In Which Liberals Actually Attempt to Dismantle Animal Predator-Prey Relationships Because Oppression

If you’ve been paying attention, what you are about to read should not surprise you.

British Philosopher and self-proclaimed “futurist” (read: useless, overeducated, disconnected net negative on societal resources) David Pearce penned an article that drew attention from lefty Gawker science rag io9. The article, entitled “Reprogramming Predators” is part of his “Blueprint for a Cruelty Free World” series, which aims to eliminate, in a way which he believes to be realistic, literally all forms of suffering from this Earth. Including suffering by non-sentient animals, which puts him on a whole new level of liberalism.

How does he intend to do this? Why, by genetically altering wild animals to eliminate all predatory instincts. Pearce gets upset when wild animals kill one another, so he desires to put an end to the entire concept of darwinism. Ironic.

Pictured: Oppression
If you reach back into the TRS archives, you’ll find an article entitled “Warrior Phobia” by Alexander McNabb. In it, he writes:

“Because liberals occupy the very forefront of a decadent, soft culture which is frittering away the investments of past generations on endless frivolities, they’re the first pigs at the trough to squeal when a wolf in the distance interrupts their mindless garbage eating. These soft, senile old women have delicate constitutions unsuited to the presence of rough, manly warriors who might unduly disturb their smug, self complacent habits. They seek to castrate, emasculate and outlaw the warrior archetype altogether. They naively fancy that human beings have evolved beyond the need for violence, that civil societies simply shouldn’t have warlike implements, entertainments, or people within them. Why, isn’t The Warrior a MALE archetype? Isn’t this just macho, primitive male barbarism, hasn’t our society accepted The Peace of Feminism yet? This is their real conceit, that male values are bad for a culture, and that female values are intrinsically more evolved and should supplant the evolutionary throwback sentiments of barbaric men.”

While Mr. McNabb was speaking explicitly about humans, Pearce has expanded the subject of McNabb’s critique to animals. The “Mindless Garbage Eating” that modern liberals indulge in today is only going to result in more and more retarded ideas as time goes on. I’ve had several associates look to the internet and wonder, “Are things getting worse, or is it just me?” It’s not just you. This is exactly what happens as humanity turns on itself and begins fighting against it’s own nature.

First, it’s affirmative action, then, you’re a shitlord if you don’t use proper pronouns when addressing a tranny, now? Tigers are oppressive to elephants. Whats next?

Someone stop that Jaguar from oppressing that innocent...ah wait, shit.
Someone stop that Jaguar from oppressing that innocent…ah wait, shit.
What Pearce doesn’t seem to understand is that literally everything ever made by anyone was the result of struggle, strife, and yes, suffering. All progress made in the fields of medicine, science, technology, aviation, and engineering all came down to strife and struggle. This is how it works in nature as well. Animals have evolved these predator prey relationships over time. Humans have EVOLVED into the magnificent creatures they are today and built huge cities in which you can sit on your ass and post about mean, oppressive lions in the safety of your own home. They did it because of struggle. They did it because they were tired of being eaten by bears in the wild. They did it so that they could keep theirs and yours safe from those who would want to do them harm.

They made computers to make the struggle easier. They made medicines so you wouldn’t have to suffer. Progress does not exist without struggle, without suffering, without strife. This happens in nature as well as human society, not that the two are separable.

Pearce argues his points based on the idea that everyone participating in the conversation a priori accepts that suffering is bad (which is, hilariously enough, argumentation ethics, thanks Hoppe). Suffering is far from bad. Suffering is the reason I’m alive. Suffering is crucial, not only to humanity, but to the entirety of nature. Cruelty has a purpose in nature. Pain has a purpose in nature. It’s the fuel that drives all progress, for better or worse.

Nevermind that the implementation of the idea would create a serious strain on natural resources, the likes of which we have never seen. If all animals suddenly ate plants, and no device was in place to naturally control any animal populations, wouldn’t the demand for plant based food become uncontrollable? What about the animals whose entire biological processes are dedicated to killing? Would they simply be removed? Well, no, because that would mean they would be KILLED. And killing is wrong. Anyone with a basic knowledge of supply and demand can see just how retarded this idea is in both form and theoretical execution. But of course, I would never expect a leftist british philosopher to understand the basic principles of economics. Economics is patriarchal, ableist mansplaining.

Buckle your fucking seatbelts though, seriously. This ride never ends. Soon, they’re going to be setting up non-oppressive safe spaces for cats who need feminism. Soon, they’re going to propose a trip to another galaxy to ensure that aliens are not oppressing anyone. Just when you think you have seen the most batshit insane leftist idea, people like David Pearce will be there to give you one that’s six times worse.

We should be dropping people from helicopters, I’m telling you.

Author image
Bob Steinberg is an edgy right winger living in the American Midwest.