“What is more “natural” than the existence of predators and prey?” Rick, I’m going to assume that you live in an area that has been cleared of all predators except humans. Does that change your stance on this at all? The bears and mountain lions that most likely roamed around your house were natural, but we got rid of them a long time ago and have been chasing them to the corners of the Earth ever since. There are many reactions one could have to this idea, but to try to say that it’s “unnatural” or that humans shouldn’t do anything to interfere with what is left of nature is a bit laughable considering all that humans have already done in that vein. We’re not dealing with what nature intended anymore, we’re dealing with a human-managed world.

Because current humans can do little directly to address the problem, I think we should focus our efforts on just spreading the notion that the brutality of nature is unacceptable. I envision a society in which people find it obvious that the “natural” agony endured by, say, a frog being digested whole by a snake or an elephant being chewed alive by hyenas is no more acceptable than the “natural” suffering of a child afflicted with malaria. I commend Pearce for helping to do this.

Most of these idiots probably consider themselves to be espousing a more “natural” life. What is more “natural” than the existence of predators and prey?

Have they given any thought to the secondary and tertiary effects of the changes they propose? A truly horrendous cascade of unintended consequences.

Idiots, I say, idiots.