Man eating super wolves on Dmax
- Thread starter MikeLA
- Start date
The quote is from 'The Matrix' Not terribly bushcrafty but good film
Agreed, but we were discussing man's influence on the world and wildlife. It is my opinion that we are the world's biggest problem - over 7 billion now and growing, expected to be around 10 billion in 50 to 60 years time
Me too. There is a big difference between man eating wolves and man-eating wolves.
That monologue has always irked me. It is such a load of cobblers. There is no creature, mammal or otherwise, that instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment.
After a while, I decided that it was not a simplistic Hollywood sermon dressed up to sound intelligent, but rather just dialogue to show that even the advanced AI "Smith" had a very warped and limited understanding of people and the natural world.
If you look at the instinct of any animal, once the food source has gone, it would obviously move to another area where the food source was more abundant, we as humans don't actually do that, we are more likely to move to another area when the work has dried up, so we are more able to afford to buy food.
We are always being told the world is over populated, surely if we believed this we would forbid people having pets, as cats and dogs and the like eat valuable food resources, and we would also get rid of animals that are of no use to us, and serve little purpose, such as elephants, wolves, tigers etc, I am not saying this should happen and I hope it never does, personally I don't believe the earth is overcrowded, at the moment, I do believe its resources and its space is not utilised properly, and a lot of damage is caused by bad management, a good example is the flooding we see which in a lot of cases could be prevented if we maintained the rivers and water course better, and also stopped building on the flood plains.
One thing I don't understand is, when I pay my water rates, I pay for the water I use and the water taken back by the water company, also for the surface water removal, so when people are flooded out, why don't the water companies reimburse the people for failing to take the surface water away, and for failing to ensure they manage the water properly.
In it's specifics perhaps, it's meant to be an insult not an intellectual analysis. In the wild world predators cannot out-live their prey - there is a natural balance of the cycle of life in nature albeit one that changes over time. Man is a pestilence on this earth and the rest of life would be better off without us (although, again, without man's influence it would be different). Man over-exploits, over-uses, over-crops, wastes, spoils and destroys - I don't think Smith misunderstood at all
It’s not all of us though, may not be PC this but I’ve never given a stuff about that woke horse crap but Europeans are not even reproducing at even replacement levels. It’s the rest of the world.Agreed, but we were discussing man's influence on the world and wildlife. It is my opinion that we are the world's biggest problem - over 7 billion now and growing, expected to be around 10 billion in 50 to 60 years time
Wastes, destroys and over exploits. I do not think these are innate characteristics unique to humans, rather our recent and rapid success has allowed these common characteristics be be given free rein in a way that we don't see often in other animals. I think many of our problems are the result of some of our very basic animal drives and instincts transported and dumped into a populous and industrialised world that they were not developed to cope with.
It is hard to argue that Man isn't a pestilence that the rest of life would do better without.
There have been times and places though that man's "engineering" of the environment has benefitted all the life in an area. I am in mind of some things from the Attenborough series Wild Canada, about how the native people managed the eastern woodland environment. Without that management, the forest has reverted to a "natural" almost mono-culture of maples.
Much as elephants are important to the maintenance of the savanna, keeping acacia woodland in check, but put too many elephants in a small area and they wreck the place and turn it to near desert.
It is hard to argue that Man isn't a pestilence that the rest of life would do better without.
There have been times and places though that man's "engineering" of the environment has benefitted all the life in an area. I am in mind of some things from the Attenborough series Wild Canada, about how the native people managed the eastern woodland environment. Without that management, the forest has reverted to a "natural" almost mono-culture of maples.
Much as elephants are important to the maintenance of the savanna, keeping acacia woodland in check, but put too many elephants in a small area and they wreck the place and turn it to near desert.
Similar threads
