Posts Tagged ‘Hunting’

Let Greed Save The Elephants

November 19, 2017

SAVE SPECIES With “NEOLIBERAL” Derangement ECONOMY

Only by making species economically valuable can they be saved. In the present psycho-economic order of the world. Sad, but that’s it:

Trump enabled the return of “trophies” from hunts conducted in two African countries. In some of these countries, the permit to assassinate a bull elephant can cost as much as $50,000, not far from the US yearly family income. Trump’s sons enjoy assassinating large animals, taking picture of their deed, then have some African servants obsequiously cut parts of their victims, and bring back said gory body parts to impress their friends and their plutocratic ilk, on how manly and sadistic they are.

The Politically Correct crowd has retorted with its predictably hypocritical chorus that Trump was killing the elephants. In recent years, under the obscure leadership of the hypocrite in chief, “leading” from behind, it had become fashionable to burn mountains of African elephant tusks. According to the PC crowd, that supposedly would make illicit trade in ivory less profitable.

We kill magnificent animals, thus demonstrating to us that we are magnificent people. Real men, as long as many African servants serve us in our killing rampage!

The activity of burning trophies pretends to use economics to fight illegal behavior, yet it obviously contradicts the basic law of greed doing so. Consider the “Savior of the World” painting of Leonardo da Vinci (and his students) sold for 450 million dollars. Why so dear? Because the artist plus physicist, anatomist, and close friend of Francois I made only 16 paintings: rarity confers worth. If one really wanted to lower the price of elephant tusks, to make their trade unprofitable, one should flood the market with them, not burn them. (There are innovative ways to do that, innocuous for the species, for example by half cutting wild elephants’ tusks; the same has started to be applied to rhinoceroses, by cutting their horns; the horn SHOULD then be sold, be it only to pay for the operation.)

I don’t hunt live prey (only ideas, dead or alive). I think that, as practiced with modern weapons, hunting is unfair and exhibits such an alienating and cruel relationship with the world that it is somewhat demented, considering the present circumstances, when the biosphere is dying. It’s a bit like kicking around a terminally ill patient. I have used force against dangerous animals only in self-defense, or to give them a life-saving lesson, and that involved stones, the truly time-honored weapon of the genus Homo (I have been attacked by bears more than once, but bears hate stones; giving lessons to potentially lethal snakes may sound silly, but it works, they are smart enough to flee in a timely manner, upon next encounter; those who didn’t learn fast enough, got the chop).   

Elephant numbers are sharply declining, officially due to poaching and a reduction in their territory. However, in places in Africa, to this day, children have to go to school in fear of being trampled by a wild elephant (the good news is that recently two white trophy hunters got crushed by elephants exacting revenge, and one of them slowly). Farmers, in Africa and India, rightly fear the irascible and highly intelligent pachyderms. Considering the danger and economic hardship, it is clear that elephants pay for much more than their upkeep. Selling their tusks, feet and tails is the price to pay to keep the species around.

The PC crowd, per its simple nature, may howl to the wind, reading this. Indeed, it’s unfair to have just Africans protect the megafauna, or harbor on the continent some of the greatest CO2 sinks (like primary forests, peat and muds). So why don’t we reintroduce in Europe and America wild herds of thousands of elephants. They used to be there. We may even be able to modify their genes to make them more like those who used to roam the temperate zone.

We live in the so-called “neoliberal” economic order. Said order is overstretched to areas, such as health, where it should clearly not apply (the whole idea of Obamacare was to make profitable for private insurers and wealthy “non-profits” to insure everybody). Weirdly, though, some of the PC crowd doesn’t push to apply neoliberalism where it could help people: an example is housing. Not enough decent housing is built. And the reason is not Trump and his ilk (they would be delighted to build), but the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) syndrome.

Biodiversity won’t survive, if it’s not profitable. Same for CO2 emissions: to be abated, they have to be made unprofitable.

In a society where greed is the ultimate motivation, the so-called “neoliberal” order, survival itself has to be made profitable, in a way greedsters can see, or extinction is our future.  

Lofty sentence, but what does it mean? It means that species threatened with extinction should be made profitable. For example the Siberian tiger could be installed in vast preserve where it would be allowed to multiply, and then hunted (photographically or with paleolithic bow and arrows say, to make it glorious). For example, the Amur leopard could be introduced in the Yukon, and applied the same treatment. One could do this on a large-scale, because there used to be megafauna everywhere, and it survives in large,numbers only in pockets of Africa (and even fewer in Asia).

Actually several species of European megafauna were saved just that way, in preserves where they had been kept for the enjoyment of the plutocrats. An obvious tactic is to establish total marine reserves (no fishing whatsoever), and then allow tourist to visit them (that’s already done on a small-scale; such reserve repopulate areas where fishing is allowed, so they have proven popular with fishermen).

The COP 23, the UN climate conference, was a total failure: nothing was decided. A vague consensus arose that the planet is cruising towards a three degrees Celsius rise. Here, there and everywhere the terminal failure of what used to be called “the left”, is glaring: it’s sinking in contradictions, many of them arising from the intrinsic corrupt nature of the “representative” system. This is also true in the media. Not just the plutocratically owned media. Intrinsically, when too few have power, they exert it “unwisely”. Because what evolution knows that wisdom itself, in immoderate amounts, is unwise.

Judokas learn to use their adversary’s momentum to get them where they want them to be. With the political system we have, worldwide (it’s roughly the same everywhere), it’s important to remember this. The Trump sons are keen to show they can kill big animals. That put them in a lesser circle of hell, than those who want all large animals to disappear. Or even those who don’t mind that all large animals disappear, and only Africans can still be eaten by leopards, trampled by elephants.

Those who are concerned are often superior, morally and effectively, to those who don’t want to watch, or know. Even when their solutions look mean. Especially if their solutions look mean. This applies directly to the immigrant crisis, by the way: the PC crowd howled for decolonization, but most of what this “decolonization” did was to put the power of exploiting less developed countries in the now unrestrained hands of plutocrats.  PC has turned out to also be the abbreviation for Perfectly Cretinous, of course… And the seven million democrats in the four “blue” states of the “Blue” Wall who voted for Obama in 2012, and for Trump in 2016, giving him the presidency, figured that one out.

The case of Bernard Henri Levy (“BHL”) is the paradigm that way. BHL’s rather shallow philosophy hides well the usual Pluto tricks (government support or complicity being number one). Although physically courageous, BHL is a billionaire with a wealth not far from Trump’s, who cynically used his influence on a corrupt French leadership to get enormous amounts of money then leveraged by destroying African forests in a torrid exploitation of both Africans, their forests, and “decolonization”. All right, that has allowed him to refurbish one of the largest palaces in Morocco (once owned by US plutocrat Paul Getty).

Readers may not see the connection with the young Trumps’ penchant for assassinating noble animals. The common thread is the hypocrisy of the PC crowd: to give itself good conscience, it decries the obvious (bad Trumps assassinate animals, go around flaunting the remnants of their deeds), BHL’s philosophy stinks, but it does not try to deepen what is really going on, and, thus, how to get out of it.

Hypocrisy was initially a Greek word and concept for playing a part, pretending, from (hupo, under, and krinein, to judge, decide). Hypocrisy, in general, is the under-critique of the real, is what lays under the incapability of solving the problems which are gathering as the ultimate tsunami, in full view.

Disappearing species is one the problems. Let the PC crowd foster sharing the planet with the fauna, mega, or not. And if that means spending lots of money to kill species sustainably, it’s better than the alternative, namely, no more species.

We can’t always get what we want,

As we want.

But if we try sometimes,

We may get what we need,

Through less savory means,

Paid with pride, prejudice, lots of imagination.

To save our souls, we shouldn’t hesitate to twist our minds

When nothing else will do. 

So let the small minded cretins hunt, and boast of their malevolence, if it is is what it takes to save the biosphere.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

The rights and wrongs of hunting!

January 10, 2017

The Great Spirit Was A Hunter, And Will Always Be A Hunter. Hunting For Ideas, Is Not Just A Metaphor, Not Just Our Fate, But The Only Way To Have A Superior Mind.

Once, well above timber-line, with the sun low on the horizon, an antelope came my way, running passed me. I was running the other way, and the quadruped rushed, close enough to touch. As I turned the corner, a couple of seconds later, full of wonder, I found myself face to face with an enormous wolf charging my way. We looked at each other, not even three meters away… I will always remember that moment. The intelligence obvious in the yellow eyes of the wolf brought to my mind the look of a primate, not just a canid. It was a late evening in late spring, when days are very long. I could read the majestic creature’s quasi-human surprise:’What is a human doing here at this time of the day?’

Hunting had made his kind smart over the eons. He could have dispatched me to another world in seconds, but he knew what humans were. We recognized each others’ supreme intelligence, an identity of spirits. Two hunters on top of the world. He went his way, I went mine, both owners of the universe, and having recognized the other as such.

The essay reproduced below was penned by a baby philosopher, and tends to philosophy by enumeration, an honorable method, reminiscent of FOX News’ approach to debate. With a silly (anti-hunting) bias not so well hidden. However I agree with it in some ways, with what the author wrote, about the so-called “confirmation bias”. Let me explain by considering the conclusion of the author:
“If your interlocutor objects to hunting, try to discover the basis for their objection. And I believe you should keep nature out of it.

Finally, try to argue with someone who takes a fundamentally different view. Confirmation bias – the unintentional act of confirming the beliefs we already have – is hard to overcome. The only antidote I know of is rational discourse with people whose confirmation bias runs contrary to my own.”

I agree with the method proposed to deal with “confirmation bias” (= “intellectual fascism”, “group think”). However, the sentence “I believe you should keep nature out of it”, is downright silly. The author is part of nature, should he keep himself “out of it”? Whatever “out” is?

I am both for and against hunting. It all depends upon who is hunting what, when, how, why? Hunting with stones, or arrows is one thing, wolves hunting their prey, another. To want wolves living somewhere free, but wolves who are not hunting, but devouring protein pills, would be akin to wanting the biosphere, albeit, without biology.

Let’s not forget civilization was founded by the genus Homo, fundamentally a hunting species, the greatest hunting genus of all times. Hunting is especially the genius of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. When Homo Erectus got to Georgia, two million years ago, it survived the cold winters, because it was dressed in animal furs.

Fundamentally, hunting is about domination, and especially total domination of the better ideas. Predators tend to be smarter than prey (they tend to have bigger brains, overall: there has been a brain arm race between predator and prey, at least on land… with few exceptions, like crocodiles). Hence the mood fundamental to hunting (I am smarter than you, so I completely dominate and own you) is also the mood most conducive to civilization.

Hunting has been so central to the evolution of our genus that to be rabidly against it, is to be rabidly against humanity, and even worse against the idea that there are better ideas which can own and dominate.

The central idea is that nature needs hunting and nature is about hunting. Even human nature is about hunting and contemplating hunting means contemplating nature.

Overall, one has to dominate the debate. The crux we presently face, is the preservation of the biosphere. Genuine hunters want this, so that they can hunt. Actually many species were saved by hunters who had established preserves for them. So genuine preservationists want to preserve the biosphere. So they should cooperate.

Hunting teaches a meta-morality about the animal conditions which pre-Neolithic people understood very well: hunting was part of the digestion of the Great Spirit, so to speak. Hunting was a process consubstantial with the universe itself. This viewpoint, no doubt held for millions of years, is entirely correct.

By contrast, denying that hunting is central to the universe is in not just unreal, it violates the very idea of having a spirit. Wanting to protect the universe from hunting is to try to build a god that would be like a dog, something mastered, with no supremacy of its own, but for blind love.

Maybe we should grow up instead, and join the Great Spirit, in its full spirit? If we want the better spirit, we cannot just be prisoners of love. What we need, instead, to save the biosphere, is the greatest spirit. We won’t save the spirit if our only guide is to spare the pain. Quite the opposite.

Learning from Dogs

The philosophy of hunting in terms of it being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Anyone who comes here for more than a couple of visits will know that both Jean and I are opposed to hunting completely. Period!

That’s not surprising as there have been a number of posts over the years describing how we feed the wild deer. Here’s three more photographs that haven’t previously been shared with you.

p1140238oooo

p1160189oooo

p1150179But, of course, the opinions of Jean and me are not, and should not be, the rule for the wider population of this part of Oregon.

All I would ask is that there is a proper, mature discussion as to the pros and cons of hunting wild animals in this, the twenty-first century.

All of which leads me to a recent essay posted on The Conversation site and republished here within the terms of that site.

ooOOoo

Is hunting moral?…

View original post 1,373 more words

Why KILLING BEAUTY Makes SENSE

August 1, 2015

The Dark Side of humanity makes sense. As long as this terrible truth is covered up, it will fester, promoting the deepest infections, as it does. The Dark is not just obscure, vicious, cruel: ignoring it prevents the Enlightenment to proceed further.

Thanks to taxpayer money, a giant Ariane V rocket launched the Rosetta Mission to a comet, more than ten years ago. In France plutocrats pay taxes at several times the rate of the (lightly taxed plutocrats of the) USA. Taxes make a mission such as Rosetta and its lander Philae, possible (French experiments are also at the core of the present and future NASA Mars landers).

Science feeds the Enlightenment, with hard facts, so does history. History, inasmuch as the part of it consisting of hard facts, is part of science, and also feeds the Enlightenment.

Hunting, torturing & killing Give Many Of Us Meaning

Hunting, torturing & killing Give Many Of Us Meaning

[Assyrian Lion Experiencing Severe Technical Difficulties, 27 Centuries Ago.]

Now the lander Philae, busy in a hole somewhere on the complicated ground of the comet, where it gets sun occasionally, feeding its batteries, has found complex organic materials on the surface. Such complex compounds eventually turned into living organisms here on Earth. Philae found that they must have existed in much of the early solar system. This raises new hopes of finding life beyond our planet. Indeed, several planetary bodies (Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, etc.) harbor liquid water. It seems that Europa’s ocean is more massive than Earth’s. Ganymede’s ocean seems to be most of the Solar System’s water (with a depth of 800 kms). The recent discovery of fishes (!) 850 kilometers from the open sea (and the sun!) under an Antarctica iceshelf, below the freezing point of sweet water, indicates that Earth’s life could be adapted to Jupiter’s satellites.

After philosophers on some obscure site, censored me for allegedly veering off a comment presenting a story hinging on a story about stories, and a Malaysian Airlines jet debris was found at the (French) Reunion Island, having also severely veered off course, being at Reunion, 180 degrees from its original destination China, comic relief is in order.

Is amusement provided by plutocrats who shower themselves in public, to advertise that they give what’s for them pennies for research on Charcot’s disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis)? Is it funny that plutocrats believe we are so dumb that clowning around will enable them to disguise themselves into the innocuous clowns whom they are the exact opposite of? Who wants to heavily tax innocuous clowns? Bill Gates and Mr. Z from Facebook correctly believe no one will. So they monkey around, hoping we will do the same. It deeply evil to depict the Gates of Hell as fun and games.

What we need to do with plutocrats is to eliminate them all together, with harrowing taxation. Until they succumb, and disappear as a species. Then research in ALS, biology and medicine, could be funded appropriately. Only then. Moreover, we will also have enough money to send missions searching for life to Europa and Enceladus (the technology exists: a probe flying through an Enceladus geyser, or the attending ring, would find proof of life readily). With a tiny part of the money we will have left, we can go watch real circuses.

Giant money makes for one gigantically nasty world. Big money is simply insufferable.

Money is power, power on other people, giant money is giant power on other people. Giant power on other people is intrinsically inhuman (it’s not anticipated by ten million years of evolving human ethology).

Giant power by people on other people is intrinsically diabolical. Diabolical, in the divine sense. Giant power on other people, such as Bill Gates imposing on us his pseudo-clownish behavior, provides the Dark Side with an aspect which evolution itself did not anticipate, so that there is a super-stitious character to it: something which stands above reality, as anticipated by evolution, since before there was T-Rex, and it tore its prey in half.

The Dark Side reaches all over. Including “care”.

Big money brought us Obamacare. Obamacare was going to be the way the “free” market buys and sells us to perfect health care, through “consumers’ choices”. Obamacare was enthusiastically promoted by the likes of Paul Krugman. In the latest news, health care in the USA became 5.5% more expensive in 2014 (whereas incomes did not perk up). Obamacare was not what it seemed. Lies everywhere, not just to manipulate power, but as the fluttering flags, representing the rule of that power, for all to see.

***

I KILL, THEREFORE I AM:

So this rich American dentist went to Africa, offered the natives $50,000, and killed the most famous lion in the local national park. Excuse me, we are Americans, and we believe in drone philosophy: we kill whoever, whatever we want, because we can. Anything can be bought, remember? Just as Bill Gates and Facebook’s Mr. Z keep their taxes low, by taking showers in public.  All over, things are not what they look.

So why did this dentist kill this beautiful lion? Some claim it’s senseless. Senseless makes for a good insult, because it’s polite enough. However, “senseless” is a non sequitur. If one really wants to penetrate the mind of one’s opponent, and his error, one has to find in which sense, he makes sense (to his, or her, self).

It makes no sense to claim there is no sense to what so many people (hunters, warriors, plutocrats) feel makes sense. Figuring out how it makes sense, to them, far from being senseless, aggravates their case. Because it allows us to condemn, not just their acts, but also the systems of thought, moods, and minds, which brought these errors.

The lion was killed because it was beautiful and powerful. And not just that. Cecil the Lion was tortured, so that his power would be debased, over many hours. Shot first with a powerful modern bow, the lion was tracked down for 40 hours, and one can imagine Walter the dentist drinking martinis, chuckling on the lion’s suffering. Because Walter the dentist kills animals, has killed many animals, with bow and arrows. Not just to give animals a chance to survive, but, obviously, to give them a chance, and to give him the chance, to experience torture. Whereas a rifle shot tends to be very incapacitating, be it only from blood loss, old Assyrian, or Persian iconography represents lions full of arrows, and still fierce (see above). In the Wild West white men found themselves so full of arrows they looked like porcupines, and still, they were not dead. That brought more respect to Native Americans. (Although a modern bow can launch an arrow with some much force that it can go through a Polar Bear harassed by dogs, killing it in three seconds… This situation does not apply to a lion, which is much faster and limber, hence a poor target.)

A major motivation for human beings is to kill, maim, torture, oppress and subjugate. Forgetting that major fact, is forgetting human nature. Gates and Facebook’s Mr. Z have that major motivation, nearly all plutocrats have it, and, when he feeds us with lies about Obamacare, Paul Krugman has it, in his own meek, but highly influential way.

A few days ago, I surprised a lynx in the Alps (I know when and where to look for predators). I was very surprised by its color (reddish), and its enormous size. It fled for his life (we were only 3 meters apart). He was really fast, in the forest full of trees, with trunks of all sizes close to each other… And in total silence (differently from any other animal that size). Here I was, putting to flight an animal capable of slashing open the throat of a red deer, three times my weight, and with giant antlers.

Lynxes are known not to attack humans, even when their cubs are approached.

***

TERRORISM FOSTERED HUMANITY:

Human beings evolved because not only they could hunt, and eat meat, but because they could terrorize their main opponents, the wild, ferocious predators. Torturing them helped. Bushmen, in South Africa could hunt a large animal, such as a giraffe, with poisoned arrows, chasing it down, once wounded, over an entire week.

Thus, torturing and killing are deep components of the human mind. They were key to survival. I have walked towards a lion pride resting below a tree, in Africa, as a child. Slowly. Just as slowly, the lionesses rose, and walked away. The king and queens of the jungle know well, most of the time, that human beings are like gods: they are better left alone, their parents taught them that, early on.

Now that we know this, that large predators can be instilled respect for human beings, we can take it into account, and reintroduce megafauna. Exerting surveillance for the most dangerous cases.

That lion killing dentist is a coward. Not a real player. Assassinating wildlife with over-powerful weapons  is not getting reacquainted with the human condition. Were it the latter, he would accept not just to hunt, but to be hunted. Let him approach lions with bare hands (I did this more than once, as a child, in the wild). Instead of armed with a hyper-powerful bow with a laser range finder. Hunting the cowardly dentist ought to help him get in touch with full human ethology. So those condemning him all over the Internet are helping him become a real man.

Paying $50,000 to kill a well-known, half-tamed lion equipped with GPS, is not a way to exhibit respect for the biosphere. Yet, one should not forget that wild mega fauna will not survive if it is NOT worth the cost it inflicts, in physical damage and terror.

Lions (and other ferocious beasts: panthers, elephants, hippos, buffaloes, warthogs, etc.) are dangerous, and, themselves exert terror deliberately (when they do not outright kill people). When I lived in Africa, the natives feared and wanted to get rid of leopards (once in India, a particular leopard killed more than 200 people). Equipping leopards with GPS hooked to computers and security is the future. Clearly such systems (already used in Alberta, Canada, with grizzlies) are expensive in equipment and trained rangers.

As such an activity provides with the basics of hunting, just as fishing and releasing fish, it can satisfy the Dark Side, and make it serve the goodness of a preserved biosphere. But not just this. Exploiting animals is all right, if it allows them to survive as species, and ecosystems.

For dangerous predators, and other ferocious beasts to survive, they have to provide people with some other things dearer to them than life itself. That is why it was a mistake to destroy (as was just done in New York), tons of elephant ivory. Elephants ought to be harvested for ivory: then they will survive, because they will have economic utility (hence pay for their upkeep… in the wild). Same for rhinos: cut their horns, and sell them, under a government mandated program.

Otherwise, keep on contemplating the most massive genocide in 65 million years.

Morality’s essence? Morality is what worked before, in a sustainable fashion. But, as the world quickly mutates, what worked before cannot work any longer. Let’s adapt our morality. Don’t deny that the Dark Side existed. Don’t pretend that the Dark Side can be made to disappear by wishful thinking alone. Instead, ask what the Dark Side can do for us… that nothing else can replace. (To help focus here, contemplate the young dictator of North Korea, who, not only let his family members be eaten by dogs, but has threatened the USA with nuclear strikes, while working feverishly to make that possible, in spite of UN sanctions.)

***

HARVEST & HARNESS THE DARK SIDE IF ENLIGHTENMENT YOU SEARCH:

Some will whine that this harnessing of the Dark Side is precisely what the “Free Market Theory“, all too often simply a disguise for blossoming plutocracy, claimed one ought to do, while bankers and plutophiles called it the “Invisible Hand“. However, not so. Plutocracy is a mix of the Dark Side, and the generalized fascism which civilization enables, with the potential of concentrating enormous power in a few hands. It is an enemy of intelligence, as it reduces many minds to just one, or a few.

Thus plutocracy is my enemy, and I put some effort in fighting it, because my Dark Side wants to devour it. Revolutions occur when enough denizens of We The People, want to destroy the plutocrats who rule over them.

Contrarily to what the ill-fated John Lennon hypocritically recommended, Revolutions are good, precisely because they destroy those super-predators known as plutocrats, aristocrats, theocrats, pirates, nobles, mandarins, generals, ayatollahs, bishops and the organizations which foster them, when their rule has become an insufferable imposition of their power, or those they serve.

Mao in 1959, in a secret report, revealed much later: it’s better to let half the population die, so that they other half gets plenty. The Dark Side, fully abominable. However this “Great Leap Forward” worked, as Mao had predicted it. Mao had said that great efforts then would bring “a thousand years of happiness“. And the most troubling part is that Mao’s plan worked: China leaped over India, and spectacularly far out over many other countries. The cleaned slate Mao’s unleashing of the Dark Side created obviously helped.

Just like more usage of the Dark Side helps keep the USA on the straighter and narrower, relative to more placid Europe.

Yet, it’s not just justice, and goodness which judge what is insufferable, but, also, the Dark Side itself. And there is more. Voltaire said that we ought to crush infamy. Yet it’s ultimately anger, which gets us into action, which makes us move, which provides with. Thus, the Dark Side judges, and also motivates.

We are mental landscapes of contrast, we need the Dark, be it just to define the Light. Fighting for the latter, means recognizing the former. Our beautiful species can thrive, as long as it respects the laws, be they only the laws of physics (that is not the case now, with multiple attacks we are visiting on the biosphere). To remind us of that, anything goes. And that cruelty, is a good thing, relative to the alternative.

So hunt lions. But only bad lions. Only with the worst predators can destroyed using all and any means the Dark Side puts at our command. The Dark Side, the useful and friendly Dark Side, feels that better case can be made for the survival of the smallpox virus, than for the blossoming of plutocracy. And stands ready to provide us with the strength we need.

And what about the deliberate killing of beauty, in all this? To overcome beauty is an exciting, and rather amusing challenge, for the Dark Side. If one can learn to enjoy killing beauty, one’s Dark Side is ready to take out much more than that. Its power grows. The more beautiful the lion, the more tempting to kill it, the more instructive, for those who cultivate the parts of the brain most keen, and apt, to handle adversity.

The Dark Side is strong and all-devouring. Beauty, just an appetizer. As Rabelais put it in 1534, in Gargantua (chap.5, line 108): “L’appétit vient en mangeant.”

Patrice Ayme’