Your turn to like it, Zuckerberg.

"Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." This statement is an ethical and metaphysical principle of a series of beliefs found from the increasingly globalized world to the most hidden (or forgotten?) corners of the earth and people beneath the planetary rug. It would be a pseudo-scientific digression to claim that it is an elementary characteristic of societies, emerging from a neurophysiological mechanism and so on, because I have no bibliography or laboratory to assure this. But the fact is that this regulatory phenomenon crosses historical and local contexts, being found in the biblical ten commandments, in the Hindu concept of karma, in Kardec's theory of spiritual evolution, and even in the postmodern drivel that nebulously proclaims the existence of a force of the Universe called the "Law of Attraction." In short, these beliefs converge on the perspective that every action has a proportional reaction.

In a way that is initially confusing, three anecdotes that appeared on my Facebook timeline this past May are related to this. Each with its own scope, but all embedded in the same theme, sometimes explicit, sometimes disguised: the search for reciprocity. I will recount them in chronological order – in reality, I confess, I chose to list them according to the criterion of argumentative convenience... that's what those who deal with words make a living from, but pretend you didn't read that dash.

In the first case, under a very objective and supposedly unbiased description, the video shows a goat wearing a mask (of Scream or a skull) on its head. When the poor thing approaches its dear friends, colleagues, family, and acquaintances, it causes despair in all of them – what is the collective noun for goats anyway? – who, in automatic response, run away frantically. The sensitized common folk would say that the animal will suffer reprisals from the other animals or even that it's humiliating for the goat. Let's be honest, is the goat's suffering due to shame, the difficulty of filing a lawsuit for its image rights, or because it was suffering from the trend of bullying? Gentlemen, let's not fall into this politically correct prudishness with what isn't even political. Damn it, the video is hilarious, period – the goat barely understood what happened.

Another incident, which had a greater impact, was a photo circulating showing some men smiling next to a dead cat with its skin removed from its body. In all the comments, the words "disgust," "loathing," and "repulsion" evoke a hymn of animal solidarity, as they put themselves in the feline's shoes. Undoubtedly, I see it as a cruel attitude – perhaps the result of violent sociability, possibly causing a psychopathology – but I only think this way because of the cultural notions I have internalized. Now... how about we put it into perspective: what must be the impact on an Indian person arriving at a Brazilian party and encountering a gaucho-style barbecue, where the ox (at its wake) is displayed tied to a spear – a skewer for us, but this analogy requires a certain amount of drama – almost drowning in its own blood? The answer, though we Westerners may be reluctant to accept it, states the obvious: the strangeness of the other's attitude, coupled with the legitimization of our own, is due to their insertion into certain paradigms and not to arguments based on objective fact.

The situation that graced the homepages of various websites and newspaper covers, which is the core of this chronicle, reminds me of an anecdote I need to present as a prologue. Once, when I was working in a museum, while conversing with Mr. Samuel, a prosaic storyteller (telling the same old stories, of course), in an attitude that was both anthropological and patient, I was undertaking the task of understanding him without imposing my own perspective. Then we entered the abortion debate. In the tangle of my conceptual (albeit clumsy) presentation in the face of the gentleman's traditional positions, an exhibitor appeared – one of those who, being an artist, believes his perception of reality is of a sensitivity bordering on nirvana – with a crucial point: his opposition to abortion was based on the pursuit of reciprocity. To quote him: "If the fetus can't kill me, I can't kill it."

For long seconds, I considered myself the biggest son of a bitch of all, since I consider myself someone who has a sense of justice coupled with the attempt to be consistent as premises for my actions, while defending abortion. It was when the guy was already going down the stairs and heading towards the camellias in the garden that I shouted: “What did you have for lunch today?”. He, with his blasé tone frozen with shock, replied in the manner of a pretentious, bourgeois, somewhat effeminate, veal-like person. I gave a wry smile and retorted: “And you fought to the death with that bull, won, and that's why you ate it?”. Irritated at being contradicted amidst his peers who smelled of Bourbon, exposed, he made some not very happy attempts to humiliate me and, due to the extreme need for that job, I had to submit.

But let's move on to the third point, before you get lost in the text. This week, the owner and creator of Facebook himself published in the media his eccentric goal for 2011, just as I questioned the visual artist in the museum: Zuckerberg wants to eat only what kills. Certainly, his diet has become vegetarian, since he is not exactly a hunter, but he has already begun his endeavor by facing some animals. And I share it with all of you: I liked it.

It was no surprise that complaints arose. What the guy is proposing for himself are relationships – at least in this aspect – that are based on the principle of reciprocity and even the value of food. After all, it's impossible, philosophically speaking, to be in favor of eating meat and against killing an animal, and I would go further: to be in favor of abortion and be vegetarian – ignoring this contradicts his vain philosophy. But, unfortunately, what is not lacking out there are individuals enclosed in a bubble à la Manoel Carlos, to the sound of Bossa Nova on a Leblon sidewalk, defending the salvation of animals (because it's cultured and cool), while being against human rights and, when they are not chanting for the death penalty, passively accepting violent coercion in the favelas.

It's clear that there's a genuine concern for both the goat and the cat in the stories above, revealing a beautiful identification with the animals – a completely valid and plausible act – which might result in veganism and similar practices. But let's face the crueler side of reality: if beings are different, it's impossible to achieve reciprocity, because there's no way to measure what's proportional when dealing with qualitative terms – after all, how many petting sessions are equivalent to a kiss? Let's consider how absurd it would be to not eat the animal's meat because it doesn't eat ours, and, following this premise, try to reciprocate the photosynthesis of trees.

The best that can be achieved in any relationship is the pursuit of mutuality. Always a give-and-take, not a one-way street. In other words, a symbiotic exchange with everything we relate to, each contributing what they can benefit from and offer to the other, based on their positions in the world, which define who they are.

To those who still expect reciprocity and call themselves the animal rights advocates (as if they didn't exploit other things), I reproduce verbatim the goat's not exactly grateful response: - Baaaaa!