Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
My gripe with a lot of these nature shows is that they are showcases for a neo-Darwinian point of view that prizes competition more than co-operation, legitimises violence and hierarchy, and suggests that humans and nature, and even species of animals and plants that have actually co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years, can't live together in the same area without some form of violent or physical conflict. In this worldview, the only legitimate and stable group that animals can live in is a family group and nothing bigger.

Ever see a nature show about African animals that had elephants, hippos, antelopes or any other species co-existing with local human communities and each species, human and non-human, adapting in their own ways to living in harmony with the other, constantly fine-tuning the balance, the humans respecting the animals' right to certain territory and performing their rituals there and the animals doing the same for the humans?

To see how our perceptions of evolution and Darwinian explanations of evolution are heavily tinted by culture and ideology, you could read what Geoff Olson has to say about these in his article about Prince Peter A Kropotkin, the 19th century Russian zoologist / geographer who argued that co-operation is as important as competition in evolution here:

and also Dean Henderson's article on the use of the neo-Darwinist competition paradigm to explain animal behaviour in the wild, present nature as brutal and dangerous and needing to be subdued, and justify human domination over nature as well as humans themselves:
NausikaDalazBlindaz @ BBC - Blogs - Adam Curtis - HEAVY PETTING

Don't be the product, buy the product!