Future Shock
Dateline: June of the year 2109, in a high school social sciences class in Boise, Idaho.
Teacher: Good morning class. Today we are remembering what life was like in the days of Barack Hussein Obama, the first African American President of the United States. As you all know, President Obama did many things to distinguish himself as one of the greatest Presidents our country has ever known.
Back in 2009, the country was in a fast downward spiral of financial disaster; but Obama and his cabinet -- against all odds -- implemented a plan that re-organized the way banks and public corporations did business. He made them accountable not only to the shareholders and government, but also to the environment and to the well-being of the workers. There were a couple of very dark years for a lot of people, but a second Great Depression was averted.
It was under President Obama's leadership that this country was ushered into the era of peace and prosperity that we've experienced since then. Some argue that he saved the world from impending ecological collapse by appointing key agricultural and scientific people that made critical recommendations.
A hundred years ago, you may find this hard to believe, but the entire world was behaving in a way that made scientists of the time wonder aloud whether humans are actually a rational species. Some of the most brilliant scientists of the day argued that without changes in policy, the world was doomed to Biblical-style plagues, floods, famines, food and water wars, and other catastrophes -- all of human origin. Even so, entire industries lined up to condemn these scientists -- there was actually a debate about whether global warming was a problem.
Gasps and murmuring of incredulity from the students.
I know, we see it all clearly now. But back then, people were used to just taking whatever they wanted of natural resources, not believing that there could ever be consequences. They thought there was no end to the oil in the ground, fresh air or water, trees, or even animals. They believed they could do whatever they wanted, and so they did.
It's impressive to think about how the transformation occurred, though. Take for instance how people used to eat. Back in the day, people used to eat animals as part of nearly every meal. No kidding. But then in late 2006, United Nations scientists argued that eating meat was "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," singling out meat consumption as a top cause of everything from desertification to loss of biodiversity to global warming. In fact, it was the business of raising animals for food that caused more global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide -- than all the various forms of transportation put together. So even though driving those millions of big cars and flying old fashioned planes powered by oil were polluting the environment and warming the planet at breakneck speed, animal agriculture was an even bigger problem.
It seemed that no one listened, though, as 10 billion land animals and tens of billions of fish continued to be killed and eaten by humans every year in the United States alone.
Student: 10 billion animals and all those fish were slaughtered a year? For people to eat?
Teacher: Oh yes, people in the United States ate on average about 100 kilograms of animal flesh per person per year; of course back then the U.S. measured weight in something called pounds -- so it was an average of about 220 pounds. They ate huge chunks of cows -- their rumps, shoulders, and from around their ribs -- and drank their milk. They even ate the cow's baby's -- called veal -- because they liked the taste tender flesh. They dined on chickens more than anything, eating their breasts, legs, and wings. And people ate their eggs too!
Groans of disgust from the room. One student exclaims, "Humans consumed the milk and eggs of cows and chickens? Seriously?"
Teacher: Yes, seriously. But back to the environment please: It was inconceivable to people that the food they ate was what was warming the planet. Even former President Al Gore, who at that time had not yet been elected President or started his crusade against eating animals, didn't embrace the idea. He did finally see the connection of course, and he became one of President Obama's main advisors, urging him to see the full picture of what animal agriculture was doing to our planet.
At the same time, a number of scientists got together and challenged the world to recognize the insanity of funneling crops through animals to eat them. In addition to causing almost one-fifth of all global warming -- and for something both cruel and unhealthy -- funneling crops through animals also wasted hundreds of millions of tons of grain, corn, and soy. These crops were funneled through animals, wasting all of their fiber and carbohydrates, and the vast majority of their calories.
And remember, this was 100 years ago, when almost a billion people were starving and more than a billion lived in dire poverty. It's shocking to think that in such a rich world, people starved, but they did -- from those almost one billion who were not eating enough to be healthy, about 40 million people every year actually died from starvation-related causes. So that makes the waste of crops even harder to understand.
There is a spirited debate in college and university political science departments about whether it was the scientific argument about animals or the environmental and human starvation arguments that finally caused eating animals to be seen as so totally unethical, but everyone agrees that Richard Dawkins, other scientists, and animal protection groups focused attention on the scientific argument -- now obvious to us -- that other animals are more like us than they're unlike us (they feel pain, they are familial, they seek enjoyment, etc.) and that eating them is... well it's beneath our humanity and certainly bad for our health and the health of the planet.
Professor Dawkins, who was the foremost evolutionary scientist of his day, denounced what he called "speciesist arrogance" -- this idea that human beings are the pinnacle of creation -- and he called other species our "cousins," though these ideas were hardly the scientific consensus, despite the efforts of Dawkins, Jane Goodall, and other such pioneers. Of course it's obvious to us that other species have the same basic capacities and senses as human beings, but again, this was a big, big deal when Dawkins and Goodall were saying it 100 years ago.
At that same time, animal protection groups started to focus more and more on the way these animals were treated. Groups documented the unbelievable cruelty of systems for egg production where so-called farmers crammed seven animals into tiny cages, as many as 100,000 in a shed, unable to do anything natural to being a chicken. They documented slaughterhouses -- it remains amazing to me that society didn't come up with another name for these places -- chopping animals' limbs off while they were still conscious.
They kept animals by the thousands in windowless buildings hidden away from view, and inside, they had people lined up to kill them, dismember them, and chop them up to be shipped out for food. There was a lot of blood, and there were horrible sounds coming from those places. But it was the biggest industry in the whole world, and people didn't seem to question the rightness of it. You can sometimes see these videos late at night on the American History channel, but they justifiably contain a parental warning, since they are not for the faint of heart.
At this point, most of the students are staring blankly, in total shock.
I'm sorry -- I know this is hard to hear. But it's important that we understand our history, and it's important that...
A student interrupts: But ma'am, how could this be? Wouldn't people get sick if they were eating animals' corpses? I mean, they were eating dead bodies!
Why yes, they got sick. Millions of people got sick from eating contaminated animal flesh every year, and thousands died. And even more shocking, more than half of Americans died from heart disease and cancer (those were big diseases back then), and two-thirds of Americans were overweight from eating this unhealthy diet. Although some doctors and nutritionists tried to tell everyone else that the human body is not designed to consume animals, much as people smoked cigarettes and denied the harm for so long, people also ate animals and denied the harm. I know this all sounds quite fantastical to you, but it's true.
Another student chimes in: But why, why did they eat animals? It seems so... gross.
Teacher: Well, perhaps they liked the taste of animal flesh [students groan collectively]. I'm really not sure. In 2008, a movie came out about a rugby team that experienced a plane crash, and the members ended up eating their team members as they froze to death. I suspect that the realization that humans are also made of flesh might have shocked some people.
At that time, it's important to remember that the very idea of green businesses was brand new and some businesses thrived as people clung to tradition. There were massive corporations dedicated to profiting from war, coal mining, oil, and killing billions of animals. You may not believe this, but people would actually call Thanksgiving "turkey day" because about 50 million turkeys were killed for that day alone.
First student blurts out in frustration: How could this be? My great grandmother was alive 100 years ago -- surely she didn't eat animals!?
Teacher: Well remember, humans held other humans as slaves not very long before that, and the Holocaust was a mere 60 years before Obama came to office. Think of things like the witch burnings, the crusades, the fact that women couldn't even vote 100 years earlier than the first black presidency. Thankfully, human beings evolve ethically, not just physically!
Anyway, about 100 years ago, a campaign began, spearheaded by a coalition of health, environmental, poverty, and animal protection groups, and supported by President Obama and his animal-loving family. Suddenly shirts and bumper stickers were everywhere, "Vegetarian is our HOPE!" And of course it had many layers to it -- the environment, global poverty, our health. It started becoming popular to eat a more plant based diet, and sure enough, a momentum was started, and within a few years, humans phased out eating animals.
It was, perhaps, the inevitable tide of history. In this case, scientific understanding met ecological crisis met the strong urge for self-preservation. We're learning from our mistakes and learning from science. We can, at least, be thankful for that, class. Don't you agree that learning from our mistakes is worth celebrating?
A young girl, silent until then, says quietly: I'm glad I wasn't alive then. I don't think I could have stomached eating an animal.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nice fantasy. Many may choose a vegan lifestyle, but not most.
.
Pessimism: People will not all treat each other well in 100 years or 1000 years, just as many do not treat each other well now-- nevermind non-human animals. We can't manage to get countless people food, a bug net, and a tarp while some people have ten empty mansions, filled with gold-covered useless crap and more shoes than they could wear in fifty lifetimes- while the owners are out on golf courses, wearing pants sewn by someone earning pennies. Some people are too busy getting a tan in front of their giant screen televisions sucking down chicken legs to care. When they do go out, they drive past the homeless woman, telling their passenger that she's homeless because she wants to be, and that she should leave. I'd be surprised if the planet was still in one piece in 100 years.. If it is, ten people will control all the world's food, drinking water, banks and wealth while everyone else has to beg and kiss their rear ends to survive. Those people will achieve immortality, paying for a cure for death. Your great grandkids will buy their goods from a fully-automated robotic WalMart Supercenter employing nobody. Without population control, our land will severely overpopulate and they'll suck every resource out of the earth-- animal, mineral, or vegetable. Maybe most people will eat plants only-- because that's all they can afford.
Good point!
"Without population control, our land will severely overpopulate and they'll suck every resource out of the earth-- animal, mineral, or vegetable.
That's what I have been posting here all along.
Amen. I read a quote of the Dalai Lama's. I paraphrase, but it went something like..."No matter what your issue is, no matter what you think is the vital issue, population control has got to be a component of that issue. Whether it's the environment, whether it's peace, whether it's animal rights, no matter your issue, population control is part of the solution".
I find the pessimism above quite disturbing. If you want self fulfilling prophesy, keep this outlook.
I have an excerpt from on the most inspirational letters I've ever read to counter the doom and gloom.
"Many of us justify our endorsement of
"humane" animal products and our
pursuit of welfare reforms by saying that
the world is not ready to change, that it
may never go vegan, that the most we can
hope to accomplish in the meantime is
to reduce the suffering of today's doomed
animals. But this is not true. This is not
a fact. It is a fear – a fear of action, a failure
of will, a self- defeating attitude and,
ultimately, a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The truth is, the world can change.
Indeed, the world has changed many
times before, and it has changed in ways
that seemed impossible at the time." Joanna Lucas - Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
www.peacef
http://www
http://www
"...EPA ranks urban runoff and storm sewer discharges together as the second most prevalent source of water quality impairment in the nation"s estuaries, after industrial discharges
http://www
"When water from storms runs off roads, parking lots, rooftops and other hard surfaces, it carries pollution to local waterways and the Bay. Runoff from urban and suburban land is currently the only source of pollution that is increasing. This is due to continued population growth and related developmen
I would again point out that in a pastoral and grassland agricultural system that no ground is tilled for crop production, thus no CO2 release. Moreover, there is no sediment run off. Further more, most fertilizers and pesticides used in agriculture are used in the production of corn and soy beans. Great advances have been made in the application of these products but would mention that the no till corn and soy practices typically use a Round Up ready plant (genetically modified).
link to grass fed article on Huff Po...
http://www
I imagine most of the posters here will not follow these links. But I try.
I would also point out that the UN report that is being tossed about as if it were the holy grail of vegetarian support. Has many variables compiled into it which are irrelevant to actual livestock production in the US.
One, part of the data factored in is rain forest clearing for "livestock production" and part of livestock contribution to green house gases. While I am not in favor of deforestation, I ask you how is this connected to how much methane a cow belches? The rain forest is being cleared for many reasons not just livestock.
Two, most livestock in the US is on land that was prairie, scrub, grassland, and mountain slopes. No deforesting was required to create this farm/ranch land. Cattle spend only a few months of their lives in a feed lot. I am not in favor of feed lots or factory farms.
The report also factors in all the fossil fuels going into grain production as if all grain goes into livestock. This is absolutely false. Most livestock are fed BY PRODUCTS on grain processing for human use. Whole grains are just too expensive to be used.
I will further add that (as stated in an article posted on this site) a forage based diet dramatically reduces methane emissions and improves the healthiness of meat, dairy, and poultry products.
Just took a look at Organ Cave on Google Earth, looks like a nice place!
Our farm USED to be west of Erie PA just south of the airport on West Ridge rd. and east of Mckey rd. but it's nothing houses now. Used to be a series of small narrow farms next to each other.
Hey,
Just running through, grabbing a slice of my wife's homemade bread and her strawberry jam (we grow ever bearing strawberries, not as big as june bearing but I think they are sweeter and closer to wild tasting)
Yes Organ Cave is a nice place. Unfortunately I am having to fight both the subdivision and the town of Ronceverte (4 miles to the north); they are trying to annex this area and the connecting road which runs through middle of my property.
Funny, someone on here said the grew up in a small town of 7000 people. Around here that is a metropolis. My little community might number a 100. There are several that are still living on land their ancestors were granted by the king of england and have the papers to prove it. That kind of heritage would be destroyed if livestock production was banned... this particular area is not suited to much in the way of crop production, especially with the cave and karst topography. As it is a 60 head Dairy is gone forever and if we are unsuccessful will be a 145 unit gated community.
If you are interested I will post a link to our battle site my wife put together. Note since spring/summer has hit she has not been able to finish it. But you can read the petition I wrote that was read on the floor of the state senate. And I would not have to go into the gory details here...
http://www
Ok... back to work... will check back in closer to dark. Tomorrow is Sunday, always look forward to Sunday... I am not religious but my Mom is (she lives here as well, 75 and still gets out and works) and Sunday is day of rest.
You know what I find most ironic, amusing; but mostly depressing and sad?
Almost a thousand postings to this article, mostly by vegetarians patting each other on their backs and wholesale condemning the livestock industry as a whole. I have had some intelligent debate with a few and I thank you for that. I have followed the links you have provided. I have tried to keep an open mind and understand the vegan side of the issue. I have tried to provide information and facts showing that not all livestock come from factory farms.
On this same site is a posting about grass fed dairy and the UN report that so many here have touted. ONLY 5 COMMENTS on that forum.
What I have learned is this. Much like the people that believed that Pres. Obama was Muslim and a terrorist, despite all the evidence to the contrary; PETA supports and vegetarians appear to have no desire to even consider that they might have been misled. They (this is a generalization, there are exceptions as I mentioned earlier) do not want to even be presented with evidence to the contrary and when they are, they ignore it.
I would put forth that if you are looking to dismantle factory farms both vegetative and animal, do it with your dollars. Purchase your food from a local producer where you can visit the farm itself. Visit a pasture grass fed farm... many farms offer tours (agri-tourism). I welcome visitors.
...Also...
When it comes to pork....? (A little bacon in the beans) I buy organic because i know a certain level of cleanliness and happiness must be maintained or organic pigs, raised without antibiotics will just flat die. So organic assures a certain level of humaneness in pork production.
We buy a quarter of a steer every once in awhile and it lasts long because all in all we try to get beyond the American thing of having half your plate be protein. Humans just don't need that much. We use protein to flavor the vegetable and grains instead of piling up pieces of meat.
You are right. If it's "all or nothing" we fail. If we can get people to be moderate, we win the planet and the future.
FYI
We used to get a few piglets every spring(cute little guys)raise them all summer and slaughter them in the fall to feed my extended family all winter. Contrary to popular belief when provided with proper living conditions they are clean and do not have much odor. They will poop as far as they can from where they eat and drink. They will roll in mud or dirt to keep the insects at bay and are smart.
Now I have definitely become your fan.
Roguer rules!
Roguer-
Your perspective is understandable and is to be expected. You are absolutely right about a lot of points you bring up regarding the hypocrisy of our society. The difference between you and the vegans/vegetarians and PETA supporters you mention above about their flat rejection of the points and arguments you raise are this: it boils down to speciesism. In your livelihood and experience, your world view is one that animals, though you believe you treat them well while they are in your care, and your treatment of them is more in the tradition of what is described as "animal husbandry" compared to the grossly abhorrent treatment of animals in factory farms, at the end of the day- they suffer "livestock" standard treatments that for domestic pets would be considered animal abuse and are slaughtered unnecessarily as the unjustified means to an end of human use. You are absolutely right that in the essence of being efficiently utilitarian and that in our economic structure we have found a way to make many of the animals we use every part (but not all- i.e. male baby "layer breed" chicks are often pitched live in the trash) insidiously foundational. The scale is monumental and intentionally veiled thereby unconscious to most due to social/rel
It is clear that human waste is enough to support human needs for agricultural purposes without animal involvement (and especially without animal farming) and that humans do not need animals for dietary excellence and optimal health. It is clear that the methods we have behaviorally adapted to (for farming both animal and plants) are environmentally catastrophic. The wild animals left to fly, roam, crawl etc will continue to add their benefits to the soils we can symbiotically farm locally instead of irresponsibly genetically engineering toxins into mono cropped plants and having insane chemically treated water wasting and polluting lawns and golf courses everywhere. Your point somewhere else on this page about breeding pets is absolutely right. "The leading consumer of tuna is not a natural predator in the sea, it is pigs and cats" Paul Watson. While I've rescued many an animal from the pound, I absolutely disagree with the continued breeding of animals for pets.
In general, as a species we are ignorant, desperately out of balance and out of touch with reality of the impacts of our species and for it, we are irresponsibly causing the most evil scourge and collapse/6th extinction of the world's once abundantly rich biodiversity.
continued.
Grass fed cattle make up a very small percent of total livestock raised for American consumption. The majority of livestock consumed in America is poultry and fish. So, while your personal impacts are limited environmentally, comparatively speaking, the issue is the mindset that animals are here for our foundational use is an abomination of mankind, among many. We are a world, and American lifestyle, (5% of world population) is consuming 25% of the world's resources. www.storyo
Our focus and challenge ought not be to engineer ways of continued exploitation of others, it should to educate and socially evolve to a peaceful way of life that lives within our means, harmoniously and respects other living beings, which, when tapped is in alignment with our instincts and higher consciousness. Out side human culture- the circle of life does not include herbivores enslaving everyone else on the planet simply because they can. Doing this in the insanity we call "American lifestyle or even western civilization" is taking an organized and concerted revolution by the informed and conscious to overcome what entrenched interests fighting tooth and nail to maintain.
Love life, live vegan!
Outstanding!
Yes Kathy, You really have a problem with dissenting opinion, don't you? So don't display my posts. You're just convincing me of how unconvincing you and your arguments are because they don't stand up to sound critical argument.
Wow, what a terrifying flatland vision of the future. The Caring Vegetarians have won the day, animals have been granted equal citizenship(and the right to vote?), and the Reverend Richard Dawkins has been granted sainthood.
Why not add a bit about how people believed in God back then, and even prayed. Eeeewww!
If there ever was a mean green meme, this diatribe is its wet dream.
You should have read the blog and comments abut feeding CATS a vegan diet a few months ago.
Which really sickens me...cats are natural carnivores and REQUIRE a meat based diet. To impose veganism on a cat is really wrong and amounts to animal cruelty.
Although I do eat a lot less meat than I used to and try to go vegitarian more often, I am never going to give up the occassional steak, greasy hamburger, lamb chop or bacon. Yum, yum. I do seek out and buy from sources that raise the animals humanely in free range environments.
But, Kathy, do you really believe that our being carnivores is simply a matter of conscious choice and will? That doesn't explain the "hunter" part of hunter-and-gatherer - which came long before factory farms. Our great, great grandchildren might really ENJOY a cheeseburger.
http://www
http://www
Kinda supports many of my comments.
HOME
http://www
This is a wonderfully done presentation on getting us to take the adventure of being more and having less; real eye candy with the incredible photography.
-Future Shock: By 2109, Everyone Will Be Vegan-
Very cool...Now my turn: By 2109 My great great grandson will be piloting the Starship Enterprise with his trusty Vulcan by his side.
Thank you for this informative post, Kathy. This is a topic that more people need to be informed about. Little changes can add up to making a huge difference for our planet. Keep up the good work and thanks again.
To all of you who really like to eat, to whom eating is a bonhomie social event....? Think about taking a course in vegetarian cooking. Beautiful, wonderful food! Till then...? If everyone in the U.S. only pledged to have ONE meat-free day a week, it would make an enormous difference on every level of the issue...fr
(The question is not if animals think. The question is if they suffer. It's not about what you do to an animal, it's what you are doing to your own mind by ignoring your compassionate response in the face of suffering. To be born a human is a wonderful opportunity for spiritual development. Don't waste your time. It is short.)
Just a point of informatio
The cattle industry does not want cattle to be stressed at the time of harvest... Adrenalin is pumped into their system when they are stressed or suffering.
So... based on this informatio
If you look in a meat case and see a dark burgundy color to a steak that means the animal was stressed..
What is undo suffering is the ban on horse slaughter that is causing unwanted, sick, and old horses to abandoned and starved to death rather than being put down in an humane manner and made useful in the form of pet food and (believe it or not) there are some countries that eat horse meat... way to go PETA... By the way it costs over $1000 to have a horse put down by a vet and buried more to have it taken to a render er...
In Norway horse sausage is common...a
Hi Roguer, yes. I am able to recognize "sudden death" syndrome in pork, but do not know if i would recognize it in bovine flesh. I have also read the book by the autistic woman... Temple Gavin... is that her name...? Her life's work is making sure animals are not stressed at slaughter.
My concern lies more in the ethical raising and housing of animals. Factory farming is a horror. There are many more pigs in Iowa than there are people and who knows now how many generations have lived and died without seeing the sun of this planet? That is so wrong. If we are going to use an animal we have an ethical obligation to see to it that animal's life has been a full and happy one up to the moment of its death.
Let those who want to eat downed, knakered horses eat them. I will back you up. Is there a petition i should sign? Cannot go there myself.
At a packing plant in the City I grew up in, They slaughtered Cattle and Hogs.
Believe it or not, Muzak was played along the chute the cattle were herded to keep them calm. When the head entered the slaughterhouse a person immediately killed them with with a shot to the head from a special firearm. I could tell the rest , but it is pretty gross.
They did not bother for the Hogs, they were smart enough to know they were in trouble, and essentally protested (screaming the whole time). I guess trama must not affect pork??
Yes, I worked for Muzak at the time, and was assigned to repair service many times on their music and public address system in the 1970s.
Anyone think Lewis and Clark would have survived their trip without meat!
The consumption of meat is tied to the evolution of modern society, the industrial revolution and every other advance humans have made.
Without an excess of calories and protein there would be no time for leisure... which means there would be no art, very little invention and human civilization would look like it did 10,000 years ago.
You've read the book, right? It is amusing to the people of the Pacific northwest to know that the Lewis and Clark expedition hardly survived the winter here because they would not eat salmon. I bring this up because it underlines how prejudiced and finicky humans are about food they do not know. There are many wonderful things to put in one's mouth besides dead animal bodies.
I accept that meat eating was once crucial, but it is completely possible to meet protein needs without eating meat in the U.S. today.
I agree, in today's USA, there really is no need to eat as much meat as we do. And the treatment of animals in commercial food processing plants etc. is abhorrent.
My family only eats red meat once a week or so, the other days it's fish and vegetarian dishes. All the vegetables we eat are organic and mostly local and in season. The meat we eat is from cattle or bison that are fed grass. Soon there will be a local chicken processing plant here that only processes free range, naturally fed chickens.
Thank god I live in Bend, Oregon
Personally, I like the taste of meat. Especially a nice skirt steak, seasoned only with rock salt and some lime juice. Churrasco syle, with perhaps a good Chimichurri sauce...!!
When have human ever been completely vegetarian? I agree that we do eat too much meat and we should eat more vegetables, and that there's something horrific in the way we currently mass breed and treat our food. In the old, old days it was probably more balanced - I might eat an animal and an animal might eat me. Fortunately (or unfortunately, however you want to look at it) we no longer have to worry about being eaten, but have disregarded considerations for other species. No doubt, there are much to be improved. But good luck getting EVERYBODY to stop eating meat.
Yes- there is evidence- based on regions/food availability- where even the earliest humans have been completely vegetarian.
http://nat
Other thoughts to consider that we lean in the herbivore camp:
Humans abhorrence to violence- we lack a prey drive that is evidenced in herbivores, unlike carnivores
Humans have a natural reaction of disgust for dead and rotting carcasses. Omnivores and carnivores will characteristically intentionally seek out and eat/roll in dead and rotting carcasses if they are hungry when they come across it and have the stomach acids that kill the bacteria so it doesn't kill them. We do not.
But the issue isn't really where we have evolved from. I have no interest in evolving backward. It is where we are going. Early man didn't brush and floss their teeth. Having a healthy grill is my idea of an improvement in behavioral adaptation. Aspiring and clinging to troglodyte tendencies such as unnecessary killing because we can, not because we need, is an unconscious/non evolved state of being in many regards to the evolution of human socially civilized behavior.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
