dave salmoni

Being a huge fan of zoologist Dave Salmoni, i have recently started watching his new show on the discovery channel called 'Rogue Nature'.

Rogue Nature is about animals in the wild that have been claimed to act in a way that is out of their 'ordinary' behavior; that is, to attack and kill humans.

Dave interviews specialised behaviorists and people who were witnesses to the brutal attacks and asks them to show their opinions. He then spends time with someone who shows him the more docile side of the animals, as they believe they are not rogue, just the circumstances were particularly bad, and then the people who believe the animals to be purely vicious and do believe the animals to be rogue. After he has done that, he studies the animals behavior himself by observing them in their natural habitat and then formulates his own opinions.

So far the animals he has investigated are Brown Bears, Chimpanzees, Humboldt Squid, Hippopotamuses and Crocodiles.

The show is really interesting but and I always agree with Dave's final conclusions, but what I really want to tackle is the idea that an animals that attacks a human is considered rogue.

Yet again I think this may turn into another stab at humans for having some sort of hierarchical idea when it comes to them vs. the 'animals' as quite a few of my posts have been about.
I'm just not sure i understand why animals aren't meant to have an instinct to kill humans like they do every other animals in their habitat.
Why do we consider it unnatural for us to have any predators and face every other animal as if they are our prey?
I tried to find a definition of the term 'rogue' to see if there was more elaboration on the one i gave earlier and found this:

–adjective
10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant.

11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade
 
So i guess that does help to elaborate on my point. A rogue is abnormally savage. Okay - that's is a perfectly understandable definition, except if that were the case, then 'Rogue Nature' would also see if the animals under question have acted abnormally savage to other animals, to its own kind etc. and not just to humans.
 
I feel as if the second definition is more applicable to a lot of people's idea of the word rogue.
And I think what a lot of people forget is that is that we are animals too. Maybe we should reflect upon definition number 10 and see what it says about us

doctor doctor give me the news

The other day when I was watching the news they said that they had created an injection that has the potential to cure all strains of the flu.

The flu is a viral infection which although isn't normally deadly, can kill elderly people as well as young infant and babies who have weaker immune systems.

Thinking back to 50, 200 or even 500 years ago there definitely wasn't the kind of technology that we have now, and people were certainly not making the kind of medical discoveries that they are today.

There was no cure for the flu. There was no cure for leprosy. No cure for small pox, it had long yet to be eradicated. They have cures for venereal diseases. If you became ill, you fought the disease. If you couldn't fight the disease you inevitably died.

But now, all of us 1st world countries citizens and all of the 1st world doctors, are seeking and finding cures for all of these diseases.

And it is nice, not having to worry about contracting one of those diseases and not being able to receive treatment, but that is life.

We have no predators and we are, by ridding ourselves of the threat of these diseases, slowly eliminating all of our weaknesses.

We are eliminating natural selection.

How can we be so bold? So egotistical and selfish to think that we have the right to make ourselves invincible to nature?

Even time is becoming something which we have decided to try and conquer. Since the paleolithic era our life-expectancy has slowly increased bit by bit and scientists today are looking for new ways to regenerate organs and tissues in order to remove the damage from the wear and tear of time on our bodies.

Living to be 150 would be great i'm sure, but we have to look at the repercussions of living longer. Living longer and removing natural selection means that people who may have died from illness or disease, will now be alive and will be alive for longer. Therefore there will be more people on Earth, meaning more crowding, and a much higher demand for resources.

I'm not one to believe that we shouldn't try to change the way the world turned out to some extent, such as trying to transform all of the 2nd and 3rd world countries into 1st world countries. Or even by finding better treatments for diseases, for cancer, and increasing AIDS prevention. But curing the flu? curing every disease? and changing the way nature intended us to be? not so much.

I think that the 'god complex' style train of thought that a lot of humans are taking on is going to end up putting us in a lot of trouble, whether it be now or in several years time. There's a reason we weren't given those kind of powers in the first place.