Posts Tagged ‘Paul Handover’

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

If there’s any doubt ….

December 30, 2016

Paul Handover from the site “Learning From Dogs” penned a very well written essay around some of the issues I worry most about and we should all worry most about. After I complained I had little energy to write essays, Paul replied:”But you inspire productive outcomes in others! My latest post is entirely down to you.”

Indeed it was. Paul’s essay is reblogged below, after my own, suitably apocalyptic, introduction.

Thanks Paul for helping with this problem, a problem potentially as big as one hundred world war twos, potentially unleashed anytime. Some will scoff, but Obama just took the largest sanctions since the cold war. (Against the advice of his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, Putin said he will not retaliate; Wikileaks is saying the leaks come from the USA, some hint they come from the NSA, as Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, is listed as a foreign agent).

I will reblog your entire essay, which is much better written than I can master, as soon as I have time….
Thanks again, and happy new year for you and your readers!
Patrice

People whine a lot about World War One and World War Two. Whining is good, as long as it leads to examination of the causes of what went wrong.

World War One was pretty much started, in first order of appearance, through the will of five men, five Prussians (one of them the Kaiser, a plutocrat, eldest grandson of queen Victoria, cousin to the Tsar Nicholas II). Those men actually had planned to attack within 18 months, on December 11, 1912.

Would they have engaged on that “preventive war” without the assassination in Sarajevo, and the subsequent ultimatum of Austria-Hungary to Serbia? We don’t know (the assassinated Archiduke was a strong, albeit grouchy, advocate of peace at nearly any cost, and a close friend of the Kaiser).

However a fact is carefully ignored by history textbooks and history university professors: on June 1, 1914, the adviser of racist US president Wilson, Colonel House, proposed to the Kaiser a world government, with the UK, explicitly adverse to the “racially inferior French”.
https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/plot-against-france-1912-2013/

Little noticed by textbooks and historians is the fact that the USA, with the help of the “neutral” Netherlands, enabled the Kaiser to keep on fighting in spite of the Franco-British naval blockade (which was absolute). The Kaiser needed cotton for his high performance explosives, and it came from the US.

Conclusion? A trio of men can start a world war, if they have the power to do so: the Kaiser, the US president, and Von Moltke.

The usual conclusion of textbooks is that Europe was a powder keg ready to explode, and that’s good enough to explain what happened. It is basically a lie: Great Britain had no army, and the entire French government was on vacation in late July-early August 1914. So France and Britain were completely innocent. However, the fact remains one had built a machine which enabled a trio to assassinate world peace

The same general context was true for World War Two. through their actions, both the US and the UK rebuilt Germany as a war machine and an economic powerhouse, as a partially owned subsidiary. After the fall of Spain to the Nazis and fascists, Great Britain decided to support the French Republic in opposing Hitler by all means necessary (February 1939).

After France and Britain declared war to Hitler for his invasion of Poland, US President Roosevelt could have made the war stop early by delivering on the “guarantees” he had given France. But he did not. As a result, what should have been a short war against the Nazis, turned into a vast holocaust.

Conclusion: if one sets up a situation where things can go very wrong, given enough time, they will. The Obama administration engaged in a one trillion dollars nuclear weapons program, but did nothing to reduce the nuclear weapon threat. An obvious strategy for peace would have been to withdraw the land based ICBMs (Britain never had any. France dismantled its own; only three countries have them now, including the USA). Those are launched on warning, and are extremely dangerous.

In this, as in so many other matters, Obama has been an immense disappointment. People who want progress, should push for progressive ideas under the Trump administration. We cannot just hope that Trump will trump his critics (as he did so far). We have to push him in the right direction. The fate of humanity is at stake. And it could be gone in a flash, thanks to our previous, highly criminally derelict leaders.
Happy New Year To All!

Learning from Dogs

…. there’s no doubt!

My title and sub-title comes from commercial aviation. It’s one aspect of the safety culture that safely the millions of passengers who embark on a commercial flight each year. (IATA estimate that it will be 3.6 billion in 2016.) In other words, if the flight crew have even an inkling of an issue with the aircraft while in flight they will make an immediate decision to land.

Why I chose this title will become clearer as you read on.

The end of the Second World War so far as Europe was concerned came on May 8th, 1945. In other words: VE Day. London was not a pretty sight in 1945.

Toni Frissell’s famous image of an abandoned boy clutching a stuffed animal in the rubble of 1945 London. Toni Frissell’s famous image of an abandoned boy clutching a stuffed animal in the rubble of 1945 London. (Image taken from this website page.)

What’s the relevance of May 8th, 1945 to me?…

View original post 1,799 more words