For a race so intellectual and innovative, it is nonsensical to think we couldn’t find a viable alternative to wildlife culling and slaughter. Instead, it seems we continue to thrash about in the clutches of human nature; exhibiting greed and selfishness, expending more energy and cash only in areas we deem beneficial to us.
Ahem. Now I’ve probably scared people with that rather angry sounding opening, I’ll get on with discussing what I’m on about.
OK – last year a population of kangaroos was culled in an area of Australia where their number was deemed over capacity in terms of food availability. The government was presented with viable options for transporting these animals to another habitat, but the plans were rejected for economic reasons and apparently because it would be cruel to the animals to move them somewhere else. Because culling is nicer than transporting. Hmm.
The second example in my rather vent-ful blog tonight is the plan to slaughter sharks that are seen as a danger to beach goers. Now, I understand about the dangers of mixing people with sharks, and I am sympathetic to those who have been affected. What I don’t understand is why sharks must suffer just so people can fulfil their recreational desires. This isn’t even a matter of livelihood on the most part; beach and water activities are viewed as a right for humans (it is more a privilege, but the extent it is generally taken for granted renders that somewhat meaningless), and so all potential dangers / threats, living or non-living, are removed, or at least monitored.
I guess this follows suit with the traditional idea of only the fittest surviving. In simple terms, the idea of this is to remove any perceived threat by the easiest and least risky means possible. I guess a major reason for this is preserving resources, as competition used to be higher (or more realised) when people had to hunt and collect their own food, and build their own shelters. However, I think the motive behind it now is more questionable, at least in terms of whether slaughtering / population culling is really necessary for an adequate existence for all species. I.e., it actually was somewhat necessary a few centuries ago, as people fought for survival without being able to enjoy modern technologies, but now it appears more an issue of convenience and priority.
Hiya Fifi! This is a great piece of writing and I whole heartedly agree. The bottom line for commiting these tragedies is greed and arrogance. Greed in that we want to save as much money as possible whatever the cost. Arrogance because we always think we're the better species. Talking about sharks, the ocean is their home and we're invading it. We've stolen their food by fishing the oceans, humans may need to eat but look at all the fish that goes to waste and it comes back to greed again, fish=profit end of story. Let's stop being selfish and learn to embrace and respect all living things! Most of us know better we know that greed and pride is a sin. So lets start to walk the walk!
ReplyDeleteThanks Hannah! Your point about fishing is an important one, and something I forgot to mention. It is true - humans seem to imbalance / disrupt every part of the food web, and as you say, it is a matter of profit rather than necessity (much of the time). Ghandi's saying about people being the change they want to see in the world holds a lot of truth; unfortunately, habit / human nature will eventually drive us to return to the easier / cheaper equivalents of their environmentally friendlier counterparts.. it's all about supply and demand. Vicious cycle, since there's always cheaper versions available.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thank you again!