You are singularly failing to see this from the elephants' point of view.
LBJ, that is
the point - we can't... OK?
And it's interesting you raise this point, as it's silly to 'imagine' that it's all the same to the elephant [or bison], being selectively culled or even exterminated... Not a great effort on your part to 'see it from their point of view' there and yet it's somehow "recommended" to me...
Really silly.
Crispy, just
the main, allegedly garbled [read difficult to understand if you never questioned Darwinism] point, as I fail to see any evidence that Nature has a species anywhere near to being as destructive as we are [amassing and killing on such a scale that it's way beyond the immediate needs, moreover capable of destroying its habitat/environment], sorry:
that is the difficult point for the non-critically educated,
when it comes to Darwinism, as an omnipresent theory with very little or no opposition -
that sort of thinking itself, at its very core, has a very inconvenient methodical problem. I can't be writing it all over again, so...
Darwinism comes [it's type of thinking, its methodology, its categorical apparatus, its notions - as expressly written by Wallace/Darwin]
...from Social Theory [i.e. "everything became clear after reading Malthus": notice eugenics etc. advocated by him, morals not coming into it...], to Science [Wallace/Darwin] and back to Social Theory [Socio-Biology, Social Darwinism, "evolutionary psychology" etc.] but without critically thinking about it - well, that spells disaster to my mind...
Can you understand how we are "primed" to "feel that our society" is "all around us", strangely enough in the Nature itself, how it can be a great comfort to some and an excellent justification for all sorts of social idiocy we call "natural" and hence "justified"...
But can we make an effort not to do this sort of thing? Sure, some are trying but not getting much coverage in the public sphere, it seems. I remember a single BBC programme on the topic, gathering people from both ends of the spectrum - and that's it, when it comes to the general public sphere...
A few more things mentioned by me:
...Marx already sees [this approach by W/D] as a methodological problem/fault, since Darwin himself admits he took Malthus' world-view and incorporated it, actually based his "understanding" of nature in it and "explained" everything in "nature" having in mind early Capitalist quagmire of the UK...
This is highly inappropriate and even dangerous [as I wrote earlier, re. eugenics, the Nazis etc.], as the
alleged "insight" into Nature [that
was formed by/based in "Social Science" - but that was conveniently forgotten (a highly embarrassing episode for Darwinians)] was
then re-used to come back to Human Society to allegedly "firmly ground everything in timeless, Natural Laws that Darwin and co. have now understood"!
As Marx speaks of bourgeois apologists/ideologues: it's funny, he said, as now they look to have become just like the religious dogmatics they deposed, because all that happened before Capitalism was totally unjust and flawed, artificial and un-natural but the newly established [by them] society is now perfectly 'in tune' with Nature itself, so "no more changes, please"! History used to be but NO MORE!!
Interesting, don't you think? One uses a picture/model that one has in front of him, from the early Capitalist phase, shoves it into Nature and then, after Nature has been so beautifully "explained" comes back to Social Sciences to declare the new society "magically and even mystically" perfect and timeless... Bliss....
In effect, many here don't even see anything wrong with this sort of
methodical sliding from our very own, new Epoch, rampant, early Capitalist Society to Nature and then triumphally back to Society to show how "Nature and Society actually correspond, strangely"... but "beautifully", as "we" [who "can see this"] now feel much better, since "we see that it can't be any other way", hence "we better not even try changing anything", since "we have reached the Natural Principles" and "all else is actually impossible, un-natural, Utopian" and so forth...
Some comfort this may be to those afraid of life as open-ness, a creative kind of an effort into the New, who [the scared Cons] are yearning for "absolute, immovable, solid ground" from which they don't need to make any serious critical effort to think for themselves...
