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.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Human Bashing

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#1
( This post was last modified: 05-14-2016, 03:58 AM by Sully )

Recently I've been seeing quite alot of human bashing mostly relating to our treatement of other lifeforms on this planet, but to what extent should humans take the blame? We are blamed for our takeover of land, once ruled by nature, but it's human nature to reproduce and spread across the globe. Does this force us to reprogramme ourselves as human beings? Of course there is a limit but then there comes the question, to what extent can you blame humans for doing what's natural to us? People always want more. Our development can only go forward, maybe not morally, but by any means neccesary to further our position on this planet. That's humanity. It may be a cynical view but it is one of I believe complete truth. Yes these problems all stem from us, but this cucoon that some people have of a perfect world of nature engulfing the land seems to be a false hope taken too far by marketing. There is no way that humans are not to blame for the hardship other organisms face, but how much. We are far from perfect and even the most compassionate people who always look out for another person or lifeforms on this planet, has that voice in the back of their head wanting more, which is not easy to fight...

So my question is, to what extent should the human race be blamed for the hardships other lifeforms face on this planet?
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
1 user Likes Sully's post
Reply

United States chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#2

Greed is the most deadly of negative human characteristics. It corrupts judgement. Humanity is cursed with being the most
self destructive species this planet has known. Only when we've crossed the point of no return, shall we learn. Sad but true.
2 users Like chaos's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#3

That is true, but as you said we were laced with greed to the bone, so can we be blamed as much as we are?
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
1 user Likes Sully's post
Reply

United States chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#4

Without question. We are the most intelligent life form on this planet. We know better than to shit in our own yard, but we do it anyway.
There are no excuses.
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#5

idk, it all comes down to extent really
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
1 user Likes Sully's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
*****
#6

We were tagged with the scientific name "Homo sapien" by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. It means "wise man." In my opinion, Carl Linnaeus was being arrogant. We, as humans, are incredibly smart as animals go but not necessarily wise. We should have given ourselves the name "inventive man." 
 Grizzly  - Boss of the Woods.
        
  
             
2 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#7

Wise was not exactly the correct word I agree, maybe being of a high intel
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
2 users Like Sully's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
*****
#8

It seems that us human's as a whole have an unplanned goal for the natural world, which is the real world ( everything else is artificial ). Our National Parks are said to be sanctuaries for wild animals. However, these so-called wild places are open to the public for recreation such as hiking and camping. When a person, most often being foolish, is attacked and either injured or killed by a wild animal, that animal is then killed. Regardless of the excuses given, I say they are killed in revenge and/or to pacify them victims or victim's family. So, what is our unplanned goal for the natural world? To domesticate the wildlife and to transform the wild places into petting zoos.
 Grizzly  - Boss of the Woods.
        
  
             
1 user Likes brotherbear's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#9

Incompetence is evident in so may national Parks that yes sometimes you question their aim, but so far we haven't done any better than the parks
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
2 users Like Sully's post
Reply

India brotherbear Offline
Grizzly Enthusiast
*****
#10

(05-15-2016, 03:43 AM)SVTIGRIS Wrote: Incompetence is evident in so may national Parks that yes sometimes you question their aim, but so far we haven't done any better than the parks

I'm not really referring so much to incompetence in our national parks, but to human nature in general. I don't see any decided aim to transform the natural world but rather it is happening because of human actions. I have read several books, written by men who has spent years studying grizzly bears, who have noticed, in their lifetimes, less bears that actually hunt and kill live prey animals. It is assumed that these "hunting bears" are more prone to attacking people. Any bear or other wild beast that attacks a human is, at least 90% of the time, hunted down and killed. Now, I do not view the historical grizzly as the savage monster as portrayed by some of the story-tellers of the 19th and early 20th century, but I do believe that many grizzly bears of the past did more hunting and were more aggressive animals than those living in our parks today. Basically I am saying that "the nature of man is transforming the nature of the beast."
 Grizzly  - Boss of the Woods.
        
  
             
3 users Like brotherbear's post
Reply

United Kingdom Sully Offline
Ecology and Conservation
*****
#11

Maybe that is true, I'd be interested in seeing any studies of that (if there are any of course)
"When the tiger stalks the jungle like the lowering clouds of a thunderstorm, the leopard moves as silently as mist drifting on a dawn wind." -Indian proverb
2 users Like Sully's post
Reply

Netherlands peter Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
Moderators
#12
( This post was last modified: 06-06-2016, 01:46 AM by peter )

1 - THE TRUTH ABOUT HUMANS

Recent research says humans are more altruistic then we assume. One important reason is there is a reward for altruism (humans are, after all, social mammals). This conclusion could come as a surprise, but it is true.


2 - THE MEDIA 

Why is it so many have a very different idea about humans then? There are many reasons, but media could top the list. During the last war (1939-1945), those in control used radio and newspapers to great effect. Today, the media are everywhere. If anything, the impact has become even more pronounced in that opinions and mental images often are a direct result of what people read. This means we need to take a look at the sources. 

A century ago or so, 'news' was intended at informating the public or shaping opinions (for government decisions and wars). Today, 'news' often is used to make money. Those in control of big firms offering 'news' try to attract as many people as possible. The more viewers, the more interesting your product (a newspaper or station) is for those trying to sell their products. So it is about selling as much adds as possible in the end. Money.

How does it work? One is you limit the number of competitors. Two is you offer 'news' that draws a crowd. Should you focus on those who care about their neighbours (a) or those who rob them (b)? The correct answer is b. Another one. Wealth © or inequality (d)? The correct answer is c. Soccer (e) or economic policies (f)? The answer is e. Average (g) or exceptional (h)? The answer is h. Essentials (i) or entertainment (j)? The answer is j. Celebreties (k), soccer (l) or both (m)? The correct answer is m. Politics (n) or 'human interest' (o). The answer is o. And so on.  


3 - THE RESULT

As a consumer, you can only get access to 'news' when you're prepared to endure a barrage of adds. You have no option but to learn how to swallow it. Once you learned how to deal with adds and selective news reports, it will have an effect in that it shapes your opinion or your perception. When it continues for years, consumers will have accustomed to their daily portion of murder, celebreties and sports.   

In the long run, this way of selling and consuming 'news' will have consequences. Just as junkfood results in bad health and obesity, junknews will result in distorted views about reality. Junknews will also often result in support for political organisations and institutions who thrive on this way of marketing. This is why many support politicians who are responsible for accepting bills that will result in lower wages for more hours. They support those who cull them because they have been brainwashed.  

Those who try to misinform and mislead the public know the public is aware of what is happening regarding hours worked and wages. There is a direct link between poverty and crime. When crime is rising, you need a scapegoat. Let's say the poor in general. Or 'immigrants'. This will result in ethnic groups opposing each other and social unrest. It's a criminal act, but it will result in less attention for the real causes of the problems discussed. Problems that have been created by decisions that favour some and not others. 

Politicians don't want you to start thinking and getting to the right conclusions. That's why they feed you a lot of crap and use your fears to their advantage. Most of the time, they succeed. This means they will be re-elected. It also means they can continue and things will get worse. Good for them, but not for you. The reason is the real problems are not identified and addressed. Every now and then, the pattern is broken. No problem, as you can just shut down the White House and Congress. Happens in more countries than you think. It can be done, because there's no law that says the result of an election has to be respected.  

What I'm saying is the system we have in the anglo-saxon part of the world (Europe included) isn't functioning in a proper way. Most members of Parliament (Congress) are either millionairs or going-to-be-millionairs-soon. They don't represent 'We, the People', but those who pay them. You don't know, because your mental image has been distorted and polluted. By the media. 

News- and informationwise, the result is a mono-culture, low standards, less facts, lots of fiction and 'human interest'. Mono-cultures are known for their bananas. Those who eat them all the time will go bananas in the long run. 

It's true the internet and the social media have not been seriously affected, but they draw millions of users and readers and millions of users means many more millions of dollars for entrepreneurs. This is why laws are being changed all the time. Just look around you. 

The conclusion is consumers have been misinformed and misled for years. By the media. The impact they have is such, that most consumers vote for those who decided to mislead them in the first place. This means things will not change.


4 - A NEW MODEL

I'm not saying we should have another go with Marx and Engels, but it's clear that flirting with the opposite (unrestricted capitalism) has a number of disadvantages as well. There should be more balance between 'We, the People' and 'Us, who shape opinions in order to protect our profits'. For the benefit of all, 'We, the People' should have the last word. If not, it's curtains.     

I'm not saying the extra-wealthy don't care about the planet, society or you at all. I'm also not saying that poor people will as a general rule. The problem is that those who have access to money (and decisions) compare to those addicted to junkfood in that they always try to get more of it. Just the way it works in humans. Money is just as addictive as junkfood, if not more so. Same for power.  

What I'm saying is the system used is unsound. Systems are much more important than you think, because they affect both behaviour and mental images. Most people are not 'good' or bad'. They try to live up to the expectations. If you see ever more things you don't like, it doesn't mean people are bad. It means the system used isn't producing what is needed. Needed for most, I mean. Judging from what we see today, the conclusion is we could do with a new model. 


5 - ABOUT CULTURE AND ROLE-MODELS

I remember a discussion on the West and Asia on our forum not so long ago. I think it was about culture and domination and things like that. One side thought the West topped the table, whereas the other didn't agree. Africa was never mentioned at all in the debate, I think. A mistake, I think. Anyhow. Here's my take on cultures and role-models.

a - Europe

Apart from the Greeks and those who tried to follow the example they set (the Romans foremost, but there were others), Europe doesn't really feature in my list. Not in the period between, say, 300 a.D. and 1650 or so. In that very long period, Asian cultures (China, India, western Asia and many other regions) set the standard in many ways. After they decided for the Renaissance, Neo-Classicism and Reason, Europeans, albeit armed to the teeth, entered the debate to a degree.

I wouldn't say they was interested in culture and things like that, though. They were in it for something else. I was thinking about money mainly. The wealth they acquired by enslaving, robbing and colonizing people inhabiting regions they 'visited' resulted in considerable wealth for some. It also resulted in cities and a new kind of state. Important organisations profited as well. Although the ideas and inventions of a few gifted individuals had (and still have) a significant impact on the lives of many, I wouldn't consider them results of deliberate schemes to get to progress. The word that comes to mind is 'by-products'; side-effects of a new kind of society. In this way, the material wealth acquired in the way described above had an effect on (the culture and living standards of) western societies.

A kind of democracy was added to the list of contributions some time later. It didn't come cheap, though. Even in the 20th century, two terrible wars were needed to get to the model that still exists today. After 1945, apart from what used to be Yugo-Slavia, Europe overall was quite stable in the period 1945-2016. Most changes that positively affected majorities were made between 1950-1980.

In the eighties, those lobbying for less government and more market finally got it their way. The result was an immediate and ever extending gap between the haves and have-nots, 'flexibility' (no long-term contracts) and lower wages. As most blame the EU (and immigration), political extremism has returned. It doesn't look good.

If you would ask me about European role-models, I could mention a few (Labour and Conservative) politicians typical for the the fifties, sixties and seventies of the last century. They were the ones who laid the foundation of the democracies in postwar Europe. 

I would also refer to the men who made a difference in the terrible last war (1939-1945) that preceded a period of prosperity and political freedom. I'm not only thinking of Churchill, Roosevelt and Gen. Marshall (who made a case for assisting the devastated countries in western Europe after the war). Zukov, Koniev and Rokossovsky would top my list. I very much respect the efforts of the Americans, the Canadians, the British, the Poles, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Gurkhas and the troops from northern Africa, but it's a fact that the Russians, who faced the largest and best-equipped armies, made the difference. It's more than a shame that the tension between the West and the East resulted in a big silence on the tremendous effort of the Russians, who lost at least 30 million (...) people. 

Nearly half a century later, the Sovjet-Union collapsed and Gorbatsjov featured. I know he doesn't have many friends in Russia today, but he made a lasting impression on many.   

b - Asia and Africa

A few years before WWII erupted, Haile Selassi, emperor of Ethiopia (which was invaded by Italy just before the outbreak of WWII), at a very big stage filled with very important politicians, warned the world about the danger of fascism. He was ignored, but, as you can see, not forgotten.  

Although I could mention different Asian politicians, Gandhi tops my list because of his effort to prevent a clash between different religious groups after the British had left. He didn't succeed (millions perished in what can only be described as a war), but he tried. 

The social system used in South Africa resulted in a total disgrace. One of those who opposed it spent many years in jail on an island. Although his life was stolen, Mandela was able to come to terms with those who, finally, agreed to change the system. Remarkable.

And then there is Kofi Annan. Even when Europe still produced good politicians, he stood out. Annan was highly respected. A true role model for many. 

c - USA

Although Dutch, I feel connected to the USA. One reason is the last world war, two is music and three is my parents nearly emigrated. Four is Kennedy. I will always remember the day he was shot, as my mother was crying when I came home. It felt like something definitely changed over there (and everywhere else). I was afraid for King and some others well before they were shot too. 

Obama very much reminds me of Kennedy. He too has something not often seen in today's world. I can understand why the Republicans used to opportunity to shut him down, but it is a disgrace. It feels like democracy is shut down. This in a leading country is a real bad omen.

Yesterday, Muhammad Ali returned to eternity to show 'm how it's done. They broadcasted a few documentaties over here. As I saw nearly all his fights a long time ago, I concentrated on the one in which his new name and his refusal to go to Vietnam were discussed. It's a pity his fight for equal rights had little impact, but then it had. The Greatest was a remarkable and courageous man. Before he appeared, boxing was not very popular over here. It changed when he appeared. I watched most fights with my brother in the middle of the night. I don't think I saw anyone who moved as well. He definitely inspired many and not only because of his abilities in the ring.

d - Holland

Muhammad Ali was preceded by Johan Cruijf. For those who don't know, he was a famous soccer player. The best I saw without a shadow of doubt. He compared to Ali in that he attracted those who didn't care about sports at all. One could say both had something that appealed to many and my guess is it was the way they moved. They also had overview and knew how to communicate. Something else they shared was the ability to give. It was something we had never seen before. The special thing from our part was we 'knew' what it was. When Cruijff died, many were really moved. Never seen that over here. 

Nearly all celebreties are rich and then some. Sure, they donate a bit here and there. Some even give everything they have. After they die, that is. Impressive, but why is it so many will miss people like Roosevelt, Kennedy, King, Mandela, Cruijff and Ali? Why is it the world needs people like them?   

e - Tigers

The thread started with tigers and poachers. Most posters were not positive. I understand, as those who poach don't seem to care about anything. Poaching will never stop, but we still have tigers. This means quite many who share their life with them care about them. Enough to accept them as their neighbours.

India is a large country, but it also has a lot of people. The majority is poor. In spite of that, the Indians care about wildlife and tigers. Just try to imagine what that means. In Europe, we don't accept anything bigger than a lynx. All wolves who lived close to the place we visited in Sweden in the late eighties of the last century were killed. Not one died of natural causes.   


6 - CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

Research says humans care about each other and their planet. It may seem different, but what you think you see and know apparently is deceptive. I think it the conclusion researchers got to makes sense, as we just topped 7 billion. This would be impossible if we would be as crooked as the media suggest.

The image we have about ourselves largely is a result of what we hear and read. As the media have a profound impact on mental images and opinions, the conclusion is we have been misinformed and misled. At least to a degree. The reason is the firms selling us 'news' don't care a lot about correct information and good societies. They care about somethying else and make you watch because competitors were eliminated. What they, apart from a few exceptions, offer is a lot of crap. In the long run, this can only result in distorted views of those they want to play.

The policies of today's states also often result in a terrible headache. Those who robbed billions got an extra hug, whereas those who were robbed were punished. Even without that, voters had many doubts. The reason is they know not a few duties of government are 'sold' to (and executed by) 'market' parties. If we add the 'spin doctors' surrounding and assisting loads of politicians and Milton Friedman all over the place, you can only lose confidence. The result is political extremism has returned. The cause wasn't immigration, no more steady jobs and lower wages, but a secret agenda (unrestricted capitalism).  

I understand why people got depressed, but you have to remember things can change real fast as well. You also have to remember that the media misinformed many millions for years.    

Unrestricted capitalism has advantages, but they are outweighed by the disadvantages, especially in the long run. I repeat I'm not pleading for Marx revisited, but we need a different model with more balance between 'market' and 'state'. In the end, 'We, the People' should have the last word. If the 'market' decides, most of us will be enslaved in some way. Not because the wealthy are crooked, but because it is the only outcome of the popular game known as 'Monopoly'.  

The state should be populated and run by people who know and about their fellow man and the planet. Wise people, governed by something that was removed 40 years ago. This is the only way to use knowledge in the correct way. After 4-8 years, those who represent others will have to be replaced by a new generation in order to prevent problems. This system will produce a different outlook, a different society and different leaders. Problem solved.

The question is how get there? One way is by acting pro-active. I don't see that happening any time soon. The reason is corporations have become too big and powerful. Their supposed 'opponents' (politicians) are puppets on a string dancing all the time. 

The second way is we will be confronted by problems that can't be solved by playing Monopoly one more time. This, very costly, scenario is more likely.

The third way is to change from the bottom up. Can a forum like the one we have help in some way? Of course it can. We just have to continue doing what we do. If we focus on " .. the world ignored by many ... ", people will get interested in the natural world and this will have an effect sooner or later. Einstein said (positive) energy has an immediate effect and he's always right.   

   
7 - TO FINISH

My take is 'bashing' humans (or the opposite) is too simple if we consider the nature of the issue at hand (poaching and habitat destruction). Humans, by and large, will respond to what is expected of them. If expected to exterminate, they will produce. If expected to do the opposite, they will deliver as well. This means it is about the system we use. The system and those in control.

Judging from what we see today, I do not recommend an extra round of Monopoly. We do Monopoly at home. At work, we take care of ourselves, the planet and the future. I don't mind the 'market' one bit, but a world loaded with 'markets' and a puppet state run by millionairs can only result in one winner and 7 billion losers. This is apart from natural disasters, mass exterminations and a nice explosion to wind it up, of course. 

As co-owner of a forum where those without a voice feature, I encourage all debates about the relation between us and all other creatures who live on our planet. For many years, there was a balance between them. After the introduction of fire-arms, humans took over and started destroying their home and neighbours. It is, however, also a fact that things have slowly changed in the last decades.

Every now and then, we are confronted by destructive behaviour of those who seem to have lost their heart. As a result, we will see things that, to quote Corbett, would make a stone weep. Anger is understandable, but it isn't the best way to respond. Same for pessimism. In the end, it is about good (solid) information. The more we know, the more we understand. Knowledge always is the best way to solve problems and prevent new problems. In order to get to the best decision, we need to get to the core of things. If there's one thing that will prevent us from getting there, it's judgement. Judgement is for judges. Our task is to find and discuss the information needed to understand, solve and prevent problems.
3 users Like peter's post
Reply

United States Polar Offline
Polar Bear Enthusiast
****
#13
( This post was last modified: 11-27-2016, 12:46 AM by Polar )

Another example of corrupt and devaluing humans:






Trapped the large elephant using a wire trap, and simply left it there to suffer. For what?

And this is occuring with a rarer population of Asian Elephants in Sri Lanka. More proof that these "conservationists" aren't really what they seem.
"Be the reason someone smiles. Be the reason someone feels loved and believes in the goodness in people."

- Roy T. Bennett
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB