THE DEATH WATCH-TWENTY-SIX

A point that my cousin brought up, about human beings behaving within certain restrictions, based on his belief that they were motivated by God and the fear of God, leads me to unload on you the concept that I have that “man” (human beings) are really not part of the biosphere we call the Earth. Although I do believe that “man” is an animal and, therefore, exhibits animal like tendencies, I also believe that “man” strays from some of these animal tendencies to beg the question whether “man” is of this Earth.

If we look at the “Third Rock from the Sun” and consider the Earth, the place we call home, as a Biosphere then we have to believe that this Biosphere has to exist in balance with itself. That is to say, everything that occurs in nature is balanced by something else that occurs in nature. Plants do not grow wild at the expense of some other plants nor do animals multiply beyond their means to survive nor does one species over run the existence of another species. The Biosphere is in balance. The living and dying occur to maintain this balance.

Except for “man”.

Where shall I begin?
“Man” cannot adapt to the environment of the Biosphere without the need for clothing and shelter.
“Man” kills for sport, not just for survival.
“Man” engages in sex for pleasure not just for procreation.
The good that “man” does, and gives himself awards for, are for items to repair the things that “man” does to destroy the Biosphere. Namely, polluting his own environment.
“Man” contributes nothing to the balance of the Biosphere.
“Man” kills others of his own kind for reasons far beyond the need to balance the Biosphere.

It’s as if “man” was dropped into this Biosphere and did not evolve from within this Biosphere. There may be evidence of a genetic link to apes within “man” but a case can as easily be made that there is a link to chickens and fish yet the fact remains, “man” does not seem to fit into this Biosphere.

If you accept this concept then there is nothing that “man” does that can be considered against “man’s” normal nature. “Man” operates under a different set of “laws” that may not necessarily be in synch with the “laws of nature”. The things that “man” does to survive are not necessarily in tune with the Biosphere and therefore lead to the destruction of the Biosphere.

The broadness of the category of “man” needs further dividing since a lot of the concepts that I attributed to “man” are really those of European “man” or those from a “civilized” society. Those that we call “primitives” or “primitive man” lived much closer to the laws of nature than the “civilized man”. For example the American Indian, or Native American, had difficulty with the “white” mans concept of land ownership. As far as the “primitives” were concerned they were the stewards of the land and, therefore, lived in concert with the land. They did not build permanent shelters at the expense of the flora around them nor did they kill for sport but rather to meet their needs for food and clothing. The plains Indians moved with the Buffalo because the Buffalo was their basic provider. I wish I knew more about where the concept of ownership superseded stewardship when it came to land but I suspect it has a religious base. These selfsame “primitives” were also pagans in their religious beliefs and in my way of thinking the concept of many Gods and a respect for the laws of nature are in direct conflict with the notion of one God and the superiority of “man” to allow “man” to destroy the land at the expense of those around him. I highly recommend a paper entitled “The Tragedy of the Common”.

As you can probably tell by now, I have a real problem with the use of the terms “civilized” and “primitive” as it is applied to people today.