8 ms·
I mean, aside from a) mammals don't instinctively do anything of the sort and b) it's a movie, consider perhaps also the possibility that c) its writers may not
by throwanem 4y ago
I mean, aside from a) mammals don't instinctively do anything of the sort and b) it's a movie, consider perhaps also the possibility that c) its writers may not really intend that you subscribe uncritically to a philosophy espoused, in however compelling fashion thanks to Hugo Weaving's brilliant performance, by its homicidal villain?
- notfromhere 4y agoAnimals tend to over time establish stable populations. Humans have devised ways to maneuver nature to move past these constraints, and industrialization has entirely broken them.
- defrost 4y ago"Stable populations" in the sense that they largely have relatively predictable population cycles [1][2] that can be modelled using population dynamics [3]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle [2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2404185 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2404185 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics
- roarcher 4y agoRight, because their environment imposes "stability" on them by killing them in various ways. The movie quote makes it sound like the woods are full of deer couples who conscientiously produce 2.1 fawns apiece. Humans are doing exactly what every mammal would do if they could. We're just the only ones who have succeeded.
- throwanem 4y agoIn large part because we no longer have any predators, which is the point of Smith's monologue; in the model of the human environment he espouses, he and his fellows are the predators.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]