Expanse v. Endangered: Discipline is Voluntary

Controls are a vital mechanism of any experiment. The conscious, and those who are not, all participate in these evolutionary gambles. Animals  suffer displacement as humans expand. Species have acclimated to specific climates and conditions throughout existence. When a forest disappears, the inhabitants aren’t simply in need of adjustment, they’re constrained by evolution. 

Imagine the despair of a person who loses a home. Their housing is an environment built to control the elements. There’s seven billion fellow humans and a series of sanctuary like options we’ve developed to accommodate refugees. Does nature have this? 

Humans partition wildlife preserves because the animals are best in as natural a habitat as possible. Communities ban exotic and endangered species from ownership. We can take in our neighbor who is experiencing housing issues… But, not a tiger or a protected snake. These creatures pose a danger. 

Species disappear every day. Chosen ones will be extracted and monitored so we can attempt to repopulate. We have an endangered species agenda and legislation for these purposes. A sort of ask for forgiveness rather than permission approach. Like a reckless lifestyle prolonged by modern medicine.

There are no parcels of land in our country that do not have ownership. The relocation of wildlife can happen in a variety of ways. Yet, there’s little guarantee for non-human occupants as development takes shape. Lands must be designated as protected. Because every time that humans move in, natural species must move out of the way. Many will die while others attempt to find suitable safe havens. Ironically, though preventable, many end up protected by law because of their declining numbers. 

Animals cannot compete with the industrial tools of man. During war enemies run for their lives in the last resort of a retreat. Many of those fleeing burn all that is left behind, so it cannot be used against them. A practice known as Scorched Earth. Yet, this is a proactive method used to clear land and drive out the occupants of the animal kingdom. Poachers have even used these tactics to flush out game hiding in nature. 

We’ve tried to recreate the habitat or simulate the conditions to allow species to live on, somewhere else. A zoo or preserve, even laboratories to engineer our desired results. 

Old metaphors come to mind. Like walking a mile in another person’s shoes. Human shoes. The footwear which separates our skin from the harsh environment endured by all other species. Because natural terrain prevents or tremendously slows down human travel without the protection. Keeping us limited in our exploration. We use technology and can go anywhere out of water. However, we aren't far from being capable of reaching the bottom of the deepest oceans. 

Other species have the evolutionary footwear to endure the raw Earth. People innovate. Many cultures still have a gap to reach the development of Western Civilization, but it’s distinctly Homo sapiens. The protection for humans was developed from our brains and tools help us. Other species rely on biological defenses and settle into their environment to sustain their way of life. 

Noteworthy, are the medical innovations to prolong the lives of wild animals. As well as the industry around sustaining our domesticated slaves, which we call pets. 

Because we have changed the ecology of the Earth, human beings are not the only species relying on technology. So many other types of life are dependent on our patterns and the artificial changes we’ve made. Releasing a domesticated animal would result in a major struggle for survival. This is a prominent concept in children's book and movies. 

Not only have people overtaken the former habitats of animals, but they have also enslaved them. Complete with papers of ownership. Be clear- that the damage an animal does makes the owner liable. Because the subject in question, though alive, is property. We breed and sell these special properties, like the slave auctions in a dark history of older times. If decided a permanent sleep can be induced at the discretion of the owner. We even taxidermy the corpse to put the deceased on display. 

There is a difference, because rarely do any other species displace humans. The environmental cycles force adaptations because of weather. Also, in rare cases there are endangered or protected species that change the traffic patterns of the human neighbors. Displaced animals don't have the luxury of knowing when a speeding car is coming or a developer is invading their habitat. Though people know well in advance because of infrastructure timelines. These events create a change in the ecological balance.

When people produce more people, they need resources. Much like the chemistry to enhance our lives has a set of benefits and detriments, expanding the population alters the amount of land we occupy. We utilize engineering and marvel at the works of man. These actions which are help expand our civilization take from sort other portion of our planet.

Companies manufacture creature comforts. Meanwhile, suffering is the tradeoff in the air and water. Air conditioning is a wonderful way to help sustain human life and even control the environment for captive animals. Yet, the negative aspects pollute the air and soil with the emissions and eventual disposal of machinery.

Imagine how folks would change their consumption if trash disposal was a personal responsibility. Individuals and families having to bury and live adjacent to their own waste. Having to breathe the air, drink the water, and attempt to plant in the soil nearby. Would there be a new level of concern for the chemistry and packaging they cannot send off to the landfill like a stepchild to boarding school. 

The waste has effects on planetary ecology no matter where it is located. But, the out of sight and out of mind approach leaves a volatile climate which then seems too big to do anything about and far enough away to dismiss as a coincidence. The sort of thinking behind building better jails, just not near me. If it's such a good thing, why the distance? 

Communities are now full of cultivated landscapes and fenced in animals. Places we’ve cleared for ourselves to practice freedom while adding barriers to keep our domesticated animals from running free. So, initially relocating or destroying the original species on the land, and then bringing in whatever pets for our amusement. I refer to this as artificial wildlife. There are common terms like 'captive' or 'domesticated' associated with these actions. Living creatures that look like the encyclopedia with intangibly broken spirits. 

Animals are even bred like the slaves of yesteryear. Attempting to find the most suitable mix for size, speed, and various other qualities we’d like their species to have. Dancing with the Species performed at all income levels. Some depend on the income from selling off their slaves. Ironically, others do it for the maniacal joy. Breeding is not identified with any particular income level. 

Would the animals reverse the situation? Sure. In plenty of locations around our planet the animals still dominate places we haven’t chosen to invade with superior technology. Make no mistake that driving a car through the Serengeti may get your vehicle destroyed. But, if a group decided to develop the area with machinery, the animals would be gone. First, an evacuation to find somewhere safe. Followed by remaining involuntarily departing through animal control. Other species have no chance of displacing humans by force because we have crude and biological weapons. 

Inevitably, there’s groups who will attempt to study and further control species. This is done through capturing, tagging, protecting, and breeding. These interests will even attempt to limit or drawback our presence. Like the advocation of removing wind turbines because birds are destroyed as we are gathering energy. These are easy visuals because the damage can be counted and concentrated to a single process. 

The idea of measuring ecological harm has variables. The opposition to limits or changes to our consumption are given a great many tools. Like a defendant casting reasonable doubt. Science is not faster than facetiousness. The many images of oil as a burning well or blanketing water and wildlife. This ultimate visual of technology against nature is irrefutable. However, when you are arguing cause and effect across distance and time, the advocates rarely win. 

A variety of words are come to mind: necessity, want, needs, excess. The sort of lifestyle options that are only possible if you ignore comfort for the other creatures. Humans must find an ecological and population balance for the sake of sustainability. There’s been a risk that a single piece of technology could render large portions of our planet uninhabitable for a long time. 

We now have populated the planet to the point that any smaller collateral damage affects just as many people. Denser populations mean that concentrated human civilizations are at great risk. No longer does a nuclear event have to happen for great sums of people to be destroyed over a large portion of land. Now any weather-related event or biological predator like a disease or virus can spread faster than ever. 

In the present, climate change is destroying homes and lives worldwide. Ecological imbalance that is compromising not only the animals which cannot evolve or be blend into new locations quick enough to survive, but the people as well. Homes built in California are destroyed by fire. The homes drove out the animals. Later the fire is human knowledge and people evacuate. Animals don't have a news service and certainly lack the technology of automated travel. So, they condemned to die because evolution keeps them from escaping the inferno. 

Consumption is something which can nearly being linked to cannibalism now. Folks who navigate the options of technology and convenience to the cost of livable conditions for their fellow humans. Those who live in climate-controlled environments are not as uncomfortable or unsafe as those without the same secure housing. 

A final example would be this… Families in older times had animals. They grew and consumed many things from their own land. They needed the animals for the fertilizer, kept the land clean to grow feed for the livestock, and then slaughtered animals for meat. This cycle makes it necessary to have an ecological balance, because these intimate systems are the conveyor belt of consumption. This century, families who still operate that way are statistically insignificant. 

We have reached a point where out of sight and out of mind is the mindset. Political lines are drawn and seriousness is not given when special interest folks want to advocate a change for animals or the planet. Because they are fighting for a scientific and abstract cause, as opposed to their own way of life. What they are hoping to preserve is for everyone… This leaves a large window for others to engage against that train of thought, simply from the perspective that someone else doesn’t speak for me. 

The presence of people who live off the land has nearly become invisible. So, there is not a substantial demographic of people trying to change environmental policy to protect their conveyor belt of life. Instead, the arguments now are all by people who consume their goods from manufacturers and each of their viewpoints is easily dismissed. Their investment into the process is far shallower than the previous generations of families that were independent. 

Earth is left populated by folks who technologically fuel others far away. Small portions of this ecological system are responsible for their individual food supply. Making caring a lot more difficult. Because it becomes harder to fathom that the innovations which made this convenience possible can’t simply be adjusted or upgraded to continue the worldwide conveyor belt.

Couldn’t they come up with safer cigarettes? The innovation was for electronic ones and the more data we collect the more unsafe these practices are. We’ll convert to eco-friendly transportation and be less dependent on oil. There's a tradeoff for the electronic conversion, and most components of automobiles are still plastic, rubber, paint, and other byproducts of oil. The car is made up of a majority of petroleum-based parts.

Consumption is the main course in this affair. The recipe consists of population, how we procure what we consume, and handling what’s left over.

Petroleum is buried because that’s ecologically where it belongs. We bring it to the surfaces to refine into oil. Then use it to paint houses, travel, manufacture plastics, and a thousand other uses that aren’t discussed when we talk about cutting back our use of oil. Now, if I told you there’s a tyrannosaurus rex who we can harness to cook pancakes and build houses, would it be worth the risk to have him in your everyday life? And why? 

Previous generations had just as many children per family. However, nature controlled population through disaster, disease, and had less interference by man. As we've developed ways for people to live longer, the population increases. Fighting disease means more humans survive previously fatal conditions.

Through technology we've defied evolution. Life expectancy should not be what it is. This has adverse effects on the economy and the planet because older participants in life produce little to nothing and cost more to maintain. They occupy housing, run up medical debt, and require ecology costly resources.

The innovations in medicine to prolong lower quality longer lives has adversely taken a toll on each portion of the population. Driving humans toward dangerous side effects and chemical dependence. While economically elderly folks are heavy on social budgets and consume what was previously inherited by younger generations when they passed on. Now they live long enough to use it all or accumulate community debt that decreases spending for education and other infrastructure. This money goes to keep seniors defying their natural life cycle. "

Why are these generations less wealthy? Because the people before them outlived the older generations and cannibalized the inheritance. The elderly fails to produce for the community that is paying to sustain them. Retirement and Social Security were conceived with a lifespan of early 70s. Therefore programs can go broke and other inconceivable budget droughts. 

If people require twice as much as we projected then the math will fail and resources will run out. This is true for parents who have a number of children their budget does not support. They become impoverished and live a less desirable lifestyle. These are the same things that we have done to the animal kingdom.

We keep people alive as indefinitely as possible and we need more space. We're going to use technology to alter water resources and gather energy when we build a dam. Studies show the destruction of the ecosystem that will follow. We do it anyway because consumption patterns demand it. Humans fear death and preserve the deceased on cleared lands. Making sure we run off any animals who would dare be on our hallowed ground. Meanwhile oil drenched, vehicle mutilated, and other varieties of dead species rot away. Unless of course, we enslaved them and then we might preserve a resting place for our pets. 

We would not thrive without technological advances. There are plenty of risks in every choice of our lives. However, each choice is a piece of consumption. A word, and an act, that encapsulates selfishness, consequence, and survival. 

Balance is a complex recipe which leaves the uninformed and over indulged to advocate for some leeway. We are creatures of habit and refer to addition as a disease... While freedom is what many people consider the greatest idea. That is the agenda of one species, and not even all cultures, on a planet which will continue with or without us. 

Though we engage in discussion without restrictions, this doesn’t leave us without consequences for our choices. It is often thought that the best outcomes are from being informed. A pervasive state of mind rooted in structure and education. Yet, information has overwhelmed us.

While we are questioning what we should do and what to believe: accountability has slowly rotted, community sizes increase, and distractions lead our noses toward savory smells. We avoid the difficulties of responsibility to ourselves and nature. Meanwhile the fire burns. 

Danger is a possibility not a necessity.