Homo rapiens be damned: Savagery is not programmed into our DNA
Posted by thomaspainescorner on February 3, 2009
By Jason Miller
2/3/09
“I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.”
—Agent Smith from The Matrix
One is expected to know things, to believe things. Knowing and believing are all in your head – there is nothing in your heart. If you cannot feel that the earth is your grandmother, then of course you will find it easy to rape her, to behave as if she is under your dominion. You will find it easy to believe that we humans are the dominant species, and to act as though the earth and everything on it are ours to do with as we please. … if all human beings were taken away, life on earth would flourish.
—Russell Means
“Let’s pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere.”
—C.S. Lewis
The last sound on the worthless earth will be two human beings trying to launch a homemade spaceship and already quarreling about where they are going next.
—William Faulkner
In the last analysis, even the best man is evil: in the last analysis, even the best woman is bad.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Purveyors of pop culture, indigenous movement leaders, renowned academics, literary giants, and powerful philosophers alike have admonished us that we humans need to change our evil ways. So given our amazing cognitive abilities and capacities to adapt our behaviors, why do we continue with our pathological parasitism?
Steve Best, Associate Professor of Philosophy at UTEP, and a leading philosopher in the animal liberation movement, suggested that perhaps humanity is, “A biological experiment with advanced primate intelligence gone horribly wrong, as if all of planet earth is an Island of Dr. Moreau set up by an evil God.”
While hopelessly anthropocentric apologists for humanity’s ongoing rape of the Earth and its inhabitants will probably dismiss Best’s observation as the ravings of a misanthropic animal fanatic, critical thinking people of conscience and humility will consider the possibility that Best may be right.
Certainly there is no dearth of evidence supporting the fact that the human evolutionary path has veered into a deadly and destructive cul-de-sac. Homo rapiens have succeeded Homo sapiens in humanity’s evolutionary development. How long can we sustain, or better yet, how long will the Earth allow us to sustain a “civilization” that is premised on violence, greed, over-consumption, endless growth, “success” and pleasure attained at the expense of the suffering of other sentient beings, narcissism, ego fulfillment, and a host of other nauseating grotesqueries? It doesn’t take much contemplation of the human race to leave one yearning for the companionship of Moreau’s Beast Folk.
Not unlike the Zionists in Palestine, the broader human race clings to an aggressive, violent and defensive way of interfacing with the world as a perverse reaction to having been vulnerable and victimized. We have maximized our frontal lobes, opposable thumbs, and capacities to engage in complex social behaviors in such a way that we are now uber-predators, so firmly astride the top of the food chain even were all non-human animals to somehow join forces and assail us, they’d be overwhelmingly defeated. Early hominids probably perceived their numerous predators as monsters. In collectively equipping ourselves to fight those ‘monsters,’ we have ignored Nietzsche’s cautionary aphorism and become more than monsters; we have morphed into world-destroying abominations.
Western Civilization (read Eurocentric, patriarchal, capitalist, speciesist, imperialist, and Christian), the most powerful perpetrator in the brutal and merciless assault on non-human animals and the Earth, codified its sociopathic license to rape by inventing an anthropomorphic deity that gave it the “divine right” to dominate and exploit. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth,” proclaimed the Christian deity in an ancient tome written by a collection of largely unknown authors. And since many still hold the Bible to be sacrosanct, dominionism remains deeply embedded in our collective psyche.
As the sun set on monarchial rule and the Enlightenment unfolded, we humans entered what appeared to be a golden age of “liberal democracy,” reason, and free markets. Yet ironically, this transition marked the advent of the darkest and most psychopathic phase of Homo rapien existence. Kings were replaced by soulless corporations; Descartes’ mechanistic worldview assured us that non-human animals don’t consciously suffer, thus enabling guilt-free industrialization of their torture and murder; and capitalism spawned runaway growth, unbridled avarice, and a deep obsession with property and profits. Buttressed by new and powerful theoretical underpinnings, we began our relentless attack on the Earth and its inhabitants in a futile effort to slake our seemingly insatiable thirst for control, prosperity and security.
Catalyzed and sustained by the deep-seated terror of an animal sans fang or claw and by our most despicable attributes, such as gluttony, belligerence, self-centeredness, and mean-spiritedness (each of which has been validated in some way by the fundamental theologies and philosophies of our society), we have unleashed an apocalyptic Hell upon the rest of the world. Overpopulation, deforestation, Climate Change, nuclear waste, potential nuclear destruction, the Sixth Extinction, rampant pollution, potable water shortages, factory farming, and endless resource wars are the bitter harvest the world is reaping from the noxious seeds we’ve sown.
While Senator James Inhofe, George Bush 41, and myriad other ardent supporters of Western Civilization, the American Way of Life, corporatism, imperialism, patriarchy, speciesism, and a host of other malevolent social, cultural, political and economic dynamics which comprise the anthropocentric mechanisms by which we dominate and exploit the planet, may have deluded themselves into believing that the rape, pillage and plunder by which we exist is morally palatable (or perhaps they simply don’t care), there are plenty of people who are deeply concerned. These individuals want to find a way to develop that “natural equilibrium” to which Agent Smith referred by breaking down the physical and psychological barriers we’ve erected, rejoining nature, and ceasing to exist as alienated, belligerent, and vampiric entities.
Hence the questions become, are we human animals a lost cause and does Mother Earth need to eradicate us to enable life to perpetuate on this planet?
A widely accepted notion is that peaceful, gentle Homo sapiens began their metamorphosis to barbaric Homo rapiens about 10,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers became sedentary agrarians—working the land meant that ruthless men rose to power by hoarding surpluses, territorial wars were waged, and women and animals were subjugated. However, it is much more likely that our ancestors were brutal war-mongers as far back as 45,000 years ago. Evidence indicates that when early Homo sapiens migrated from Africa into Europe, they waged a 15,000 year genocide that eventually drove the Neanderthals to extinction. Even the Bible, which many Homo rapien apologists utilize as a validation for our savage domination of the planet, provides numerous examples of our cruel propensities. Poignant example number one is Cain murdering Abel.
We know how bad we can be. Now how good can we become?
Our moral evolution is not necessarily limited by our genetic make-up. It has become obvious that the common characterization of nature versus nurture is a false dichotomy. Genetics and learning dialectically shape who we become and how we interact with the world, both individually and collectively. So the lines between humanity’s innate tendencies and those qualities we acquire through parenting, education, and experience are often blurred and indiscernible.
Humanity, past and present, is filled with examples of compassionate, courageous, and decent human beings, clearly indicating that Homo sapiens remain extant, that savagery is not programmed into our DNA and that developing a more “natural equilibrium” with our surrounding environment is within the realm of possibility.
However, those who wish to shape social and human evolution in such a way that Homo rapiens become endangered, and eventually make their way to the species’ graveyard of extinction, need to realize that they are not attending a tea party. This is a war–philosophically, psychologically and physically. If humanity is going to “become good,” those who want to make it happen need to enter the fray.
It is no easy task to simultaneously function within a planet murdering system and to struggle against it. While the opposition is indistinct, difficult to identify, and ever-shifting, Homo sapiens resisting the evolutionary inertia toward sociopathy encounter enemies frequently throughout their day to day existence. Approximately four out of 100 humans are born with no conscience or capacity to empathize. Those individuals, like Cheney, Olmert, Petraeus, Kissinger, Palin, and Condi Rice, are readily identifiable foes. Those who comprise the rest of the Homo rapien population are not as easy to discern. Many are covert in their allegiance to savagery. Some people are akin to the fabled missing link, as they comprise characteristics of both species. At times they are allies, but they can also align with the opposition. Complicating matters still further is the fact that it is possible for an individual to evolve from one species to another. So one day they could be friend and the next foe–or vice versa.
When one considers that the stakes are incalculably high, that Homo rapiens will fight to the death to maintain their hegemony, and that the institutionalized violence perpetrated by the status quo is intense and ubiquitous, those who challenge their dominionism must employ the most holistic, pluralistic, and militant tactics possible, including (but not limited to) education, outreach to minority groups, grass roots social service programs, boycotts, strikes, picketing, letters, petitions, networking, legislative efforts, veganism, monkey wrenching, and direct action.
So, how good can we human animals become? That depends on how hard we are willing to fight and how much we are willing to sacrifice……
Jason Miller is a relentless anti-capitalist, straight edge vegan, and animal liberationist. He is also the founder and editor of Thomas Paine’s Corner, blog director for The Transformative Studies Institute and associate editor for the Journal for Critical Animal Studies.
Thomas Paine’s Corner wants to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to receive them, type “TPC subscription” in the subject line and send your email to willpowerful@hotmail.com
To further your sociopolitical education, strengthen your connection with the radical community, and deepen your participation in forming an egalitarian, just, ecological, non-speciesist and democratic society, visit the Transformative Studies Institute at http://transformativestudies.org/ and the Institute for Critical Animal Studies at http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/.
Sylvain Lamoureux said
Bravo Jason.
Well done in pointing out that this is not our nature but a fabrication to which we have accepted and relinquished power.
Amy said
I think a mistake we make is to classify humanity in “bad” and “good”.
This division implicates the concept of “supernatural” or “soul” that make us superior to the other animals of this planet instead to make us simply different. We should go to the essential and see the humanity as another animal species and as all the other animals, having the natural”ISTINCT” to work thoghether toward a common wellbeing,dictated by the natural need to preserve the specie.So when we talk about “ISTINCT” we talk about genetics and DNA.
The DNA of the human beings bring us naturally to associate and to work togheter, and a malform gene, or malform DNA create people like Cheney, Condi Rice etc..
These individuals have a genetical defect but unfortunately was not discover in embrio and they were and are allow to make decision for the rest of the population.
Once and if we should find those genes or malform DNA, should we eliminate the people who are affected?
I think we should prevent their birth ( as is done in many birth defects found during amniocentisis ), or treat them since birth, or isolet them, so that they are unable to damage the rest of the humanity.
Don Robertson said
Jason Miller wants it all. Like so many of us in our enlightened world he’s been to the candy store.
And Jason wants it all.
Jason wants the science of it; he wants the pristine beauty of it; and he wants the civility of it too.
They each conflict, Jason.
Everyone repeat after me, If the humanitarian-complainers in every realm of our human existence develop their logical, empirical knowledge sets about what is wrong with this world, human nature dictates, someone else will surely come along and only see all the humanitarian work spent defining what is so miserable on the planet, as a higher bar to be jumped.
It is not enlightenment the world requires.
The world needs to be made ignorant of what is available at the candy store. This is what causes all the greed and desire.
Human knowledge is the poison that is in the well.
Human knowledge is not any solution, far from it.
The human world also needs to be vastly less populated.
The diversity of the planet is declining, ruining everyone’s quality of life.
The bio-diversity is suffering, and within it, the diversity of humanity is also suffering.
Every human on the planet wants what is at the candy store.
Without clearing these two ethical hurtles, acknowledging the necessary human limitations in population and knowledge, everyone might just as well join the rat-race and go out buy a big smokin’ gun.
You are going to need it!
Because, nothing else will give humanity the time required to understand it is not the suffering of today for which we should be morally concerned, not at all!
It is what we are bequeathing to the future that is morally paramount.
Had our predecessors had this foresight, perhaps they would have encouraged more birth control, less science, and a more moral world as a result.
scott said
psycopaths are good for an economy, especially an imperialistic economy. theyre even better for fascist aspirations. what social
cohesion could be mounted against a rotten power structure if
the idea of social bonds is anathema?…moedern media sure seems to be trying its best to churn out a new generation of psycopaths….im surprised were mot in more of a mess than we are. inate resistance?
poetshound said
You cannot go against nature,
because when you do
go against nature,
it’s part of nature, too.
-Love and Rockets *No New Tale to Tell*
Humans are operating within Natural parameters, however we push those parameters with our dominance and denial of nature (avoidance of natural consequences.) All the creatures on earth do this, naturally, with varying degrees of species success. For humans, it all seems to come down to choice, and to think that we do not choose some path every moment of every day is, naturally, absurd. Additionally, to put ethical or moral constraints on choice is equally, naturally, absurd. Some are active, some resist, some are passive, some aggressive, some dominant, some submissive. All are natural behaviors and exceptions only prove the rule. Nature has no ethics, that’s for humans to wrestle with. We will reap what we sow, that is the whole of the law. Not negotiable. We take it with us wherever we go. The entire universe is reflective and we are at the center of it. The same goes for each of us and problems arise when we think our center is another’s center. That includes the earth. The earth has a perfectly functioning center and with it a perfectly functioning perspective. We can’t mess it up. We can try, to the horror of some of us (myself included), but in the end, we only mess with ourselves and our viability. I can honestly say that i seek an existence that is in accordance with my perspective of my place in the whole. But that doesn’t mean that my decisions are without consequences, that a footprint is not left, either on the planet or on someone’s face. Nature. I care about the fact that i leave a mark and i want to make choices that steer me toward a perceived homeostatic equilibrium. Actively. Some find it passively, I bet. Even some may through domination over those who find it through submission. I find it increasingly more difficult to judge who has the answer. All I know is nothing, I just observe the world getting more intense and fearful and i bet there will be queues at the ovens of apocalypse. Naturally.
Allegra said
Nature v. nurture was never a dichotomy (speaking here as a psychologist/philosopher). It was more like the yin and yang of development. However, I believe you are right that this is beside the point. I have known sociopaths (professionally) who had the most loving of homes, and others who were greatly abused. In both cases something innate in the individual caused that person to take the path of sociopathy, which in its most elemental form is a complete lack of empathy for other people. It is believed to be a genetic predisposition and the nurturing does not seem as important. It can make a sociopath worse, but it cannot prevent one from developing.
I think the difference between sapiens and rapiens can be understood far more simply: it is the difference between good and evil. I don’t mean these as theological categories; I am not a Christian and have no use for a morality that relies on a book as savage as the bible. But both good and evil actions represent viable survival strategies. The good of which you speak brings about harmony, peace, sharing. Evil brings about war, dissension, hoarding for the self, etc. There appears to be something in the mind of a human that makes it tend to choose one or the other. The people you named, Cheney et al, chose evil. It has served them well, in their terms. If one is selfish – i.e. focused on the self — evil will seem the more tempting path, for evil can only bring about individual good; it cannot help a community of people. If one is not selfish the opposite is true.
This is not to say that one always finds individuals who are purely one or the other. But it cannot be denied that evil has as much value as a survival strategy as the good, and quite possibly more if one speaks in purely selfish terms.
Ours is a selfish species now. Your parallel with a virus was apt. Also, those who developed capitalism were expressing the innermost nature of man, just as you said: they move to a place, devour it, overpopulate it, then move to another place and do it again. Capitalism is the ultimate in selfishness, and hence the ultimate in evil. It is the selfish self elevated over every other consideration – it will rape the planet and other people to achieve its end, which is selfish gain – or wealth to which others do not have access no matter how great their need. And until the planet is totally raped, the evil strategy will provide wealth to the capitalists. Naturally they don’t give a damn about the planet, though where they imagine they will live, when Earth is denuded and totally dug out, is more than I can see. I think it is because evil is a short-term survival strategy, while good looks to the future as well as the present of the species and the planet.
The bible – the Judaeo-Christian tradition is responsible in the Western world for much of the evil we see. It not only elevates man, it elevates man as dominator. But other cultures are living nightmares, such as China and Japan and India. They have different religious traditions. But one thing all religious traditions have in common is that they elevate man to the supreme position. They are all homo-centric in the extreme. And therefore, in my opinion, evil. Religion in all its forms is the most destructive creation of our species. One hears of exceptions, of course – there is always Taoism, in which humanity is just one more part of the world, and not the most important part. But it is the exception that proves the rule. More blood has flowed from the monotheisms than one could easily measure. Hindus and Muslims are at each others’ throats. And where there is dissension, there is evil again. I don’t list Buddhism with Taoism because it too is focused on the individual attaining a higher state. Such a person is supposed to be good but the fact remains that it is a religion of the self.
The question which engages me, given my academic background, is what is to be done about evil? As a survival strategy which rests on more than 2000 years of religious validation, I believe it is currently ahead. I mean, more people choose an evil course than a good one. As long as people persist in seeing good and evil in religious terms they will never be able to free themselves from the dilemma of selfishness, from which evil arises. You say that there are numerous examples of good, courageous, loving people and so it proves that the selfishness of evil is not embedded in our DNA. I think this is a misapprehension. Our ethical evolution may very well be tied to our genetics. Perhaps humanity is moving from rapiens to sapiens, but like all evolutionary changes it is slow. I hope deeply that you are right and I am wrong, for the planet cannot survive if it must rely on the slow evolution into good that humanity might be making.
In my experience, people almost never change from rapiens to sapiens (I find this a very useful distinction). There are notable examples, of course, as well as innumerable examples of really good people. But the choice of evil is like being addicted to meth: no matter how destructive it is to other people, and even the self, people will cling to it in spite of a wealth of data showing how bad it is. Evil is more easily defended in this culture than good is. “Good” – by which I mean unselfish, taking care of others, not fighting wars: a bleeding heart liberal (liberal is a dirty work thanks to the long and diligent efforts of the Republicans). Try defending yourself against the word liberal. And the good goes far beyond mere “liberal” into an activist place where attempts are made to change people out of an evil outlook.
Our dominant paradigms of culture, monotheism and capitalism, are accepted as right and true at such an instinctive level that to argue against them is considered madness. I recently tried arguing against capitalism and the other person listened just long enough to dismissively say, “oh, socialism.” Like I had suggested we go join the Franciscans. Actually, I am a socialist. But people cannot see what they cannot expand their minds to encompass. Our education system closes minds as fast as it can. It is essential for a system like capitalism, which is so grossly unfair in every respect that if people simply thought clearly about it for five minutes they would see it for what it is. Even now, with our capitalist economic system in a total meltdown the only question seems to be, how do we enthrone capitalism again? This is a golden opportunity to move to a socialist system, but it won’t happen. It was like voting for Bush – doing so was obviously against the self-interest of millions of people, but they did it anyway – twice.
Your list of ways to combat the evil is useful. Thank you for adding that to your essay. So many people will do an analysis of what is wrong, then leave you hanging.
Bruce said
It is truly amazing to me that nonsense like this is even read. The enlightened ones are not enlighten nor do they have a reality base understanding of nature. Jason Miller is a relentless anti-capitalist, straight edge vegan, and animal liberationist.
That stays it clears as day to me. Anti capitalist therefore he believes man should be killed off in a mass genocide to save the planet following in the footsteps of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. Regardless of the reason the end result is the same. A vegan is what the Native Americans called a poor hunter. Animal liberation is so full of holes and lost in fantasy land I can’t believe it is even printed.
You see if people really truly understood nature they fully support hunting, trapping, and wearing fur. After studying nature for over 40 years I am not just ranting but pointing out how nature works. Every animal on earth produces a surplus each and every year. With today science we can set a quota on each animal. When people stay within the quota you have a very healthy eco system and all species thrive. Nothing is wipe out.
Now what happens when the people stop using the resource provide by Mother Earth. This is real easy to check your self do a search on mange coyotes. Mange, Distemper, rabies, and many other diseases are how nature controls overpopulation. If you people truly understood the pain and suffering you cause on wild animals you would never support animal rights. But you believe in this child like mis understanding that man is not part of nature. Nothing could be further from the truth the Native Americans understood Mother earth and hunted, trapped, and wore furs. Why because they were part of nature and live in harmony with it. Today we have people that lost this whole concept condemning their follow man without understanding nature.
Instead of writing nonsense and trying to be the “fake” enlighten guru try helping with real problems. Like what come up with a better solar panel a better wind mill a better high mileage car. If you people in the green movement would stop donating to the frauds running the organizations who laugh all the way to bank cashing your check the world would be a much better place.
Homo rapiens be damned: Savagery is not programmed into our DNA, by Jason Miller « Dandelion Salad said
[...] Paine’s Corner Homo rapiens be damned: Savagery is not programmed into our DNAGOTTERDAMMERUNGCondy Rice – War Criminal – Gets a Free Pass on “The [...]
rc said
It’s not so much that power corrupts, but that the corrupt seek power.
God created bankers to show us how stupid we are.
God created international bankers to show us how doomed we are.
Man created God to show us it’s better to be dead.
Nikon said
When you finally come to the conclusion and surrender that Earth and human beings can not and will not be saved from their own destruction, only then will you become free.
No amount of work done by flawed human beings is going to “fix” this dying world nor save us from the corruption within ourselves. Even if we could reform the system today, it would soon enough corrupt and rot because of the inherent sin that is present in all humans.
There’s no avoiding the pain that’s to come, but only through the blood of Jesus Christ are we saved.
And understand that Jesus’ commandments have been ignored, twisted, and spat upon by so-called Christians for centuries, so there’s a special place in Hell reserved just for them.
John Simpson said
I’m a longtime reader of TPC and a vegan too…..and Bruce is one of the most inane people whose commented on this site….funny how “Big Bad Hunter Bruce” is intimidated by us vegans, when we are about .2% of the population….
Bruce wrote,: “That stays it clears as day to me. Anti capitalist therefore he believes man should be killed off in a mass genocide to save the planet following in the footsteps of Hitler, Mao and Stalin…”
Wow! Such tortured logic (or is there any logic there at all?)….somebody’s been brain-washed by the corporate elite who run the American Empire!
Bruce, Hitler was a ruthless fascist dictator, and fascism is an extreme form of, you guessed it, capitalism! Take a little break from your nature slaughters, er I mean studies, and learn some history, man! American capitalists, like Bush’s grandpappy, financed Hitler until federal laws were passed against it in 1942!
Mao and Stalin were totalitarian communists with powerful centralized governments!
Uh, Earth to Bruce: You are posting a reply to an anarchist on an anarchist site.
Just as a little primer for you, here’s a definition of anarchism from Wikipedia:
“Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all forms of compulsory government.[1][2] Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, “there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance.”[3]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[4][5][6] Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11] Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. Some anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2
Oh, and your validation of murdering animals for food and clothing (which in case you weren’t aware is no longer necessary for human survival) by throwing out the Native American example was as ridiculously inaccurate as the rest of what you wrote.
Here’s an excerpt and link to an article by (Rita Laws,Ph.D, Choctaw and Cherokee. She lives and writes in Oklahoma. Her Choctaw name, Hina Hanta, means Bright Path of Peace, which is what she considers vegetariansim to be. She has been vegetarian for over 14 years.):
http://www.ivu.org/history/native_americans.html
“How well we know the stereotype of the rugged Plains Indian: killer of buffalo, dressed in quill-decorated buckskin, elaborately feathered eaddress, and leather moccasins, living in an animal skin teepee, master of the dog and horse, and stranger to vegetables. But this lifestyle, once limited almost exclusively to the Apaches, flourished no more than a couple hundred years. It is not representative of most Native Americans of today or yesterday. Indeed, the “buffalo-as-lifestyle” phenomenon is a direct result of European influence, as we shall see.
Among my own people, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi and Oklahoma, vegetables are the traditional diet mainstay. A French manuscript of the eighteenth century describes the Choctaws’ vegetarian leanings in shelter and food. The homes were constructed not of skins, but of wood, mud, bark and cane. The principal food, eaten daily from earthen pots, was a vegetarian stew containing corn, pumpkin and beans. The bread was made from corn and acorns. Other common favorites were roasted corn and corn porridge. (Meat in the form of small game was an infrequent repast.) The ancient Choctaws were, first and foremost, farmers. Even the clothing was plant based, artistically embroidered dresses for the women and cotton breeches for the men. Choctaws have never adorned their hair with feathers…..What would this country be like today if the ancient ways were still observed? I believe it is fair to say that the Indian respect for non-human life forms would have had a greater impact on American society. Corn, not turkey meat, might be the celebrated Thanksgiving Day dish. Fewer species would have become extinct, the environment would be healthier, and Indian and non-Indian Americans alike would be living longer and healthier lives. There might also be less sexism and racism, for many people believe that, as you treat your animals (the most defenseless), so you will treat your children, your women, and your minorities.”
You refer to this essay as nonsence…It’s actually sad that people who want to follow this thread will be forced to read YOUR nonsense…..you ought to hook up with Ted “Fucking” Nugent!
John Simpson said
Oh, and those Native Americans you rave about, Bruce. Aren’t they the ones our Western European ancestors genocided?
Amy Stanton said
Bruce studied nature for 40 years! Everybody congralte him and bow to his authority! A backward assed country fuck professional nature observer with a PhD in Moronity! The Dr. Bruce show….it’s a Dr. Phil show for those who haven’t found their inner murderer. sorry meant to say inner hunter!
Mariah Johnston said
Bruce, I have an idea for you! “You see if people really truly understood nature they fully support hunting, trapping, and wearing fur. After studying nature for over 40 years I am not just ranting but pointing out how nature works. Every animal on earth produces a surplus each and every year. With today science we can set a quota on each animal. When people stay within the quota you have a very healthy eco system and all species thrive. Nothing is wipe out.”
Let’s use “today’s science and have this so-called set quota on people also. We’ll title it “Quota for the Idiot Village,” and Bruce is the man large and in charge. Bruce, the only thing you are large and in charge of, and intelligent enough to speak of is commenting on the “ants” on your television screen. Get it? Didn’t think so.
Bridget Ridgely said
Bruce, so while you set up camp in your treestand, camoflouged from the innocent beauties your about to murder and when you look into their eyes and shoot them, smiling wryly as you watch them take their last breath, when you hang their lifeless carcasses in your redneck garage surrounded by your pyramids of empty beer cans erected as alters to your sacred Bush Lite god, as you slit their throats and watch their crimson blood flow forth to permanently stain your soul with the wretched malevolence of your sociopathic acts, as you prepare to dine upon their rotting flesh like the necrovore that you are, do you, Bruce, masturbate yourself to climax? Do you then eat your own semen?
Will Peters said
Bruce writes of culling the animal population. Humans are way-overpopulated. We need to cull our own species. Let’s start with Bruce!
poetshound said
gosh, folks, i feel like i miss out on your feelings about jason’s essay when you rant on and on about bruce. i love to read what jason inspires others to think and bruce delivered! holy cow! (heh) bruce got more replies to his blurb than jason did, which to me is showing a lack of respect to our host here. blood-bathing necrovores and semen… come on! i get the outrage, but is he worth it? i know jason’s writing is worth the response, and i’d really like to read your collective takes on it. big kudos to my vegan sisters and brothers for their passion and sincerity, but hanging bruce by his ankles and bleeding him out before eviscerating him is a fucked-up fantasy and you’re better than that. how many of you came across veganism, were fortunate enough to expand your mind and make a change? dietary changes can be hard on a person physically, socially, and economically. it’s a real hero’s journey for some. but before that blessed event, how many free-range chickens and grass-fed steer and wild salmon did YOU gobble up? moreover, how much packaged processed food do you vegans self-righteously consume NOW without considering the consequences? as long as it’s not from an animal. i have a lot of compassion for a guy who just doesn’t get it, because i’ve been that guy, man. and today i’m not. anyway, let’s give jason some props for giving us a place to do this thing.
john said
Any evil on the planet is down to satanism mixed in with psychopathy, and it looks like the origin of satanism is possession by reptilian consciousness, see http://whale.to/b/bartley_h.html
Hedo said
Not everything that occurs in nature is inherently good. Yes, animals “maintain an equilibrium” with their environment, but they achieve this by dying. Usually because they get eaten by other animals, or they simply die of other natural causes. Humans have that weird penchant for wanting to stay alive, and that is the only reason they upset the balance. Those who DO take measures to maintain the balance tend to use despicable methods to do so, like China’s orphanages and their infamous “death rooms.”
Furthermore, these undesirable “savage” traits that only humans supposedly have (such as tendencies towards, rape, senseless killing, cannibalism, etc.) are existent throughout the animal kingdom. These aren’t social constructs in any way. Some people are born sick in the head. We don’t train our children to become psychopaths; if we could, we’d try to train them NOT to. And don’t we already?
Phillip said
I have lived 52 years and I am utterly convinced humans are inately evil. The whole purpose of “creating” god and subsequently enacting and enforcing laws, IS because we are evil. Our very arrogance in assuming we have something no other creature posesses…a soul, because we are so very “special” is one proof.Were it not for our gods and laws, souls and punishments (temporal and otherworldly), the true law of survival of the fittest would rule the day.