Passive genocide

We are slowly killing off our big animals. Since it is unpopular to mention this, our cowardly leaders will not mention it to avoid upsetting our voters; they, in turn, don’t want to hear about how their mundane acts may lead to vast and evil consequences.

After all, we all want the big suburban home, the aircraft carrier of an SUV, the endless stream of toys and gadgets and consumer entertainment products. Or at least, the vast majority do, so that those of us who do not are statistically insignificant.

For this reason, what I’m about to say is shocking — shockingly obvious, that is. Obvious both in its content and in why it is hidden away. It’s like talking about death at weddings or money at funerals.

A large black cat believed to be a panther is stalking the fields and forests of southern Tuscany, striking fear into residents and holidaymakers. Hunters have angered animal rights campaigners by offering to kill it, but the debate is academic — “Bagheera” is running rings around its pursuers.

{…}

What is to be done? Hunters say the dangerous animal should be driven out of the forest by beaters, and killed. Farmers say “give us guns, we’ll take care of it.” But animal welfare groups are up in arms at the suggestion, and have reminded the people of Prata that panthers are a protected species. They won’t even accept putting out live bait such as chickens or rabbits.

The controversy echoes the tale of Bruno the brown bear who wandered into Germany from Austria and eluded hunters for weeks, gorging himself on live sheep and honey, until he was shot dead, to the dismay of his many fans. – Der Spiegel

Wild animals are generally fearful of humans. Why would they come out?

For one thing, the easy chow is tempting.

More likely, however, they’re out of space to wander. Humans have pressed in on their territory, so they are heavily confined and looking for new spaces to roam.

Imagine being in solitary confinement for the rest of your life. Even if your cell was 100′ x 100′, it would still be seeing the same old stuff… every day.

Researchers have revealed results of a global camera trap study that has captured nearly 52,000 images. Camera traps placed in seven protected areas in the Americas, Africa and Asia have documented 105 species ranging from mice to elephants — and even varieties of humans from tourists to poachers. The study has also helped solidify reasons for mammal decline, including habitat encroachment and smaller wildlife reserves.

According to Conservation International, “Analysis of the photographic data has helped scientists confirm a key conclusion that until now, was understood through uncoordinated local study: habitat loss and smaller reserves have a direct and detrimental impact on the diversity and survival of mammal populations.” – Treehugger

For the last thirty years, the media has kept you on edge with talk of what discrete threats might eliminate animal species.

It’s always something that can be isolated from “life as usual,” like an optional or fringe behavior, or a single corporation or country.

They never state the obvious: constant human expansion on a finite planet means less room for plants, animals and ecosystems.

At some point, you confine them so much that like prisoners in solitary, they go numb and incoherent, and stop feeding themselves well.

And breeding. The demise of the species is then not far off.

And what happened to them was physical. EEG studies going back to the nineteen-sixties have shown diffuse slowing of brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury.

On December 4, 1991, Terry Anderson was released from captivity. He had been the last and the longest-held American hostage in Lebanon. I spoke to Keron Fletcher, a former British military psychiatrist who had been on the receiving team for Anderson and many other hostages, and followed them for years afterward. Initially, Fletcher said, everyone experiences the pure elation of being able to see and talk to people again, especially family and friends. They can’t get enough of other people, and talk almost non-stop for hours. They are optimistic and hopeful. But, afterward, normal sleeping and eating patterns prove difficult to reëstablish. Some have lost their sense of time. For weeks, they have trouble managing the sensations and emotional complexities of their freedom.

For the first few months after his release, Anderson said when I reached him by phone recently, “it was just kind of a fog.” – New Yorker

Like most conditions, this probably exists on a spectrum.

When you have enough space, you’re happy. But below that threshold, the alienation sets in — in proportion to how much space that you need which you do not have.

We are slowly forcing animals into corners. We are reducing them from wide-ranging, healthy creatures to confined, crowded and miserable ones (kind of like our cities).

The result is that at some point desperation sets in, and the animal rages out of its confinement. It probably knows on some level that it will die for this act.

As a result, the animals are getting bolder and more violent.

A DISTRAUGHT mother listened on a mobile phone as her teenage daughter was eaten alive by a brown bear and its three cubs.

Olga Moskalyova, 19, gave an horrific hour-long running commentary on her own death in three separate calls as the wild animals killed her.

She screamed: “Mum, the bear is eating me! Mum, it’s such agony. Mum, help!’” – The Express

The comic dimensions of such a protracted miserable death aside, we can see how the hopelessness of woodland creatures leads them to become more vicious.

They have nothing to lose.

And we refuse to talk about what is surely the cause, and will be the cause of their demise as species. It’s passive genocide: we just keep expanding, and denying that a problem exists, and if the animals attack us, we kill them. Someday they just vanish and we assume they just weren’t competitive, or something.

It gets mentioned rarely, and never as the headline of the article. Our passive aggression against plants and animals motivates us to think first of human losses, and only secondarily to care in any way about what we’re destroying.

We never think, “Are all these new humans good people?” — instead, we treat every life as sacred. Every person must be important. Or at least more important than all those animals we are exterminating.

The double killing is the latest in a spate of bear attacks across ­Russia, as the hungry animals seek food in areas where people have ­encroached and settled on their former habitat.

If you make the truth inconvenient, and make sure there is zero social reward for it, most people will ignore it. They will assume that someone else will take care of it, since we have this vast society with people whose jobs involve worrying about these things.

But those people cannot help. The solution concerns the whole of humanity: we must limit and reduce our growth. That is however an unpopular topic, because that means that not everyone gets to live the dream, or even live. It forces us to make hard decisions about which people we value and which we do not.

As a result, we avoid dealing with it, and our passive genocide against the creatures continues.

22 Comments

  1. Plague says:

    Brett,

    I don’t comment too much, but this is a fantastic article and one I wish more people would read and actually pay attention too.

    J

  2. crow says:

    As usual, it’s all about ego:
    The jumped-up, self-important, equal human can not help but want what everyone else has got. Everyone must have everything. Everyone must be able to do everything, go everywhere, live anywhere, experience everything.
    There was a time – during almost all of human history – when this was not so.
    When each and every human trumps each and every other thing, the end result can only be countless humans and almost nothing else.

  3. fugitive says:

    The double killing is the latest in a spate of bear attacks across ­Russia, as the hungry animals seek food in areas where people have ­encroached and settled on their former habitat.

    Russia’s population is shrinking-why are humans expanding their settlements in bear country?

  4. Israeleet says:

    Dear Brett,

    I enjoyed reading the article, but I have a feeling that it misses out on some key points.

    The readers of this article are likely Westerners. On average, they reproduce up to 9 times less than those living in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.

    I have a hard time believing that those people read such articles, or have read this particular one/one similar as you yourself stated that this is a rare topic to be discussed.

    What you haven’t provided us is a proper solution. You bring up the point that we should reproduce less- but who is we? We, the Westerners, who on average produce 2 children per couple? No, Brett. The people that should be the target audience are African’s and Arabs who make 8 kids with a wife (and even with multiple ones) even though they know they cannot feed them.

    In the end, this creates a drastically bellow average numerous population of uneducated people who occupy this planet, and seek social services from the United Nations, Europe, and the West.

    So, to be honest, I’ll do what you have done, and not provide a solution.

    Because simply said, such people will not and do not listen, and a solution like sterilizing/castrating/killing off that population of people is to scary a solution for a Westerner to hear.

    1. crow says:

      In the unlikely event that westerners consider the points made, they may eventually see fit to cease supporting the third-world overpopulation-machine with aid and assistance.
      It’s an ideas war, this, not a hot-war.
      Ideas look pretty weak, at first, but without them, nothing ever changes.
      As long as the squeamish want every man, woman and child to be guaranteed a first-world life, and all their unborn offspring, too, we all slide ever closer to the abyss. We all inhabit an interstellar spaceship, with finite resources.
      Nothing in life is guaranteed, even for the privileged.
      The sooner society wakes up to that reality, the better it will be for everyone.

      1. Israeleet says:

        There’s a problem, however. You’re dealing with a group of imbeciles. Idiots. People with IQs ranging from 45 to 60. People who, without funding, will continue populating. Without food. Without water.

        These people don’t understand. Stopping the funding will nothing. An example: China in the 70’s. Overpopulation at an extreme margin. The world closed itself off from China- or rather- closed China off from itself.

        Chinese folks, having a history of wise rulers, a culture diverse in art, philosophy, spirituality, and rich with above average IQs began to understand the cause and effects relations of their unheard of exponential growth. So they changed.

        I do not understand where the idea that stopping the funding will do anything has risen from. The funding is given- but it is spent in different places.

        Rather than building bomb shelters in the Gaza strip, Palestinians purchase weapons and produce terrorists to kill civilians in Israel.

        Rather than feeding children, creating schools, hospitals, etc, Africans spend it on large stashes of AK-47’s and the newest gadgets ruling the western world.

        Rather than doing anything for the public, businessmen and regular folks in India make the prostitution horizon even more vivid.

        So, consider there is no funding. No one is being helped. Will cutting off the funding help?

        No. But it will help those kind people have another reason why to blow shit up in the North.

        So let’s stop with all the awareness crap, there is no solution that will ever please a person who has ever heard of morals. Because the solutions proposed earlier are treacherous, immoral, and abnormal. But they are the only ones.

        1. Israeleet says:

          Edit: blowing shit up in the West.

    2. Nicholas Marville says:

      The way you formulate those key points, it sounds as if the only solution is a Third World War breaking out in the Middle East/Asia, either that or a major infection like the plague breaking out. It is unquestionably true, however, that the growth in the human population is a large drain on the quality of life. Think about space, resources, nature, for instance.

  5. crow says:

    Well. It’s always refreshing to see such optimism.

  6. Israeleet says:

    I expected a response as such, because as I said, to a Westerner that lived under democracy and in a country strong in the international community and strong (relatively) economically and military wise, the solution would sound terribly pessimistic.

    I also understand that sarcasm would come hand-in-hand. But for an individual that lived in a troubled nation for almost all their lifetime, having rockets fall on their head constantly, and being under a constant threat, would understand that a solution is a solution.

    The reason why I said the solution would not be accepted is because I’ve assume (and hopefully correctly, let me know if otherwise) we are mostly Westerners. Having a Western country do this job that would be in the short and long-term heavenly for the rest of this planet is undoubtedly impossible. There is more hope if the Amerikan civilization transformers (through a peaceful revolution) into what this website suggests, however, solutions like these, such as eugenics, can still scare a New Right man’s ass.

    And we all know that if a Western country can’t do it, nobody can. Because only a Western country has the power and international standing to do so.

    So let’s not bother with terms like pessimism or optimism no matter how beautiful or ugly the solution looks like. This is reality. If something designed to bring means to ends does so, it is designed well.

    @Nicholas: Good point. However, there would be no WWIII if the world accepts the solution.

    1. crow says:

      It’s not so much sarcasm as humour, Israeleet.
      When the state of things is so dire, humour can be the ingredient that makes day-to-day survival possible.
      Not a long-term fix, for sure: more like an aspirin.
      Every Israeli I’ve ever met has been made humourless by the reality of their lives. It’s very noticeable.
      And understandable.
      Extreme measures are probably necessary, but the west has decayed beyond the point where it will face such measures.
      Such is the state of things.
      Here, we do what little we can.
      Maybe effective, eventually, maybe not.
      It’s a slightly better effort than burying our heads in the sand and pretending everything is wonderful.
      Slightly!
      If you have any better ideas, let’s hear them.
      Ideas can be potent things.

  7. EvilBuzzard says:

    So who’s puppies get snuffed, if nobody voluntarily limits their population growth to what the author feels is required?

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      TO add to this. We sure are lucky that CHina stepped up to the plate. By aborting 300 million children, they’ve helped combat AGW! Captain Planet ought to mint them a gold commemorative coin. The Margaret Sanger Gold Dubloon!

    2. AnHero says:

      The people who do the snuffing will be the ones with the will and the power to do so.

      The people who get snuffed will be the ones who lacked the will and the power to prevent it.

      That’s the way it always has been. Why is it suddenly any different?

      (Notice I said “…and the will…” – pacifists lack that will – as you see they are snuffing themselves out)

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        So active genocide beats passive genocide because it gets our lardy asses off the couch?

  8. crow says:

    Captain Planet! I like it.
    A True Blue Left Wing Superhero!
    DC Comics would love that one.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      PC Comics would indeed.

  9. Israeleet says:

    I understand the importance of humour. In fact, it plays a large part in my life, and in others’ as well.

    I understand your standings in regards to this. Take it slow, do what we can, and maybe something will change. This is the exact thing I am doing/planning to do because there’s really nothing more.

    So don’t disregard the ideas above, simply, understand that they aren’t possible to fulfill unless people higher up the food chain decide to execute as required.

    Until then, let’s hope the climate in China stays stable with the help of Leftist, global-warming-fighting Superheros like the Al Goracle. :)

  10. Wet Shaver says:

    Anything that is big and scary that intrudes into our space is going to get killed. However, let’s try and remember who was there first, it was the home for these animals until civilization took over in the name of progress.

  11. Rollory says:

    Comic dimensions?

    “Mom, the bear is eating me” does not have comic dimensions, you subhuman scum.

    Kill the bear. Exterminate the species if need be. The existence of the species is not worth a single human life. Not even yours, though that’s a pretty close call.

    There were no panthers and no bears and no wolves in civilized Western Europe – until they were reintroduced, of course – and this lack did not make those countries any worse. The sooner they get re-exterminated, the better.

    Environmentalists be damned.

    1. crow says:

      “Look Mommy!
      That subhuman is calling other humans subhuman!
      He wants wild animals exterminated, too!”

      “Shush, dear. It’s all right. He is normal…”

  12. [...] “$pocalypse“, “Liberalism Fails“, “Making Excuses“, “Passive Genocide“, “Broken [...]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.457 seconds