Watching the Hunting Channel

I was flipping channels this morning and happened upon a hunting show. Men out to kill bears for sport. They were not truly hunting, as one would think of tracking and stalking. They baited bears in, and sat in a blind waiting for a bear to show up. When one did, the man shot him dead with an arrow. Afterwards, he admired what a fine bear this was. The bear was dead. Can men only admire something when they've killed it?

In the days when humans relied on running down and killing game for food, this man would be called a good provider. Now, many people demonize hunters, even while they munch on a chicken burrito from a fast food outlet. Seems odd to me.

I watched a show awhile back comparing the differences between men and women. They did all sorts of interesting experiments. One experiment they did the men and women volunteers had headphones on and would be given different syllables in each ear simultaneously. Men only really hear speech in one side of their brain. And could repeat only the syllables of the word they heard in one ear.

I didn't see all the experiment on empathy. The higher the testosterone levels in a man or a woman, the lower the levels are of empathy that person is capable of. Lack of empathy with a victim would be a necessary trait if one is killing to eat.

The researchers also measured levels of testosterone during a go cart race both men and women participated in. The man with the highest levels of testosterone, that increased as the race progressed in a steady line, won. Another man, whose testosterone levels soared and changed wildly, took wild risks in attempting to win and ultimately spun out. In the competition, men's levels of testosterone increased dramatically while the levels in the women were flat, remaining the same, despite the competition.

Another part of the research involved racers and a prediction by a researcher who analyzes the relative difference in length of the ring and middle fingers, in relation to testosterone levels the infant is exposed to in the womb, prior to birth. There is a relation to finger length and testosterone levels in the womb, this man believes. The longer the ring finger is compared to the middle finger, the higher the levels of exposure in the womb. These differences are measures in very small increments.

So, he was asked to analyze the finger lengths of the racers and pick how each would finish in the race. His theory also stated that higher testosterone levels in the womb would mean the recipient, male or female, would have larger heart and more efficient cardiovascular system for athleticism, which is propelled by testosterone. He photocopied each racers hand, made measurements and his predictions on the race outcome. He wrote the number of how he felt each sprinter would finish on a card but the racer could not see it.

The race was completed. The cards were turned over. By comparison of ring finger length to middle finger length, he accurately predicted how each racer would finish the race, except he had two middle finishers turned around.

You cannot say these men killing animals without any feeling are to blame. They do not possess empathy. They are acting as animals act, when they kill to eat because we are animals and they are awash in testosterone. When such men get older and their testosterone levels drop, they often become more empathetic.

But, these are the same reasons we go to war and kill without feeling-hormones. We've created a dangerous world as a result.

The man killing the bear without emotion is acting exactly the same as a bear when the bear kills a fawn. We're all animals.

I suppose the downside to this argument would come from the Christian crowd, who believe we humans are not animals. I'd say in return, then prove it. One of the most basic instincts of animals is to kill other animals--to eat. The other is to breed. If a religion is able to quell these basic instincts by its beliefs in its followers, maybe they do have something going. I don't know any religion with such beliefs.

Those who kill animals to eat, embrace our animal natures. Those who shun it, the vegetarians, probably present the best argument that we might be something more noble. However, if starving, I would guess vegetarians would kill to eat. The hunters, who kill for trophy's or just to kill, those are the humans who have gone beyond hormonal lack of empathy, into a danger zone inhabited by psychopaths.

The most basic of impulses towards aggression (usually to acquire food or protect food resources) and to breed are part of us. However, I do not understand the inability to control both aggression and lust, as a species, when these instincts, if overindulged, spell doom to the species.

Are these switches that cannot be turned off? Like cancer?

I know this is controversial, but, if a man rapes women or children, they exhibit an extreme lack of empathy and this is likely from far too much testosterone. No amount of therapy or prison time, or apologizing, will reduce the liklihood of recurrance of such behavior. The only means of stopping it would be to reduce the levels of the offending hormone by surgical or chemical means.

Likewise women who do not exhibit protective behavior towards their children, which is the job of female hormones and lack of testosterone, and therefore put their children in danger or harm them, are unsuited to perform this function and should be surgically altered to prevent harm to more children.

I understand there are circumstances that override normal hormonal activity in both men and women, such as drug use and stress and trauma, so it is far more complicated than I have presented.

But, we are who we are largely through biological processes. Knowing this, if we could face up to our animal natures, we could create a better world for ourselves and for our children.

I think some women are now taking testosterone, as they age, but I can't remember why. It would be interesting I think to read about complex hormone studies and personality traits or behavioral traits, or complex hormonal studies on prisoners convicted of various crimes, both men and women.

I don't remember much about Ernest Callanbach's Ecotopia. But, in the book, in which Northern California, Oregon and Washington form a seperate ecologically sustainable nation, I believe to create a healthy environment for men, they had hunting parties or war games, routinely.

Anyhow, this has been a rambling undisciplined post but oh well. I just thought of this stuff when I saw the man kill the bear, with zero emotion at taking the life away from a living being.

I just was sent a link to a site, Supreme Master Television, with a video on it espousing vegetarianism to save the planet. The arguement is that to produce one beef dinner, this requires over 1200 gallons of water. For a chicken dinner, over 900 gallons of water. For a vegetarian dinner, just 98 gallons.

The video goes on to describe how world starvation is linked to meat production, and how so many more people could be fed adequately, if we went to vegetarian diets, instead of using so much grain for livestock feed.

The third arguement for vegetarianism was one concerning methane production by livestock and by transportation of livestock and livestock feed, which exceeds all other sources of harmful methane production combined. It is a good arguement, all three of them seperately. Together, the arguements make a convincing case for vegetarianism, even excluding arguements about the health of vegetarian diets versus meat diets.