Brian, where do you stand with alligator hunting? I the past few years, south carolina has started to grant a limited amount of permits for hunting gators. I believe there was a demand for it, but I think the main purpose was for population control.
Obviously alligators aren't mammals, but would you put them in the category of big game hunting? I've tasted alligator and think it taste horrible. I can't imagine people killing them just for food. And from the people I've talked to who've done it, are doing it just for the hunt.
Brian, where do you stand with alligator hunting? I the past few years, south carolina has started to grant a limited amount of permits for hunting gators. I believe there was a demand for it, but I think the main purpose was for population control.
Obviously alligators aren't mammals, but would you put them in the category of big game hunting? I've tasted alligator and think it taste horrible. I can't imagine people killing them just for food. And from the people I've talked to who've done it, are doing it just for the hunt.
I never really thought about that one. The idea of killing animals to get their number back into stasis just seems like yet another way of humans saying, "Step aside Mother Nature, we'll set things right." As long as we keep thinking- and I'm sorry is this sounds rude but I really do believe it is arrogant thinking- that we can just cleverly patch up the holes in the breaking damn which is environmental collapse, we are only fooling ourselves.
Maybe the best thing to do instead of killing alligators would be to round them up and turn them loose in Congress.
One thing for sure- you won't see me wearing alligator shoes!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
You do have a point, Thirty. We humans act as we do largely because of our innate tendencies to focus on short term gains and pleasures, which likely developed from our evolution in areas of scarcity/unpredictability of resources.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
I've thought about that as well. Maybe this is how it's supposed to be.
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
A disturbing thought, Thirty, but not one easily argued.
But have we always been that way or is our destructive nature the condition of post-agricultural, non-tribal humans? Maybe if we are lucky and do not totally wipe ourselves out completely, our remnant populations will learn from our mistakes and realign ourselves with natural cycles that way some tribal and (it is postulated) pre-agricultrual humans did.
One thing for sure, we have the ability to make choices. We can educate our kids so that they understand that killing that last large mammals (or all the beneficial microscopic bacteria on our skin) is harmful to us. We can buy piles of poorly made crap that we don't need or we can choose the most useful and durable goods. We have the ability to limit our population. etc. etc... There are SO many choices we can make that would move us in the right direction. Our brains are big enough to allow us to do that. I don't see it as useful to succumb to the notion (as plausible as it may sound) that it is just in our nature to ruin things.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can we realistically control the population? Immigration laws would help. Has China benefited from limiting the number of children families can have?
If by control you mean through force- sure. Most anything to control people can be done through force. But of course an ethical approach would be better including free contraceptives, education (statistic show that educated women have fewer children), and sex ed. There are others I can't think of right off the top of my head.
The bottom line is that if we don't limit our numbers, nature will. Whenever a species exceeds carrying capacity, rapid die off occurs. That's a basic premise of population biology and it applies to all species. Nature will resolve all of our problems if we don't use our big brains and some logic to solve them ourselves. There's no reason we can't do that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
A disturbing thought, Thirty, but not one easily argued.
But have we always been that way or is our destructive nature the condition of post-agricultural, non-tribal humans? Maybe if we are lucky and do not totally wipe ourselves out completely, our remnant populations will learn from our mistakes and realign ourselves with natural cycles that way some tribal and (it is postulated) pre-agricultrual humans did.
One thing for sure, we have the ability to make choices. We can educate our kids so that they understand that killing that last large mammals (or all the beneficial microscopic bacteria on our skin) is harmful to us. We can buy piles of poorly made crap that we don't need or we can choose the most useful and durable goods. We have the ability to limit our population. etc. etc... There are SO many choices we can make that would move us in the right direction. Our brains are big enough to allow us to do that. I don't see it as useful to succumb to the notion (as plausible as it may sound) that it is just in our nature to ruin things.
I tend to agree with this point of view. I think humans are out of balance with nature and until we come back into balance then we are headed towards a huge decimation of our population (see Malthusian theory). We are the only species that stores MASS quantities of food which triggers greater population increases. More food, more people. While some areas of the world like China and India are implementing restrictive population policies other areas, primarily Europe, are implementing expansive population policies like paid maternity/paternity leave which will leave us out of balance on a much greater scale. We currently have enough food to feed the world the problem is distribution, first and foremost, and secondly, too many people living in areas (too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry) that cannot support the vast population that lives there (hello, American Southwest!).
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
no, Brian, I don't believe you are seeing things incorrectly. the thing of it is, becoming a little less activist is an unfortunate casualty of aging. we get busier. we have kids. soccer practice. dance recitals. careers. not just college where many demonstrations and protests begin, which is easy to become engaged in.
I think it also has something to do with the digital age. we are constantly bombarded with so many causes, so much outrage, so much information at once, it is next to impossible to focus entirely on anything anymore. everyone is vying for our attention, and the consequence of that is most, as a result, get none of it.
that's just my jaded view of the digital age.
I wasn't going to get involved, but this cop out bolded here is such BULLSHIT. Maybe you have grown more conservative, but like Hell, will we the people, on this forum let you predict our lives like it's a blanket judgment. Speak for yourself next time. Look at the guys in the band and tell me that in their aging that they're becoming less of activists!
I thought he made some valid points. You could maybe speak for yourself. Because you feel you share a point of view with the band or the forum or something like that, it makes his point bullshit? I'm part of the forum and don't think just like everyone else here...
After reading the entire thread (something I should have done in the first place), I now see my error and apologize for jumping the gun.
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
for the most part, humans have fucked with nature for their own collective gain. yes, in past millennia we have hunted species near or at extinction, but that happens in many "circles of life". I'm talking about when we hunt things for supposed cures to our own diseases, tearing down habitats for condos, etc. I don't think that's how it was supposed to be.
I also disagree with saving a species when their possible extinction is a result of natural occurrences. they will become extinct for a reason. we need to stop fucking with the natural order, unless of course it would drastically effect our own survival.
Maybe for you, above. But he does not speak for the rest of us as if growing older makes us all more conservative. Look at Neil Young, Noam Chomsky, etc. etc.
Becoming less of an activist doesn't make you more conservative...you should really change that to he doesn't speak for "me" before telling someone to speak for themselves...ridiculous.
yeah, "becoming more conservative as we age" makes zero sense. thinking your political stance is any way related to how active you are is laughable. I think it's hilarious how many times I have been called conservative by only one person on the planet. shows how some just want to argue a username, and not the content of their post.
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
for the most part, humans have fucked with nature for their own collective gain. yes, in past millennia we have hunted species near or at extinction, but that happens in many "circles of life". I'm talking about when we hunt things for supposed cures to our own diseases, tearing down habitats for condos, etc. I don't think that's how it was supposed to be.
I also disagree with saving a species when their possible extinction is a result of natural occurrences. they will become extinct for a reason. we need to stop fucking with the natural order, unless of course it would drastically effect our own survival.
I agree that taking a lot of time and effort to save a species from natural extinction is a bad "fucking with nature" idea. The only thing is, I can't think off hand of any instances where we have done that. Most efforts that I know of that we have taken to protect a species are cases where their imminent extinction is a direct result of human interference with their survival. Take, for instance, the California Condor. That bird is scavenger- a vulture with no feather on its head because it's method of eating is to stick it's head into the acidic parts of dead animals. They would have been doing quite well all along except they were driven close to extinction due to lead poisoning, poaching and habitat destruction. Due to conservation efforts, CA condor numbers have gone from a frightful low of 22 to a current (known) 425.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
A disturbing thought, Thirty, but not one easily argued.
But have we always been that way or is our destructive nature the condition of post-agricultural, non-tribal humans? Maybe if we are lucky and do not totally wipe ourselves out completely, our remnant populations will learn from our mistakes and realign ourselves with natural cycles that way some tribal and (it is postulated) pre-agricultrual humans did.
One thing for sure, we have the ability to make choices. We can educate our kids so that they understand that killing that last large mammals (or all the beneficial microscopic bacteria on our skin) is harmful to us. We can buy piles of poorly made crap that we don't need or we can choose the most useful and durable goods. We have the ability to limit our population. etc. etc... There are SO many choices we can make that would move us in the right direction. Our brains are big enough to allow us to do that. I don't see it as useful to succumb to the notion (as plausible as it may sound) that it is just in our nature to ruin things.
I tend to agree with this point of view. I think humans are out of balance with nature and until we come back into balance then we are headed towards a huge decimation of our population (see Malthusian theory). We are the only species that stores MASS quantities of food which triggers greater population increases. More food, more people. While some areas of the world like China and India are implementing restrictive population policies other areas, primarily Europe, are implementing expansive population policies like paid maternity/paternity leave which will leave us out of balance on a much greater scale. We currently have enough food to feed the world the problem is distribution, first and foremost, and secondly, too many people living in areas (too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry) that cannot support the vast population that lives there (hello, American Southwest!).
But we are not unique hoarding and guarding resources. There are numerous species on this planet that are very territorial.
In fact, the more I think about it... the more we show an inherent tendency to bond together and oppose at the same time: countries, states, religion, unions, school pride... the list goes forever- hell we even organize on this forum: pro DP/anti DP... Vs/10... etc.
We are complex animals, yet simple too. I do think that if we left the Earth, another species would take over as the most destructive species- we just happen to be holding the title for this stanza in eternity.
Comments
Obviously alligators aren't mammals, but would you put them in the category of big game hunting? I've tasted alligator and think it taste horrible. I can't imagine people killing them just for food. And from the people I've talked to who've done it, are doing it just for the hunt.
Maybe the best thing to do instead of killing alligators would be to round them up and turn them loose in Congress.
One thing for sure- you won't see me wearing alligator shoes!
Maybe the way we conduct ourselves is natural and as intended to be?
I'm not saying I like it, but perhaps we do the things we do because that is what our nature would have us do. We manipulate and attempt to control our environment and we destroy the earth just as marmots might their hillside.
But have we always been that way or is our destructive nature the condition of post-agricultural, non-tribal humans? Maybe if we are lucky and do not totally wipe ourselves out completely, our remnant populations will learn from our mistakes and realign ourselves with natural cycles that way some tribal and (it is postulated) pre-agricultrual humans did.
One thing for sure, we have the ability to make choices. We can educate our kids so that they understand that killing that last large mammals (or all the beneficial microscopic bacteria on our skin) is harmful to us. We can buy piles of poorly made crap that we don't need or we can choose the most useful and durable goods. We have the ability to limit our population. etc. etc... There are SO many choices we can make that would move us in the right direction. Our brains are big enough to allow us to do that. I don't see it as useful to succumb to the notion (as plausible as it may sound) that it is just in our nature to ruin things.
The bottom line is that if we don't limit our numbers, nature will. Whenever a species exceeds carrying capacity, rapid die off occurs. That's a basic premise of population biology and it applies to all species. Nature will resolve all of our problems if we don't use our big brains and some logic to solve them ourselves. There's no reason we can't do that.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
www.headstonesband.com
I also disagree with saving a species when their possible extinction is a result of natural occurrences. they will become extinct for a reason. we need to stop fucking with the natural order, unless of course it would drastically effect our own survival.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
In fact, the more I think about it... the more we show an inherent tendency to bond together and oppose at the same time: countries, states, religion, unions, school pride... the list goes forever- hell we even organize on this forum: pro DP/anti DP... Vs/10... etc.
We are complex animals, yet simple too. I do think that if we left the Earth, another species would take over as the most destructive species- we just happen to be holding the title for this stanza in eternity.