Donations are essential to keep Write Out Loud going    

NATURE'S BLUE-PRINT (or putting the fox among chickens)

When we consider Man and Beast

And condemn what we see done,

How much easier if that we loathe

Can be vilified "for fun".

 

Let us examine the predatory fox

In the English countryside,

Pursued by mounted Man and hound,

Using instincts to run or hide.

 

The fox will do what foxes do,

No less the chasing hound,

Obeying the laws of nature

With every leap and bound.

 

But what of Man and this false world

Of artificial domestic guise?

What has he to fall back upon

If Time takes it from his eyes?

 

What of nature's blue-print

As strong as hound or prey?

In Man to keep instincts in place

For that unknown time and day.

 

When the trappings of domesticity

Are not there for protection

And it's Man v. Beast all over again

In the war of natural selection.

 

For Man to survive the struggle...

The fight that must be won,

Perhaps nature needs us to rehearse

In reminders done "for fun".

................................................................

◄ BEGGAR ME!

QUESTION ►

Comments

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sat 15th Jun 2013 11:02

The words "cruel" and "cruelty" are Man's alone, since nature seems not to differentiate in the behaviour of its own. It just IS. We can only act we we see fit in various circumstances...or situations...and these provide the material for endless discourse, some pretty heated. And that it, perhaps, how it should be as Man seeks a place in the wider world of life and survival,
influenced and dictated by his increasing knowledge of world (and what lies beyond) and self.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Fri 14th Jun 2013 16:47

Alexzandra - I think it is commonly accepted that all dogs are descended from the wolf...
hunters all. Whilst usually known to hunt in
packs, they still run on "survival of the fittest" mode and the first to catch the prey will deal the killing bite. The rest merely
join in as packs do. You raise an interesting
point about the connection between eating and
chasing a prey. Do they employ this tactic
at greyhound races? Time and again the "top dog" grabs("kills") the prey when it must know it's NOT edible...yet still it does it. If
only dogs could talk!!

Profile image

John Coopey

Thu 13th Jun 2013 23:28

The "sophistication" of Man indeed has a fragile and thin veneer. We don't have to scratch hard the pages of history to discover a less "civilised" side to the human character. Nazi Germany was a little too far back for most of this site's readers but most of us will recall Bosnia, Rwanda, the Kurds in Iraq, Cambodia.
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, MC, but you've certainly provided food for thought.

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Thu 13th Jun 2013 15:49

Thank you Isobel and Alexandra for your comments - considered and cogently put. The phrase "torn apart" is horribly evocative but is it so? The hound aims for the killing bite to the neck/throat and it is likely this happens before any pack arrives in full cry. As for behaviour of wild animals "au naturel": Wild animals are known for eating their own young (or the young of others of the same species), let alone other species. And some have been witnessed "playing" with their prey before killing it. Man lives by man-made laws and these, by and large, even allowing for conflicts, serve to advance the survival of his own argumentative species and, in consequence, the creatures he shares this planet with, when they might populate or eat themselves out of existence. Man alone has the ability and the foresight to see this and heed the warnings that nature provides. Occasionally, they are missed but not often - and usually remedial efforts can be made in time. Why should Man feel guilty about harbouring the survival and hunting instinct that is his as much as any other creature's to employ. Guilt is a luxury that only Man has inflicted upon himself. No other creature recognises or employs it. Foxes (the favourite example for many) are becoming common in cities like London and this cannot be allowed to become a problem, so what is to be the answer? We must accept that they are beasts that do not recognise or identify with man's laws and it's not much good going "aaah, pretty thing" when it couldn't care less about what damage it does to life or property.My own point is that we have created a "false" world of make believe in which wild beasts bcome extensions of ourselves. Wrong. We act best when we act impartially and sometimes ruthlessly to maintain the balance - and that includes "checks". Is there any teaching in the Scriptures or the Koran that says otherwise? I do not subscribe to the "pulling wings off butterflies" frame of mind. I merely seek to acknowledge that nature has no time/place for false analogies of identification and treatment that can become dominant and dangerously misleading in the world.

Profile image

Isobel

Wed 12th Jun 2013 20:26

If I'm not mistaken I think MC is saying that were man not now a domesticated creature, he would be hunting his own meat in order to survive. He is using this argument to justify hunting fox on horseback - arguing that perhaps it is necessary for us to keep in tune with our hunting instincts?

I've seen this argument raging on for a few days now and wondered whether to put my two penneth in - not that it's worth much.

I must admit to never having got that hot under the collar about fox hunting - mainly because foxes are natural pest and predator to other animals. I suppose it is distasteful to get a thrill out of watching something being torn apart - but then I also find two men kicking the shit out of each other in boxing quite distasteful also - particularly when it is known to cause brain damage.

Where I would agree with other side is in how we describe sick human beings who deliberately inflict pain on those weaker. Animals assert themselves, sometimes violently, but I don't think they actually get pleasure from torturing other animals. To call sadists animalistic is therefore incorrect - there is a word for this kind of incorrect labelling - but I can't for the life of me remember it.

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message