There are a number of reasons humans have developed their jaundiced view of nature, but essentially I think, their aim is to protect themselves from their own conscience and doubt.

Humans could not stand a true comparison of what they are compared to wild animals, because it would show them up as underachievers. They could not stand the realization that the carnage they are wrecking on nature is a crime, and poor reflection of their character. By seeking a prudish moral stand against nature, they have an excuse to continue exploiting it. Why, if animals are struggling to survive, then humans are probably doing us, my friends, a favor by putting us out of our misery!

Humans distort their view of nature. This may be done on purpose, as demonstrated by a number of documentary makers wanting to sell into the human market (more beetle). It also occurs subconsciously and ignorantly as an underlying defense mechanism which I term 'anthroprudism'.

The problem starts out with the biologists, who should know better and act as the champions of nature. How can biologists omit from their studies any explanation or understanding of wildness, the enlightening effect it has on the mind, and its adaptive advantages (more beetle)? It is obvious that most biologists take the easy path towards appeasing the carnivorous mentality of humans, by telling them that what they are doing is natural and really just proof of their advanced state of evolution. The strong, epitomized by humans, survive. Biologists distort the truth of what they see, and sell out to the human machine. They find ever more angles on how to put a selfish and anthroprudish tinge on the beauty that is nature (more beetle). It probably helps some get funding and sponsorship from those businesses that also play on the motto of 'trample on anything in the way of your profits'. How many adds do you see that tell you 'it's a jungle out there', so you had better improve how you compete by getting extra tyre grip on the road, or better running shoes, or business support packages.

Their examples are skewed. If there is no special attempt in nature to be one way or another, other than wild and natural, then within any natural distribution of variety, there will be examples of what humans interpret as aggression, deception, cooperation, gentleness, kindness etc. But humans concentrate on aggression and deception, as though that is the goal of nature, and either ignore the others, or take their reasoning to absurdity in an effort to encompass all. If an animal seeks to mate, or find a home, or defend a territory, then it is called selfish. I even had one evolutionist tell me that to eat is to be selfish, because it is self fulfilling. But what else can an animal do? How can they ever win morally in a human's eyes? This kind of circular argument from which there is no alternative does not prove anything, but reveals the mind trap that humans have cornered themselves into. From that trap, they see nature as fundamentally ugly, reflecting their own mental state and immaturity.

If there is any doubt about what humans look for in nature, then look at the nature documentaries they prize most. I would like a dollar for every lion documentary there is where the aggressor brings down the gentler and fairer gazelle. Or the one with the crocodiles attacking the wildebeest crossing the river. Or the killer whale footage where they fling baby seals for sport. It is a human obsession to find or construct these examples, and when you question them in despair, they say 'but that is the reality of nature'. Nevertheless, you can get just as distorted a view on life by focusing upon a narrow selection within the bigger picture. Where are the documentaries on the giraffe, the Nile soft-shelled turtle, rhinoceros, symbiosis or mutualism? Instead we have a series of documentaries on 'When Animals Attack' or 'Killing for a Living'.

The obsession appears to fill a deep psychological need in humans to convince themselves that they have risen above the 'awfulness' of nature to something better and superior. And, that they had better not look back. Such delusions are normally fairly simple and obvious indicators of neurosis in many other walks of life as well, so it is strange that this condition in humans has not been picked up before (perhaps it is really me!!).

There is something wrong with the human psyche. The symptom is that it has to scoop out part of its own soul and senses to avoid seeing what a monster it really has become. It is a form of self-protection against something the human feels it cannot change about itself, which is sad. The simple solution of seeing nature and the world through wild eyes rather than human eyes is currently beyond their comprehension.

HomeIndexNext

Prudish examples:

Should Steve Irwin have introduced son Bob to a crocodile?
Half of what I say is brilliant, the other half crap. Trouble is, I don't know which half
Anthroprudism
by
Dr Beetle
Living in the wild is wonderful. There is so much life, energy and variety to fill the senses. You can be free and natural. More than often you can do whatever you want. You feel sustained by Mother Nature, and are a part of its diversity. It is the ideal way to live. So what are these humans on about?