There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
09-29-2015, 08:52 AM( This post was last modified: 09-29-2015, 08:47 PM by peter )
(09-29-2015, 03:49 AM)Pckts Wrote: I actually agree with Varty on this one
"In the greater scheme of things Cecil’s death is not that serious. As an aging dominant male he was probably at the end of his tenure. Ustad’s incarceration is more serious because tigers in the wild are down to 3000 (some say it’s closer to 1000). Ustad, having been removed, a younger male will take his territory and new genes will be injected.
So why are so many people so incensed? I believe these “named icons” are symbols of what we as human-beings are doing to planet earth. Instinctively we know we cannot continue on this destructive path. Climate change, human population growth, hamburger culture (use of land under cattle) and burning fossil fuels are far more important than Cecil the lion or Ustad the tiger. However, we can’t get to grips with them, they are too big and they are nameless.
I recently went to the city to buy my daughter a motor car. Naively I believed that I would have the pick of several makes of electrically powered, environmentally friendly cars. I was completely mistaken. Only Toyota had a Hybrid (runs on electrics and petrol), none were available in the country and the last one had sold 4 months ago. No other brands were even contemplating bringing environmentally cars into South Africa.
Now the burning of fossil fuels is far more important than Cecil the lion or Ustad the tiger, but we do nothing! We are paralysed.
Only when the public refuse to buy petrol and diesel cars will the motor companies produce environmentally friendly cars. Only when mass media and social media and people are protesting outside the motor companies, like they did outside Palmers dental practice, will the motor companies change. It’s never going to happen!
So we are like the frog happy in the warm water, gradually moving to boiling point.
In the political and financial magazines of the world, the people we admire most are the rich people. Forbes magazine is always listing the richest people in the world, the richest people in the USA. (I look for my name but it always seems to be missing). Therefore monetary wealth is the yardstick.
Countries too are listed. The wealthiest countries spend the most on the military. It seems a country that’s wealthy needs to spend an awful lot on protecting that wealth and protecting their supply of oil .
Have you ever seen a list of the most environmentally friendly countries, the least polluted countries and the cruelest free country and the most spiritual country. If so, please send it to me.
Have you ever seen a politician or head of state survive who puts the environment ahead of the economy? Therefore our global values are to create wealth. Not sustainable wealth, just wealth! The richer are getting richer and the poorer are getting poorer. Hardly a recipe for global peace.
Our ethics are disintegrating. We shoot male lions in enclosures where there is no chance of escape for large amounts of money (as the rand weakens, the canned lion industry will expand because it's paid in dollars).
We separate young elephants from their mothers and send them to China, the cruelest country in the world, to pay off debt.
We kill millions of sharks to satisfy the shark fin soup market which is a luxury for rich people.
We chase animals with beaters while wealthy “hunters” sit on raised deck chairs blasting away at the big, the small and the pregnant.
The list goes on and on. The laws of the countries are all written from a human perspective. Nowhere do they acknowledge the rights of animals to exist in a non cruel environment.
Except for Buddhism, none of our religions protect and acknowledge the rights of fellow species. Many of the religions in fact promote animal cruelty in their religious ceremonies.
Therefore our values don’t protect the earth and fellow species. Our laws don’t either, neither do our religions, and our leaders are in the business of gaining at much personal wealth while they are in power.
We are morally, ethically and environmentally bankrupt.
“The world is waiting
For a new direction
One based on
The laws of Nature”
Tread lightly on the Earth
JV"
He seems to change his tone on hunting or canned hunting
PC,
The other day I was visiting relatives. When I went out into the garden to enjoy the September sun, I read one of the national newspapers. I was astounded and asked the others to tell me what they thought. All agreed the paper seemed to compare to a wartime newspaper (in WWII, illegal newspapers were published over here, often at great cost for those prepared to lead the way). It was even worse, I think. Everyone is fighting everyone and everyone is dragging the other to court. This in a country where wealth is redivided more than in most other countries in the western world. War is everywhere. I mean. It's in the air.
What I see politicians paving the way for big firms. These firms try to improve with less staff. They result is tension, lots of personal and mental problems, fatigue, quite many without a job and money to participate and substance abuse all over the place. Add multitasking as a result of the modern devices (nearly everyone is heavily involved) and you have a non-society with everyone preparing for a race to the top. It starts at age 1 and stops when they can no longer compete as a result of a disease or old age. When still in the race, they fight. Invisible fights, they are. There are few rules here and there, but rules are on their way out. As a result of decades of cut-backs, a lack of staff and less and less courts and jails (not productive and too costly), those who use their own rules often get away with it, especially when a lot of research (too costly) is needed to prepare a case.
As to the question why disintegration and opposing each other has become the rule. The answer is easy. After WWII, most countries said never again. It resulted in responsable leadership in most departments. Wealth was redistributed, the great majority participated and most did ok. Those that did not were educated and supported and crime was limited. When everything had been rebuilt, the familiar old game was re-introduced by those who knew they would not be opposed any longer as a result of complacency. The message was less government and more initiative of individuals. This policy would result in a smaller deficit and more responsability at the level of both government and individuals, they said. It was realized in a few decades only and the result is a war nearly everywhere. There have been some results, but the cost of the flipside is so high that it will a long time to repair the damage. One could say responsability, trust and solidarity are all but gone at most levels and be about right. A study is not needed to conclude that the consequences of a breakdown will be similar to those experienced before both world wars. Similar, but much more costly. Remember some countries still haven't recovered from the last war. It takes a long time.
Humans are capable of anything. We can create something of beauty, but one has to admit we do plenty ok in destruction as well. There are about 7,3 billion humans and counting. Our planet has become much smaller than a century ago. If we want to survive, we have no other option but to decide for a model that will enable us to do just that. When the decision has been made, we have to limit the population, uphold important rules and protect everything needed to survive. We have experience, meaning we know that animals walking the edge can only survive if the habitat they need is protected. All of it and all creatures living in it. In a rigorous way. This means we have to divide our planet in two zones. One for those using two legs and another for those those using more.
I don't think we will get there any time soon. Humans just don't like rules and central government, but we don't have a choice if we want to prevent chaos and destruction. If we succeed, it won't start at the top. The reason is the the strive for power and money too. Corruption and leadership are very good friends and this will never change. The usual result is incompetence. It can't be prevented, but the devastation can be limited by creating large non-governmental organisations run by dedicated and competent people. We have to think of a system that will enable them, and not others, to get to crucial positions.
I know many really care about our planet and its creatures, big predators included. They don't want to see it destroyed. The problem is they just don't know how to give it a face. You can perhaps assist in a small way by pointing out there are very real results in the real world. Tigers do well in some regions, in spite of everything. This means it can be done. People like Ullas Karanth, Miquelle, Rabinowitz and countless others showed how it is done. At our level, we can assist a bit. The forum is our face and the posts and interaction between members generate the energy we need to attract a few more to the forum. It is about the energy. Invisible, but crucial.
