every kid at that time that a dog who is named ‘Courage’ gets scared of everything and everyone. It felt like a joke because Courage wasn’t courageous, right? But now that I am rewatching the show as a grown-up, I am seeing it quite differently. The name was correct. Courage is courageous. Courage isn’t the absence of fear, but it’s the feeling that something else is more important than fear and acting in spite of that fear. And for Courage, it was the love of his family. He would look into the eyes of existential horror beyond his understanding, scream, and run towards it as if it was nothing. There was nothing cowardly about that dog.
(press the cord :P)
Now to my other thought. It can be a little sensitive for some people, and I can’t really converse about it with someone, so I thought of writing it down here. Okay, so I have been thinking: why is it easier for us to put down pets but not our human counterparts? I mean, I understand the basic logic behind it—that human life is more valuable and people can communicate their wishes and make choices and everything—but there’s still a part of me that fails to understand. So I thought of taking this a little deeper by making comparisons. Suppose we have a dog that has been with us for 10 years and at the same time we have a sibling who is also, let’s say, 20 years old. Now our sibling and the dog have been in an accident, and they both are gravely injured. Now let’s assume both of them are in a state where they can’t communicate—I mean the dog can’t anyway, but suppose the sibling is having brain damage. In this case, deep down we know that they won’t be able to live a normal life, but we (and by we, I mean we humans as a whole) would still not euthanize them and would keep them alive. Why? We say that if the animal is suffering “too much” or the cost of fixing them is “too much,” then we should put them down. But who decides what is “too much” and which life is “worth” fixing even when both are suffering?
Now let’s make it a little simpler and suppose both the dog and the sibling can be saved and will live a normal, healthy life, but we only have the resources to save one of them. In this case, it becomes much easier for us to decide, right? We will obviously save the human. But why? The answer that might come to mind is that human life has intelligence and can provide more meaning and value in the future. Fair enough. But what if we replace the dog with a human who is very old and has lived a full life? We still wouldn’t let them go, right? We would keep pumping oxygen and whatnot to keep their body alive even if they can’t understand a thing or remember or respond to anyone. And I am only talking about people who are suffering too much and there’s no hope of recovery. The same science that is keeping them alive can also let them move on without any pain. But we don’t do that. I know there is an argument that people can misuse this to just get rid of old people, say, in nursing care or even at home. And there is also the issue of who defines what end-of-life suffering is and when to let someone go. It’s not that easy, but I just had this thought, so yeah. I was once told by a friend that I have the emotional quotient of an ant, so me getting these thoughts is not really surprising anymore.
It’s 10:25 PM and I need to go to bed now, as tomorrow is leg day and I already missed my workout today due to a migraine. I am starting to see some definition. I also received a parcel from Ankita yesterday. She had sent chocolates and a few other things from Australia. There was a Harry Potter bottle as well. Also a coffee powder which is just amazing. She is at the other end of the world, we hardly talk anymore, and yet she still remembers me. That’s the kind of friendships I have made in my life.
This concludes the mind vomit for today. I took magnesium glycinate before starting to write this and now it’s taking its effect. Until next time!
Also I just realized how appropriate the song ‘Moora’ is for Courage. 😛
