The murder of the pink dolphins in the Amazon shows once again the arrogance of humans over other species, which have equal or better right than we to inhabit the planet . This is because no animal species has led to the Earth to the brink of environmental collapse, which if feasible would eventually produce our continuity and other animals. Ours is a dangerous species on the planet, that although you know the magnitude of his mistakes, can not find reverse them seriously, as evidenced by the failure of the Copenhagen summit.
Not only are the pink dolphins, but a series of events that are repeated and show no such obvious similarities in practices in different countries. That is visible for example in the authorization provided by the Government of Canada to carry out the killing of about 300 000 seals a year, because their fishermen argue the same reason that those who killed the dolphins in the Peruvian jungle, that seals and dolphins do not let them do their jobs. But if you observe it in reverse, they could quietly seek to annihilate all of humanity because we have become extinct thousands of species, their life cycles arbitrarily interrupted and curtailed their freedom.
The problem is not cultural, in the sense that we Peruvians wilder than Canadians or Danes seal massacre also almost like a sport, the issue is deeper and deals directly with anthropocentrism, which is theory and practice that places the human as the center of the universe, which in all arrogance is unsurpassed. Thus, the human face and of itself has built an entire system of values \u200b\u200band relationships with nature, from which everything must serve their diverse needs and has not sought to establish a balance to maintain an acceptable relationship with the environment and other animals. Mono
naked 1967
no doubt that the human animal is more closely related to apes. Desmond Morris studied it brilliantly in his book The Naked Ape (The Naked Ape, 1967), which places the human in a dimension that seeks to separate: being analyzed from the animal condition, which is a primate without that protects hair. That perspective is urgently needed to recover, so placed in a context in which it is increasingly obvious that we rescue and interpret knowledge not only of cultures that are most sought harmony with nature, but of their own culture and animal societies.
It makes you wonder what is the animal and contradict the use made of this word, in the sense attributed to the human who commits a violent act or unworthy animal behavior, saying an animal. The truth is that animals only kill in self-defense, reacting to a cut of his liberty or by starvation. While people kill by jealousy, envy, money, power, territory, xenophobia, pleasure, love, properties, oil or even shields in the art to kill bulls. In addition, our organization not only eliminates many animals, but brings death to human beings themselves, in contrast with animal protection societies give their members. So when a man commits a brutal act which it is to identify their humanity, not his animality.
was calculated in the eighties that on average every twenty seconds directly kill a human to another, information that today must be even higher. Humans may mate more easily because in most cases does not require much effort, because the technology lets pull a trigger or a button to launch a missile. Anyway, we have automated the death of human by human and animal by humans, which leads also to find alternatives to food consumption chains in which we live.
Human
But good is not only present our side of questionable, but to draw attention precisely because the human has been and is capable of producing from its intelligence and particular thought, action and sublime works that connect with the universe. The larger a share, the more noble, more natural is human. That ability and potential is the only positive that can be slowing down the other side of the human, that kills and destroys without hesitation, regardless of national, ethnic, cultural or social.
As Stephen Hawking said recently, we should avoid contact with aliens because they reach the planet they would to suck natural resources, which could be our own flesh. In this logic the animals and plants would be within their rights to avoid contact with humans for millennia we are dedicated to use without limit or coherence, as if we were the masters of the universe, when we are not even free to do with our lives as we like.
Detail: Morris, who is a zoologist, shrewdly explores new ways the characteristics of human nature, having noted that both anthropologists and psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, have stereotyped their observations, the former due to the study of cultures primitive, atypical and almost extinct and the second to take as the object of study specimens necessarily abnormal or failed in some respect.
Tip: Hawking's logic is simple and compelling. It is not the first time that holds the possibility of life on other planets or places in the universe, which, says the scientist, has over a hundred billion galaxies, each with hundreds of millions of stars, which are just beginning to know some planets like Earth. Alexander Sack
May 6 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment