What means the most to you in life?
 

Hello, folks....interesting place you have here.

So, what means the most to YOU? If one day, you just decided that you couldn't take it one minute more, and considered biting the big one, what is the single thing that would stop you from doing that? Apparantly, for some of you, it's whale penises, but to each his own, I say. I guess they're great if you can get 'em. But for those of you without access to whale penisis (can you order those online?), what makes life worth living?

I think for me it would be, oh, a good book, true friends, and good coffee. In that order. All three are hard to find, and all three are immensely satisfying once found. Good books and good coffee are two things in life that can truly be savored, and true friends are just too rare to let go of once found.

The night ends, and the day begins again. I start the decision tree over again. Each one is new and not like the others, and the difference is under my control.

My family, up to and including my niece and nephews, who are very dear to me. Being single and with no immediate prospects, I play the role of doting uncle these days. God, I love those kids.

On the personal pleasure front, I would have to say being in the woods in about September qualifies as the closest thing to nirvana I experience. The mornings are crisp enough to rattle your teeth, but it gets almost summerlike during the day before cooling down again at night. The elk are bugling, other critters are busy getting ready for winter, leaves are turning, etc. etc.

I had started a lovely little nature essay here, but I clipped it because I was in danger of nauseating myself. But the etc. etc. encompasses a wide range of warm fuzzies. Not the least of which is reserved for bowhunting. For 48 weeks a year, elk are majestic woodland creatures. For the other 4, I want one dead and hanging from a tree in my camp.

Ahh.

I was nodding and agreeing with noodle for the first half of his post.
And here's where I will probably take a detour from a lot of the cellar community.
What gene do you possess that I do not?Or vice-versa?What is it in you that gives you joy about killing a wild free thing?I don't get it.And I never will.

yeah, must be a gene. I never had the urge to kill a deer either. ALL of my friends hunted, their dads hunted, their uncles hunted, the neighbor that didnt have kids hunted, but me and my dad didnt...didnt fish much either. We had a lake right nearby, and all of my friends were avid fishermen, too...i had a rod and i'd take it with me, but, i just wasnt nearly as into it as they were. and if you ask juju, he'll tell you im overmasculine......so, yeah, must be genes.....we must come from a long line of familes that didnt have to hunt for their food or something.


$.02

edit: oh, and ...my kids, at this point. sorry for the hijacking

The opportunity to learn and experience new things, and to enjoy old things once again.

I get that response a lot from people on forums like this. In the old days, I really, truly thought the animal rights people were insane. I still think that about some of them.

Human society at its most civilized is the farthest removed from nature. Civilization is good for humans who are all packed in together and need to get along. But it comes with a price. We are no longer an integral part of the planet we live on (i'm talking metaphysically here). Because we don't like being uncomfortable, we've built enormous concrete cities, connected by ribbons and ribbons of concrete roads, upon which we travel safely out of the elements in our vehicles. The closest many people get to "nature" as it were, is if they have to get out of their Hondas to take a leak. This is usually an unnerving experience for them, so they would rather do it in a filthy sewage-infested gas station restroom filled with disease than next to a pine tree where something might eat them.

We surround ourselves with other people and people-made things to the extent that most of us don't know of a world where we aren't separated from it by a sheet of glass or a tv screen. Since our only true interaction is with humans, we have no real basis for proper animal/human relationships. We dress our pets in human clothes, feed them human food. We watch talking animals with human emotions on TV. When one dies, we are saddened, and rightly so -- but we look at the dead critter and can't help wondering if its mother is saddened. I know my mom would be. The problem is, we have completely severed contact with the way it is "out there", outside of our concrete islands.

This stage of our evolution is, oh, about 140 years old. A blink in the history of our race. On a timeline, the generation that goes to oxygen bars :eek: and spends $4 for a cup of water that has been run over coffee beans is about a micron removed from the generation that hunted, gardened, and gathered for its daily sustenance.

My love of hunting, the more primitive the better, doesn't stem from bloodlust. It stems from what I feel is already preprogrammed in all of us - the desire to be part of the world again. Yes, something might die, and for some, it's too high a price to pay. They'd rather have their protein in a sanitary looking, pre cut package. That's ok by me, but I like being there from the start.

The kill is bittersweet -- joy at success, some soulsearching over the death you've caused, thankfulness to the prey, to God...the emotions involved are deeply subconscious and we all share them. Some of us have 'educated' ourselves away from such unpleasantness, some, like me, decided we preferred the old version.

No, the whole experience is what drives me to hunt. If you're willing to put aside enough time and work at it, you can connect with your world on a very primal level. When hunting, you hear more clearly, you see farther, you can distinguish scents better. The cold is colder, the heat hotter. Food tastes better. At the end of the day, nothing sounds better than your shelter and a small fire. In fact, the plastic bags that you brought your food in seem utterly incongruous. You can hear a plastic bag for 100 yards. When you roll out of the sack in the morning, the intensity of the cold is negated by the fact that *you get to go HUNTING!!*

You wondered when I was getting to that, huh? Well, after a day or three in the woods, eliminating all the white noise that's been assaulting your brain for the last however many months and tuning in to your environment, the idea of hunting suddenly doesn't seem all that extreme. If you watch closely, you can witness maybe a dozen deaths in a day, from insect life on up. Death is part of the cycle. To me, watching something being born and witnessing its death create almost the same emotion - a kind of quiet awe.

The aggressive, "let's go bag us an elk" mentality is, in me, how I psyche myself up for success. I want the meat. In 20 years of hunting, I have kept one rack of antlers. It wasn't even that big, it was more of a keepsake from the experience. Nope, it's the protein. And I determine to myself that I will stretch my resources, my body, and my mind to the limit to get meat in my camp.

This isn't pretense. Think about it. I weigh 180 lbs. I have no claws, I can't run fast, I stink like a human, and my white skin practically glows in the dark from all the flourescent light it's been exposed to for so long. I'm a beacon. And now, I'm going to try to sneak up on a 600-lb animal that has better instincts, vision, smelling, hearing, and speed. On its own turf, with a sharp stick and a string. I must get within 30 yards or so of this animal undetected and put that sharp stick into a target area the size of a paper plate.

Usually I lose. Sometimes I win. The elk in question has run from wolves, mountain lions, starvation, plague, and harsh winters all its life. I'm small potatoes in its world.

And at the end of it all, it breaks my heart to have to get into a stinky truck and burn gasoline all the way down to the concretelands again, where my food will come wrapped in paper with a clown drawn on it, and I will have to listen to people tell me what I'm doing is wrong. Wrong was coming back, not going.

That's how much i like hunting. And we have the same basic genetics, you are just more skilled at filtering out old, old urges. That works for some people, just not for me.

I promise I'm not bloodthirsty. And for what it's worth, I like people, too. I play guitar in bars and would like my band to tour with Iron Maiden, if they're still alive when we hit it big. I vote, I support a peaceful society, and if someone finally manages to make it illegal to hunt, I will comply out of respect for the institution of law.

But it'll be bullshit.


edited to get rid of one or two "huh?" things that pop up when you try to soul search at 2 am

I applaud you....that's the best explanation I've heard, ever, about why one hunts.

I, personally, could never do it. I'd rather shoot it with a camera than a weapon. But I've always had at least a grudging respect for certain hunters, the ones who pay their dues in order to protect the animals they hunt. Those who hunt animals for stupid reasons, such as fur, and hunt them to near-extinction, can die painfully from Ebola, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I do know people who hunt for food. They use every part of the animal, and nothing goes to waste. I respect them, too. And the fact that you hunt with a bow ups my regard for you a LOT. Anyone can kill an animal with a high-powered rifle and a scope. What you do is more what I consider hunting. You vs. the animal, as close to equal as you can get.

And you seem to have a genuine love for nature and a desire to become closer to it. I never thought I'd say this, but from what I read in your post, I think you're the first hunter I've ever actually APPROVED of (not that you need my approval, just that your views on hunting impressed me that much).

my grandmother and my chihuahua.

If one day, you just decided that you couldn't take it one minute more, and considered biting the big one, what is the single thing that would stop you from doing that?

The knowing that several people have sacraficed a lot to assist me through life and that I owe them plenty in return before I pass from this world.

Noodle, awesome post. Save and recirculate, because it's a winner.

yeh...
 

I've been Veggie for 20 years and I totaly agree with mrnoodle.
Hunting for food is a totaly ok idea by me, but as also mentioned hunting for fur etc isnt.
Maybe people wonder here "then why the fuck am I veggie?"
Well it's not actully eating meat that gets me, its how the world works I just refuse to eat the bullshit meat they put in the shops. Plus I'm unhappy about certain ethics of the word today so it's a political stance too.

Geez. you guys make me feel smart :D I thought it sounded like rambling, myself.

Unfortunately, I might have to lose some of the goodwill I seem to have garnered in order to avoid being slightly hypocritical. While I totally get off on nature and all the things I talked about, I am also 100% in favor of all hunter's rights, whether or not they reflect my personal brand of ethics. I disagree with certain practices and find them disrespectful to animals. Some people do things that I disagree with, but do so without any intention to be evil or sick. One example is hunting with dogs. To me, there's something kind of barbaric about it, and I won't do it. But I know people who do, and they at least *feel* the same respect for wildlife that I do. I can't account for the difference in our outlook though.

By the way, unless you're one of those asshats that empties a magazine of ammo at anything that moves, skillfully hunting with a rifle isn't as easy as it seems. At 500 yards, moving your barrel an inch will cause you to miss by something like 20 feet. Everything from wind to relative humidity, altitude above sea level and the physical structure of the bullet factors into making long-range shots. It's really a science if you are conscientious about it.

Thanks for all the nice thoughts, hope I didn't lose too many of you by not being the utter purist I sounded like :p

Yah, you should see what these Jersey fellas do to our cows. *

* - This is a regional joke. Please dont be offended at my attempt to be humorous and leave the forum.

I'm not buying that statement, not one iota.
The rest of your post was spot on, however much of what you experience can be simulated by a person with a camera for people that can't kill. Well written.:beer:

Since nature is something that comes from the earth, humans, cities, and civilzation are all a part of nature. This effectively renders the term meaningless.

Disagree. Civilization, as defined by the American Heritage dictionary at least, is "A condition of human society marked by an advanced stage of development in the arts and sciences and by corresponding social, political, and cultural complexity."
When that condition results in people becoming unaware (whether deliberately or not) of the forces controlling the world outside their civilization, they are 'removed from nature'.

I stand by my original comment. I think. :whofart:

In what way are humans and civilization not a part of nature? They affect it more than anything, AND they were created by it, AND co-exist with everything else that was created by it.

That sort of thinking only serves to advance the idea that humans are evil. Your definiton of nature is "not human" (correct me if I'm wrong). That's silly.

Other organisms also do things that are to the detriment of other organisms. In fact, I'd say nearly every one of them does.

If anything, we are <i>more</i> aware of the forces controlling the world than other animals, because they don't know as much about science as we do.

Not to presume to know another's thoughts ... but I think he means "nature" in the sense of "not created by the hand of man".

Civilization is, as far as we understand it, part of the natural growth of society ... but it isn't "natural."

Point taken. I have to back off, but only a little. I would amend my statement (to the horror of my journalism profs) to say, "Civilization, at its most advanced, tends to isolate humans from those factors which govern non-civilized beings." This leads, in turn, to a desensitization that is DE-evolutionary, in my opinion.

Geez. You're backing me into a hole, cut it out. lol

Another point of contention - I think we overestimate our effect on the rest of the world. We certainly try hard enough, but one good plague, seismic event, or climate change could crush our species as surely as any other species. The thing we're best at is endangering our own existence. I say drill the hell out of Alaska, it'll live.

I'm gonna get dinged on "de-evolutionary", I just know it.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say. :) I think that's silly.

Why not?

Do you mean evolutionary in the scientific sense of the word, or in the change/progress sense of the word?

If we're so good at endangering our own existence, then how come we've come to inhabit virtually every corner and climate of the world?

Of course there are many potential natural disasters that could be very detrimental to us. But other animals are at the exact same risk.

Anyway, don't think I'm attacking you. I just find the subject interesting. :)

I can't prove it but I'll bet a years pay the people wrote that don't live in south central, LA or Bedford-Sty, NY. The people that do are NOT more civilized than the folks down on the farm. :cool:

Here's a handful of city-seeds. Plant 'em and see what happens ...

What we have here is a failure to communicate. English has the terms to express what you're trying to here, but it's clumsy at best with the customary vocabulary.

If I'm understanding your train of thought, you're saying "Plastics are natural because they contain long chains of carbon and hydrogen."

They're natural because they're made up of elements found in the earth. Elements that exist in nature. The fact that an animal that comes from nature messed with it shouldn't "taint" it.

Is oxygen unnatural because it's created by plants from carbon dioxide?

Define "unnatural" then.

Homosexuality! (slang runs away quickly )

That's what I'm saying. The word is meaningless!

Oxygen is natural because it "comes" that way ... two molecules of O, stuck to each other. It's not FORCED into that configuration by photosynthesis.

Consider ... Uranium, naturally occuring element.

Plutonium ... only exists because man tosses additional neutrons in Uranium's general direction which are absorbed by the nucleus, creating this new artificial element. The trans uranicelements IIRC (it's been a good 25 years since I did any hard science), are similarly constructed -- Don't occur in nature, some only exist briefly in the lab.

When the whale uses it's penis to make another little whale, that's part of the process of nature.

When Uncle DuPey uses an assortment of hydrocarbons to make paint and plastic and a myriad of other things that make living better, that's chemistry ... and while the components are organic molecules, it's not natural, dammit!!

Ok, I'm losing track with all the quotes and quotes-of-quotes, so some housekeeping:

(1) By "nature" I do mean "not created by man". But it's just a handy term that most people can relate to. The semantics are getting a little hairy, though.

(2) I don't feel attacked, I'm having a ball.

(3) De-evolution was supposed to mean something, and for the life of me I can't remember what. I think change/progress fits best.

(4) There's lots of prolific organisms that are fragile. Our capacity to self-destruct is still notable. But I guess my point was [holedigging]we are more at risk of being destroyed by the world than we are at destroying it[/holedigging]

(5) city-seeds. lol

Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and then convert it to oxygen. How are they not the direct cause? If oxygen "comes" that way, then how come it was a completely different thing before the plant acted on it?

Oh, I see. Because it wasn't <i>humans</i> doing the changing. I see your bias.


SO? Man is a part of nature. Uranium is a part of nature. Rearrange the elements, and it is still made up of things that come from nature, and was acted on by a being that is of nature.

Yes it is. Man didn't create chemistry. It's just principles he's observed in nature. Taking advantage of the rules of nature doesn't corrupt anything.

Dammit. juju wins the nature-vs-people thing. I hate getting converted.

Fuck.

At least it doesn't derail my cute little hunting manifesto. So there.

New Jersey's opinion may differ on that "corruption" thing ...

Sorry about that. :) I thought I'd try the ol' replying-to-two-people-in-one-post thing. Now I remember why I don't do that.

(1) Of course the semantics are getting hairy. That's the logic behind the concept crumbling. :)

(2)That's good. I just clarify becase many sometimes I don't know when I'm being an asshole.

(3)Well, in that case, progress is a matter of opinion, isn't it?



[edit: removed evil, evil, evil graphical smilies.]

juju:
define "natural"
define "nature"
define "artificial"

I stand by mrnoodle's comment.

Humans are a part of nature. However, we're special, because all of the people talking about humans are.. humans. We get to distinguish between things made by humans and things not made by humans because we are humans. I think that anyone who has spent a week in the woods followed by a week in the heart of a city would say that we need a set of words to describe the difference.

Artificial and natural are among those words.

Do you want the language to create new and more neutral words than the Romantics used?

I understood what you meant by "nature," and "natural," and I'm sure that everyone else did, too. I think that juju was just picking nits.

Nits are like cockroaches, if somebody doesn't pick 'em, they take over. Way to go Juju.:thumb:

I think that mankind is probably the only animal on the planet that doesn't actually have a niche. We could be obliterated, and the world would just go on merrily without us; kill off certain species of insects, however, and the food production would go all to hell. Mankind really doesn't serve a purpose, as most other creatures do.

I'm not implying that mankind is evil in and of itself, only that we tend to use up our resources rather than preserve them by using them wisely, hunt species to extinction for luxuries, and generally do a crappy job in the stewardship of the earth. We seem to believe that because we're human, and therefore "superior," that that gives us license to rape, plunder, and pillage unchecked, without considering the future.

And I kind of agree with the idea that we're a threat to ourselves. People kill people for a pair of tennis shoes. Animals don't generally kill for no purpose (although, yes, a male lion who takes over a pride WILL kill off the cubs of the previous leader, it isn't something that happens all the time), but for food or in self-defense. Animals don't generally pollute their environment so that it becomes a health hazard.

And by "animals," I mean, specifically, "non-human, non-mechanical, living beings, up to and including insects, invertebrates, fish, and avians."

Human beings more resemble viruses, in that they tend to harm or destroy the host (rather than a symbiote, which lives in harmony while using it's host, and sometimes benefits the host as well).


Oh, and to answer the original thread:

My family. That's it. My little girl and my husband.



Sidhe

So are you saying that keeping nits from morphing into cockroaches and taking over the kitchen of life is juju's reason for living? ;)

No, Juju just does nits. They don't morph. Everybody is on their own when it comes to roaches

And you are wrong.

When creatures depend upon other creatures for their survival, it is because they have adapted to their environment which is altered by that creature. We humans are a part of nature and the others animals have evolved and continue to evolve around us.

If all humans beings disappeared in an instant (like the 'rapture' of Christian fantasy), the world would be vastly different. Hundreds to thousands of species would find their environments altered. They would die off and adapt to our absence. If the removal of certain insects would leave more species unsupported, it's only because they've been there longer and more species have had the opportunity to evolve to take advantage of them.

Do you have a family of sparrows making their nest in the eaves of your house?

Nope. No sparrows. I have dragonflies, but I post signs warning people not to feed them on pain of ten lashes with a wet noodle. I think they should hunt their own damn food, not depend on me.

I don't think animals depend on us so much as the are forced to adapt TO us. And as we see when places are abandoned, the life around it doesn't die off...it just takes back over.

As long as they keep making Dr. Pepper, life is good.

So THAT'S why he has that little gold-plated comb with the teeth reeeeeally close together. I thought it was a fashion statement. Who knew?

*imagines juju running around, brandishing his comb, checking people like the apes do...*

Humans are special because they're humans? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

Of course, I recognize that there is an an aesthetic difference. But the concept implies much more than that.

I'm not familiar with the Romantics. Could you educate me?

I'm probably not the best person to define those words. I'd go with anyone's definition, as it's not the definition itself but the implications and logic behind the concept that I have a problem with.

I have a problem with the entire concept, because it implies that man is apart from nature, and not a part of it. It implies that we are not an integral part of the ecosystem, which we are. It implies that we somehow defy the laws of nature, which we do not. And lastly, it implies that we are inheretly bad and that everything we touch is corrupted.

That's spray-painted gold. Juju is a college student from AR, who recently became a father. Oh, and his car has different colored body panels.

Early 80s new wave group, best known for their hits "What I Like About You" and "Talking in Your Sleep."

I'd say so

(actually, I've sinced moved and now have no roaches).



[edit: removed evil, evil, evil graphical smilies.]

Dude, what's up with you using the standard smileys? You fucking sell out bitch!

I forget to check the stupid box. That's just great. Now if i go back and edit it, I look like an asshole!


[edit: ah well, life is short]

No, no, no. 1963, back up for Ruby on "Our Day Will Come":p

Nah, you're already an asshole.

Do you see what my life is like? I have to check that box EVERY TIME i MAKE A POST! This is the life you people are enforcing on me.

Ok, not every time.

I believe the word you were looking for is "force," not "enforce." And nobody is forcing you to not use graphical smileys. You're just an asshole about them.

<b>I</b> am a victim!

Man IS a part of nature, although he's done a good job of--how best to put it?--removing himself from its immediete sphere, I suppose-- and therefore are NOT an integral part of the ecosystem any longer, except insofar as he tends to disrupt it. Instead of working within nature, mankind imposes artificiality in his dealings with his environment.

Now, that's only to be expected in some areas....We have poles and wires to convey electricity for the things that make our lives easier, we have medicines which help us live longer, and things of that nature. But we also have toxic waste dumps because we don't want to deal with the costs of disposing of it more efficiently. We have slums, and war, and toxic fumes from the vehicles we've invented to make our lives easier.

We don't defy the laws of nature. I don't know where that came from...and I don't think that a criticism of the way mankind handles his environment is necessarily an implication that he is "evil," or that everything he touches is corrupted. Mankind DOES have a tendency to "corrupt" something in the sense that if he believes that by using it in the way he wishes that it will benefit him (ie, razing a rainforest for the trees, chopping down trees for the wood and not planting replacements because of the expense it would entail, not installing filters on smokestacks because of the cost, etc.), and by doing this he not only destroys the environment around him, bit by bit, but also endangers his own species.

Mankind IS interconnected, but only in the sense that by destroying our environment, we endanger ourselves. I think that we're more dependent on our environment than the environment is dependent on us.

Mankind does good things, too, though. We have natural forests that are kept pristine (for the most part), and serve as a haven of safety for aspects of nature that would otherwise fall victim to "progress," the medicines he's created prevent epidemics of disease from wiping out whole cities of people.

The point, really, is that mankind tends to think of himself first, and "nature" last because he really doesn't consider himself "part of nature," but master of it...they may, in the abstract, see "mankind" as an organism that evolved within nature, but after that, they kind of separate themselves (for example, we say, "people and animals," as if people WEREN'T animals also).

I don't think that homo sapiens is evil, or that everything it does is corrupted. Mankind is quite capable of creating beauty and of attaining benevolent genius. But what he is capable of doing and what he does are often two different things, depending on the reigning values of the moment. After all, the bowerbird creates and paints a home for his mate...but he doesn't knock down a forest to do it.

All this from the definition of "natural...."


So who's in charge of zapping the mosquitoes? Or are we on our own with those, as well?

:p

Ah...there are two groups with the name, then.

Damnit Bruce, once again, you have shown us that there's no reason to put you out to pasture yet. It looked like we might have to after that shoulder injury, but there you go again, you fantastic bastard.

Due to the fact that you are from Arkansas...God, that must suck.