Archive | Conflict RSS feed for this section

Sharing the Landscape; Can We?

13 Oct

An older draft that was never published. Oversight and all…….. it happens.

Some readers may be familiar now with the new of the deadly Grizzly encounter in Yellowstone National Park. If not, I refer readers to a post by Doug Peacock, Do Killer Grizzlies Deserve To Die? . Peackock’s  essay offers perhaps the best description of the incident.

Many questions arise from this incident: “Does the feeding of wild animals upon a human corpse fall into the category of “natural behavior”? Even if it doesn’t, should every bear who feeds upon a dead human be condemned to die? ”

There is no option in refraining from making a moral judgement in this and similar cases. If the deceased was non-human, it would have not received any attention other than a nod to the normal cycles in Nature.

But it wasn’t that way. The prey was a human, and not for the first time reaching back into the the first encounters between predator and prey. But human narratives change everything in this natural cycle. We are summarily the judge and executioner based on human morality. All of our environment now exists within this framework; the narratives are only variations based on this.

Another example is people that move into and build on land that was uninhabited before them. Then they complain and kill wild animals that roam onto their personal property, with total disregard and acknowledgement that the land they built on and live was once the home for a diversity of wildlife before them.

The title of the post above can be juxtaposed: is the Beast the bear? and other predators? Or is the Beast us, humans now in a human-dominated world?

How can we learn to co-exist with these predators (and I hate to use that term because it is fraught with moral undertones and a shadow narrative itself)…. with these animals when we increasingly fear our own shadows and species?

Am I projecting? I don’t think so. Increasing sociological and psychological investigations suggest (I carefully use that term) that the root psychology of our interactions with other species are linked to our interactions with members of our own species. And vice versa. Even the science is presented within a framework of narratives that are often embedded in moral judgement and/or politics, which includes economics.

The one trait that is innate in all creatures, including humans, is self-preservation. But so is altruism (to some extent depending on which author one reads/listens to, or depending on what one chooses to believe). Human morality adds layers and baggage on to that innateness. Other animals don’t.

I will admit that in my private opinion, which now is no longer private, I would not have killed that grizzly.

Life is messy and we make it a dramatic, sometimes chaotic baggage of snakes and worms. Life is not black and white, but is multiple shades of gray.
Regardless, it is good to have these discussions across that range.

%d bloggers like this: