Skip to main content

Lions and tigers and bears...

Okay, so we actually do have lions and bears in North America. As well as cougars, wolves, and a variety of other predators. Not to mention a large variety of food for those predators.

But apparently some guilt-ridden busybodies want to take African "megafauna" (i.e., very large animals, such as elephants, African lions, cheetahs, etc) and "re-wild" North America with them. You see, they feel bad that some species went extinct in North America at the end of the last Ice Age 13,000 years ago, and think that we ought to "fix" things.

There are numerous, substantial problems and errors with this idea.

1. Large predators are dangerous to human beings. Just wait until these researcher's giant kitties start eating pets and children.
2. While ice age megafauna were clearly hunted by Homo Sapiens, we don't really know if it was Homo Sapiens that was responsible for their extinction. It could well be that the giant animals were ill-suited for warmer weather and could not adapt quickly enough.
3. Even if they were made extinct by ice-age American immigrants, why is it our responsibility to try to un-do that?
4. Will an African lion be able to handle a Kansas winter? What will that lion do in response to such an environment altered from what it evolved in? Try to hide in people's homes?
5. What will the thousands of bacteria, parasites, and other carry-ons that live on/inside these imported African megafauna do to native American species?
6. Do these researchers understand clearly the impact re-introducing these species will have to all other life forms currently here? (I doubt it).

Look, 13,000 years ago a number of species died out. In the intervening 13,000 years, other animals and plants have been adapting to fill empty niches. We have very large prey (elk, moose) and pretty large predators (a mountain lion is nothing to sneeze at). Maybe they're not Flintstone's-sized critters, but who says that's what "ought" to be here?

I don't trust these ecologists any more than I trust economists, to know what the hell they're talking about and to understand the substantial ripple effects of their monkeying about.

The main error here, though, is this:

7. Who says nature is a "steady state"? Who says that a certain collection of animals is the "right one"?

That's ridiculous! Nature is constant strife, birth, death, change, and evolution. We have no reason to believe that any ecosystem lasts longer than a couple thousand years. We certainly have no reason to think that the climate in a particular land area lasts that long; and if the climate changes clearly the living creatures in that area will die or change. Look at the Sahara; only a few thousand years ago it was lush tropical forest. Then the climate changes and *poof* animals and plants have to adapt.

That is the way of life. Life in nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". The world doesn't "nurture life". There is no goddess Gaia that cares about living things. These primitive anthopomorphic concepts are obviously false - the world is a dangerous place that life manages to survive in, in spite of constant random destruction, devastation and change. Homo Sapiens is the best species yet at survival - in our short few million years we now have the tools to shape the world into a place that is safe for life.

Every living thing strives to survive; all living things by definition change their environment. Very successful life will eventually change the equillibrium in an ecosystem and other living things that are not as adaptable will suffer and perish.

That is just the way it is! When a beaver builds a dam for the benefit of the beaver, and it floods out other animals, well that's okay, that's just nature. But when human beings build a dam for the benefit of human beings, well that's evil, that's against nature, and it must be stopped!

Clearly a double-standard applies. Man is inherently evil, and everything but man is inherently good.

Unfortunately, some humans feel guilty because we are very successful life forms, and we are changing the equillibrium. They would prefer a world with no people in it, as if that world would somehow be "better", more "idyllic". Of course that's a fantasy. It's as if they believe the world would be an unchanging paradise if not for the presence of man.

Well, maybe the world WOULD be better.. without the people that believe the life of snail is more important than the life of a human being.


Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…