Am I anthropocentric or am I eco-centric...well let's look at the evidence:
Do I think I am a dominant species in nature? - Yes.
I mean I've learned the knowledge and skill to light a fire, drive cars, use tin openers, and knock up a cracking spaghetti bolognese - something I'm willing to bet the average donkey can't do. BUT does that really make me the most significant species on the planet?
Am I more important to nature than a donkey? or a plant for that matter? - No, probably not.
I don't really contribute to nature the way a plant does. I don't take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen like they do...in fact just the opposite.
Hang on, does that make us equals? And therefore am I too anthropocentric? Should I be eco-centric?
Honestly - the more I think about it the more I get confused, I think i've reached a counter-counter-counter argument in my head. So, let's make it simple.
Every species has evolved in some method or manner. The chameleon has a massively effective method of defence, far superior to a human whose best method of camouflage so far is some form of disruptive pattern material.
HOWEVER... humans have developed rapidly in the past 200 years, creating tools to survive more easily and make our lives better: For example - Cars, Electricity, Nuclear Power,... and Rugby Union....and then if I think about donkeys, (which I am one to do)...well let's face it, what have donkeys done in the last 200 years...other than worn footpaths into the beach at Blackpool?
HOWEVER - Donkeys haven't started wars because they didn't like other religions leading to the deaths of millions of other donkeys....Donkeys don't have to pay more taxes because donkey bankers have ruined the country and donkeys don't have to visit the mother in law when the 6 Nations is on this weekend.
So really - who's the more clevererererist species?
Well played donkeys, well played.
No comments:
Post a Comment