Add new comment

Imagine you are a person. Imagine you know nothing of agriculture, and rely on what nature produces for 100% of your nutrition. Imagine you survey the landbase surrounding you, and realize it no longer produces enough food to feed you. Imagine you roam into into surrounding territory only to find it occupied by other (probably very territorial) humans, and with that land already being stretched to its limit. Imagine this process continues until you eventually arrive at the edges of a desert. Do you cross it? Should you stay put because it's "anthropocentric" to "think you have a right to live where you want?" I use the term biological imperative not as a "disguised form of genetic determinism," but as a basic descriptor of a fact which should be self-evident. When faced with starvation, people are going to move. No prescriptive ideology or moral code is going to prevent starving people from searching for new food sources. If this means crossing deserts, learning how to survive in colder climates, learning to eat new things that weren't traditionally human foods, it will be done. Sorry I brought basic biology 101 lingo into the conversation. Let's pretend I never mentioned "biological imperative," and instead said "animals will search for food when hungry, and in order to keep surviving and provide for offspring, they are often forced to keep moving." This is why Ria's position is anthropocentric, when you boil it down and get past the surface arguments. She pretends to hold a position that we are wild beings and on the same level as other creatures, only to turn around and hold us to standards that nobody would think of holding to any other species. We are to be animal, apparently, whilst simultaneously expected to behave as if we were not.