No Beasts, No Cry

The Kenyan government burned 100 tons of seized elephant ivory. Meanwhile in France, the environment minister outlawed the trade of any ivory object younger than 1947.

We hear from animal activists everywhere that animals should not be hurt anymore. Then they hop on a plane, and produce lots of biosphere killing CO2. How do we teach those fools that biocide is a greater crime than the suffering of a particular organism?

So let’s push the logic of the whiners to extremes. Say that, on January 1, 2017, the trade or exploitation of all and any animal part is forbidden. How much good would that do?

Africans, For Some Reason, Prefer To Enjoy Life Rather Than To Feed The Beasts. Because Villagers In Niger Were Gulped Down At An Unsustainable Rate, The Army, Well Trained By Hunting Jihadists, Was Called In.

Africans, For Some Reason, Prefer To Enjoy Life Rather Than To Feed The Beasts. Because Villagers In Niger Were Gulped Down At An Unsustainable Rate, The Army, Well Trained By Hunting Jihadists, Was Called In.

What will happen? OK, a few hundreds of millions of people would die relatively soon from malnutrition. But let’s neglect this inconvenient truth. Anti-speciesists tell us that humans are no more worthy than insects.

What would happen to the animals? Well, they would have no more economic utility. They would also present some inconvenience: forget swimming in rivers full of giant lampreys, crocodiles, or seas full of sharks and sea-going crocodiles.

Africans kill wild beasts, because wild beasts are dangerous. I have seen villagers kill venomous snakes. Even In India, land of the beasts, villagers can get tired, when a single leopard kills more than 200 people. Such attacks still happen. Elephants too can be dangerous. Videos are out there, where an elephant will attack and gore, and throw in the air, and then again and again, and finally tramples… a calf.

Still, right now, national parks are reasonably safe. I have come across large ferocious beasts in my life such as various bears (several of them threatening), lions, leopards, boars, etc. They all fled in the end, except for a charging cow which nearly got me, and a wild horse which kicked me (don’t ask).

But ferocious beasts dominate their natural ferocity and inclination to destruction, mostly because large ferocious animals are wise, clever, and completely aware of the power and cruelty of Homo. And were taught that way by their parents and fellow ferocious beasts.

If one removed that psychological factor, things would change. Ferocious beasts would start to see Homo as dinner, or an irritation.

Respecting other animals, and conceding the planet to them would make our lives very uncomfortable. Vegetarians from India may object. However, last I checked there were only a few thousands tigers there, and less than 300 (Indian) lions. 300,000 years ago, lions were the most frequent large animal (because they ate anything, from rabbits to elephants: the European and American lions were significantly larger than present African lions).

It has been suggested that Homo was prevented to penetrate the Americas, for millions of years, by Arctodus Simus, the Short Faced bear, a huge, nightmarish carnivore. Arctodus was extremely carnivorous, extremely fast (70 km/h). Only advanced weapons, 12,000 years ago, were able to master the beast… into extinction.

So are we willing to have ferocious animals around, just to look at them, and fear, and flee, for our lives, which, should we turn pacific, would become short and brutish?

I think not.

To preserve the animal kingdom, it has to manage, and even economically exploited. I am for the reintroduction of (genetically re-engineered) lions, rhinoceroses and mammoths in Europe, grizzlies in California, jaguars in Arizona (there is at least one, eating immigrants, probably). However, the animals will have to be managed. So they have to pay for their own maintenance.

One can persuade Africans to tolerate elephants, if they bring enough cash to tolerate all the problems they do, and will, cause.

On the coast of New England, in some places, thousands of seals bask in the sun. Sharks, great white sharks, will follow. Then what? Will the secret service swim around the president if he dared to stop golfing, and took a dip in the sea?

That animals had formidable rights, long neglected, was a music to the Nazis’ ears. It is actually hilariously terrifying to read the 1933 law on animal protection signed by Adolf Hitler, November 24, 1933.

That animals need more rights is fine. However anti-speciesism is a delicate concept: a mosquito is not as sentient as a parrot. Nor is a sheep as sentient as a wolf. (And certainly a Nazi should not be viewed as being as sentient as those children it is sending to the oven!)

The Nazis (deliberately) pursued their inhuman agenda by hiding it with their loud obsession for animal welfare. Some variants of present day anti-speciesism often embraces, or even go further, than the Nazis did.

I am, of course, a human supremacist. I entertain no illusion on the goodness of animals as somehow superior to that of Homo.

Once I was on narrow mountain path, on the very steep flank of a mile high mountain, in a French national park. There were sheep around. The sort that shepherds release for summer. Big, fluffy, white wholesome wooly live sheep skins. The largest of them all, it seems, a stupendously enormous beast was spying on me with its beady eyes on the path. I stopped, wondering what could such a stupid beast think about. We looked at each other, the super predator, and the . Finally the living comforter appeared to have taken a decision, and I marvelled at the fact it could take one. It aimed straight, and tried to push the super predator off trail. I did not quite fall.

Animals, in the wild, are very smart. Homo can outsmart them, but it takes some concentration. Animals, out there, eat and kill each other, for many reasons. Once I was in a Senegalese national park, on top of a cliff. In the broad river, below, 200 crocodiles were basking in the sun. An hyppotrague (an antelope like bovid, large, powerful and ferocious), to escape an enormous lioness, charged across the Gambia where it was narrow. The lioness followed: damn the crocodiles! Both prey and predator took a calculated risk, because they knew how to take decisions, in seconds, and fiercely. (Yes, I swam in that river.)

The call of the wild is not the call of madness. It is the call of the mind, embracing the universe.

All what the call of harming no animal brings, is the disappearance of species. Many species survived only because they were useful. Even cattle, if not used, tends to disappear: see the case of the formidable Aurochs, and present day Gaur.

If an industry of cutting systematically the horns of rhinoceroses, and selling them, for cash, had been set-up, long ago, no rhinoceros species would have disappeared. And no harm would have been made to the rhinos (they like humans to scratch their backs, if they have determined them to be friendly).

The extermination of species is a higher form of immorality than the persecution of individual animals. To see this, one has to go at the root of morality, which is sustainability: a behavior is moral, if it is sustainable. Biocide, killing the biosphere, is as unsustainable as it can get. Homo has evolved into, and with, and managed, the biosphere, for millions of years. To declare that we will not manage the animals anymore is a dereliction, not just of duty, but of evolution itself.

The day wool and leg of lamb will not be needed at all, sheep will disappear. Philosophers will not be charged by sheep in the wild anymore. Much mental stimulation will be lost.

If we want to honor and love the animals and their species, the wealth of the biosphere our species evolved in, we have to accept all they can offer to us. Yes, including ivory. Grow up.

No beasts, no cry. Yes, there is suffering, so what? The day crying will be lost, much soul will be gone.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

16 Responses to “No Beasts, No Cry”

  1. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    Agree with you, but people are linear in their thinking and nature is cyclical and reciprocal in its functions.

    Slightly off topic, but thought you would like this;

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks. If there is a lesson of modern physics, it’s that, the big picture is not linear, nor cyclical.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      thanks for that link, very interesting, I have a ready answer, contradictory and long deployed… I may write an essay on this…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The mind is built from experiences. And it’s real. It may not fit, but it’s real.

      • brodix Says:

        What I found most interesting was the observation about how multiple minds function as one. We really are a swarm intelligence, with all its advantages and disadvantages.
        I think the math is much simpler though. As I keep pointing out, when we add things together, the result is something bigger. So that 1+1=2 is really adding 2 sets of 1=1 set of 2.
        If we actually add the apples together, we get apple sauce.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I did not read the article. Yet. But the brain is made of many quasi, or completely independent subsystems. Still it functions as one mind. One from many is not just about consciousness, whether collective or not.

  2. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    Brodix: people are simplistic in their nature. There was no cyclicity (cyclicality?) in Auschwitz or nukes. Humanity is not linear.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Humanity is a force which goes.

    • brodix Says:

      Brunet,

      Cyclical happens. We are just particles in the cycles.

      Politics is a bit like plate tectonics. There are these sections sliding around each other and occasionally over top of one another, with earthquakes and volcanos occurring. Think of Israel as the volcano from which the heat of the Holocaust boils to the surface.

      There is a fracture zone between East and West that runs from the Caucasus to Africa and many smaller fault lines spreading out from it.

  3. dominique deux Says:

    The very idea of having hornless rhinos (or cockless tigers, as well) walking around looking silly and feeling despondent, just because hordes of primitive imbeciles, unfortunately awash with cash, actually “think” that wearing a rhino horn dagger hilt, drinking rhino horn tea, or swilling tiger cock soup, will make their own puny noodle dicks potent enough to impregnate the women their cash enabled them to purchase on the open market – the very idea is hideous.

    I say, kill the animals, if need be; but taking away their dignity is a blow to one and all’s environment. Rather castrate the above-mentioned primitive imbeciles and do away with the problem; or educate them, if feasible, which I absolutely dispute.

    Giving local communities a mandate of stewardship – rather than pure ownership – over local predator and pest populations, with the understanding they’re free to milk them for cash – from catering to tourists to selling teeth, hides and whatever – as long as they don’t erode the[ir] resource, is the only rational and ethical way out. Of course, since we don’t live in an Ayn Rand wet dream of invisible hands tickling her silly, this would still require extensive regulation and enforcement thereof. And that way, bolstering one’s virile powers with powdered keratin would stay where it must – in palatial mansions, where our masters retain the financial means to purchase the silly stuff.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hornless rhino are just gentlemen with a clipped moustache. One recoils at the evocation of cockless tigers.
      Feeding (WILD!) rhinos is done in more than one national park. It works well. They tolerate guards a few seconds of charging away. Adults rhinos, like adult elephants, can be tamed from the wild!
      You say:
      Giving local communities a mandate of stewardship – rather than pure ownership – over local predator and pest populations, with the understanding they’re free to milk them for cash – from catering to tourists to selling teeth, hides and whatever – as long as they don’t erode the[ir] resource, is the only rational and ethical way out.

      This is exactly what I advocate. Same for turtle soup, as Gmax said (details later, got to address other matters at this point!

  4. Gmax Says:

    Dominique: please come down your high horse, horn less rhinos are still mighty. The point Patrice is making is that one should sell their horns. Bemoaning imbeciles in Yemen or China is besides the point, as they exist, and the point is to insure the survival of species. Finding species economic utility is how to do it. Patrice gave the example of turtle soup years ago.

    • dominique deux Says:

      At least please provide the “clipped mustache gentlemen” with a credible prosthesis. One that works fine in wooing ladies and ejecting rivals. It is feasible and was considered for elephants as well.

      It is not only a matter of animal dignity, a notion Patrice certainly does not disapprove of (in social animals, hierarchy rests on a scale of different levels of self-esteem, from the alpha to the outcast).

      It is a very practical one: when thusly equipped rhinos are commonplace enough that poachers simply cannot tell if their quarry is worth the cartridge and the risk, poaching will cease to be an economical proposition. So the prostheses should look perfectly like the real things. Fitting them with radio beacons would help in hunting down the gentlemen with ammo clips, and identifying the “good” catches for the “good” guys.

      The whole point of Patrice’s blog, it seems to me, is the provision and defense of selected high horses to sit proud upon, as a means to achieve long range vision and righteous anger. I’ll ride mine with a clear conscience.

      • Gmax Says:

        Species survival is a must. Dignity should not even be a consideration. John Wayne used to sit proud on a big horsie too. But now some of his utterances are viewed as condescending racism.

        So be careful which horse you sit on. Mixing dignity and survival reminds me of John Wayne. He smoked himself to death, proudly

      • picard578 Says:

        Elephants seem to be evolving to losing their tusks because of ivory trade. So if they don’t care about losing their dignity, why should you? That being said, artificial horns do not seem a bad idea. But how long until poachers start to realize that horns are artificial? Maybe they should be made out of blue plastic or metal, so that fact itself is obvious and one doesn’t have to kill a rhino to realize it.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          In places where people really want to save the rhinos, horns are cut. Rhinos can still defend themselves. Actually, they often attack: rhinos seem to particularly dislike buffaloes (or, rather, individual buffaloes).
          The mismanagement of the rhino problem is particularly glaring.
          All I am saying is that selling the cut horns could help pay for the management of rhinos. Governments should put the WWF in charge of the transactions with fierce rhino dagger wearing Arabs…

          Worrying about the dignity of those who are getting killed is an inversion of values. True, one may want to die, rather to lose one’s dignity. But one cannot take that decision on someone’s else behalf. Indeed.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: