new

If you follow the comments here at Tet Zoo you’ll already have seen the thread that’s been developing on the ‘Giant killers: macropredation in lions’ article (originally posted back in February, and itself a re-post of a ver 1 article from November 2006). If you don’t follow the comments, the following will be new to you. It seems that philosopher David Pearce is honestly proposing that we should feel ethically compelled to eradicate all suffering and cruelty from the natural world in order to create a sort of global vegan paradise where predators don’t exist. Pearce terms this the Abolitionist Project (for more on Pearce and his ideas see this wikipedia article). His plans are, as discussed in depth on his website, theoretically plausible and involve such things as the use of brain implants, behaviour-modifying drugs, and genetic manipulation. Eventually, the lion will, literally, lie down with the lamb, hyaenas will not feel compelled to eat baby elephants alive, and – I presume – ladybirds will not eat aphids, and so on [adjacent image from Catztours].

i-54d1ab89d767558afc801d7b70f7103f-ladybird_eat_aphid_alive.jpg
I personally feel that the philosophy behind the proposal is completely wrong for many reasons. It imposes sentimental ideas and human moral judgment on other species; it (if carried through to eventuality) would mean an end to a great deal of natural selection; it is fundamentally contrary to the history of life and would result in the ultimate bastardisation of the natural world; and, perhaps most offensive of all, it PROMOTES the extinction and biological modification of thousands (or tens of thousands or more) of species. It would also result in the total collapse of the global ecosystem, but I think that’s a minor detail. I cannot help but feel that these ideas are amoral and utterly, utterly wrong. I might not like the sight of slow, lingering death and of animals being eaten alive by others, but I celebrate such processes as part of the natural world, and as a vivid illustration of evolution and adaptation. Death is part of life; we are surrounded by it. If I were religious I would regard predation, death, brutal selection and so on as part of God’s plan. On that note I initially assumed that Pearce was inspired by some kind of religious fundamentalism; so far as I can tell this is not at all the case – instead he represents a sort of ‘extreme vegan’ movement.

i-0b05e9b45d1e0ba9443d0a18faefc159-killin_ur_biodiversiteh.jpg
While considering this issue, my assumption has been that so few people (especially those involved in conservation, wildlife management and field biology in general) will take it seriously that it will never go anywhere – even if it does become theoretically possible – and that those of us who find it ridiculous and/or offensive don’t have to worry or even think about it. Furthermore, by the time we do have the ability to do the sorts of things proposed by the Abolisionist Project, I think we will most likely need our funding, resources and technology for other things. And, sorry for repeating myself, but modifying wild creatures to suit our ideals hardly sounds enlightened or ethical. It reminds me of efforts to expunge homosexuality by way of electric shock therapy, or of attempts to westernise aboriginal people by banning their customs, traditional dress and languages.

However, I’m interested to see how representative my views are, or are not. A few readers have already made comments, but now is the chance to voice your concerns. Sockpuppetry will not be tolerated – yes your behaviour has already been noticed.

GLORIOUS BASTERDS

Inglorious Basterds is a Jewish psycho-fantasy based on the delusional notion of retroactive vengeance against Nazi forces in France at the end of World War II. It is an artful, but ultimately pointless, exercise in orgiastic gratuitous violence. The only redeeming value of this film is:

(1) The not so subtle encouragement of the viewing audience not to take contemporary evils lightly and to act before it is too late to avert their tragic consequences.

(2) The possible equation of suave and sophisticated Nazi SS officers with intellectual and academic elites in our own American society of the 21st century.

Thus I would like to propose a sequel to this film: Inglorious Basterds II, or more properly Glorious Basterds.

This would project the urbane and intellectual SS officers onto the modern American academic milieu, specifically the Darwinian Evolutionists, whose scheme is irrational, illogical, and with many destructive consequences for society at large.

Thus this is the delicious scenario I would like to see Quentin Tarantino render into a sequel:

Brad Pitt leads his gang of Jewish vengeance seekers (along with a couple of idealistic Gentiles) onto a modern American college campus. There they lay siege to the Department of Biological Sciences. They round up all the faculty members inside a large meeting room where they place them under armed guard and lock all doors and windows.

Then they order the department chairman to recite a script over the phone to FOX or CNN. The script would read thus:

To Members of the American Mass Media,

We professors of Biological Science at the University of ___________ are being held hostage by a band of spiritual fanatics who condemn us for disseminating anti-spiritual falsehoods and irrational myths disguised under the cloak of scientific respectability called Darwinist Evolution. These falsehoods, our captors maintain, have harmed the hearts, minds, and souls of countless numbers of American youth and have poisoned the entire culture at large against the reality of the Creator God depicted in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. We are being judged as destroyers of society and traitors to America, whose Declaration of Independence clearly speaks of a Divine Creator. We have been given two options: to publically renounce our fraudulent evolutionist views and to live, or to stubbornly maintain these views and to die. We have one hour to decide our fates.

Then Brad Pitt randomly selects one of the faculty members to be shot and killed instantly, in an act of "natural de-selection", just to demonstrate his determination. Suspense builds as the faculty members desperately seek ways to avoid further acts of "natural de-selection" as they recognize that they are faced with a choice of admitting their lives have been dedicated to disseminating a vile lie or to dying for what they know to be a complete deception. The professors attempt to engage in various philosophical and scientific arguments to dissuade the Basterds from their course of vengeance, and every so often the Basterds lose patience with their convoluted reasoning and randomly shoot and kill an academic offender.

In the end the surviving faculty members take a vote and decide to renounce Darwinism rather than their lives. Brad Pitt then tells them that though they have chosen wisely, they cannot get off so lightly and he proceeds to carve into their foreheads a large D to identify them wherever they go as former Darwinists who endeavored to destroy the fabric of American society with their anti-intellectual and God-hating ideas. And then he says: "I never realized that Nazis could come in any size, shape, color, nationality, or profession! Who would have dreamed that many of America's own intellectual elites would turn out to be Nazis too?!"