Add new comment

Tho I'm not 10:35 and neither totally disagreeing with you, especially on that first paragraph, but ...

"Are anprims going to exclude people who are anti- killing & eating animals, or as Layla might put it, anti- predatory? Based on what grounds?"

I find Layla's concept of "predatory" to be questionable, as I said before (and as you and others seem unwilling to read & consider... likely because I ain't some eminence that gives lectures and sells books?), humans are much better parasites than predators. There's a few dozen millenia of human history in support of this. The ruling classes has never been disinterested benevolent dictator; it was always about profiting from the larger numbers. Human societies, even when they look like it, are not ant colonies. Yet ants also share the dual nature of being both parasites and occasionally into warfare, just like they got a primitive form of "livestock". https://antark.net/ant-life/ant-feeding/ant-farming/ But does that make them predatory? I dunno. But for a (parasite) human pov, ants are pretty obvious household parasites. Predators are another kind. Felines, sharks, eagles and orcas... that type of creatures, that rely exclusively on preying and hunting, and they're so damn good at it they don't require any additional craft, or "techne", for it.

The techno-industrial society does hardly fit with any predatory mindset or behavior, yet it conveniently serves large-scale parasitism. "Wars"? Yes. There is a predatory aspect with today's militaries, yet also their underlying driving forces involve financial parasitism (the corporate defense contractors who've been making billions out of R&D, including wars, as well as the self-interested military officers who're more using the military to their own benefits). This is the common trait, from peace to war time. Is this a equally common trait among all cultures? That is debatable, but let's look at the true motives behind warfare... is this really for eating other people? Naah. Actually for going after anything that others have, preying upon their resources and energies. And/or securing their own. Which is the goal of human warfare. It is, in so, directly connected to PROPERTY... no matter the form of property.

"What if when you look at earth's current condition, hunting doesn't fit into the mix as a helpful way to be? Does that matter to you? Are you capable of adapting to a lifeway in sync with earth today?"

How about driving cars/trucks more than necessity allows? How many people are still driving alone in cars with 3+ passengers capacity? Why are people still buying land and houses in countryside development projects, where they can afford living spaces in city centers that are much less destructive? Any relationship with... hunting?

*scratching my head*

This obsession with hunting as the core bogeyman appears to me as outdated and off the mark (or if this is some elaborate trolling effort, well, ok, honest congrats).

As I wrote before, it's ridiculous to be equating (even symbolically) mass-consumerism of meat with "hunting", as they are completely different systems of production, and industrial mass-production is the reason why we've lost balance with nature in the first place, whereas hunting relies -like fundamentally- on this balance for people to sustain. A hunter-gatherer society would still be the best way to restore balance with nature. Yet let's be also clear that this cannot be achieved with such a massive, mass-based society, unless governments suddenly develop space exploration programs for the millions of lay proles to staff (which ain't gonna happen soon unless alien contact or whatev).

So why do I insist here? Simply because this whole narrative as hunting being the root cause of all civilizational destruction and oppression appears even more distracting to me as Climate Change TM as the main ecological antagonist. It is casting a shadow over modes of production that we CAN help abolishing if we avoid being double-blinded by these enforced grand narratives. Let's put it more simply.... there is a failed, devastating development model we've been unwillingly supporting. It can be stopped, or at least slowed down, yet keep focusing on over-specific, arbitrary issues like "hunting" and you're throwing it off your radar screen.

Aside from this, I'm totally fine with your ongoing restoration project. It's a good praxis for several reasons and I'd hope that in my own social context (not the PNW), it wouldn't be mostly highly-educated liberals who don't give a damn about a deeper analysis of our current social development model, even less how to force it to change.