Academics have found status in a system that
rewards a political agenda. Their fantasies would evaporate if they
had to deal with reality.
Politics never interested me until a spate of shark
attacks occurred at my local Ballina beach next to the
rivermouth in 2015 and 2016.
Two of these attacks took place while I was surfing,
one right in front of
me. Over a period of two years, twelve shark attacks
occurred along a 70 kilometre stretch of coast, eight within ten
kilometres of Ballina, four within a kilometre of the river mouth.
Two of the attacks were fatal.
Needless to say, the surfing community was traumatised, but so
too was the community at large. The ominous sounds of ambulances
and helicopters haunted the coastal strip, as journalists and film
crews kept the story in the headlines.
Just like the pandemic, we spent two years talking about nothing
else. It was difficult to continue surfing. But, with so few people
braving the ocean, it was hard to resist the temptation.
A sense of camaraderie developed among the local surfers, partly
because we were having so much fun surfing uncrowded waves, and
partly because any one of us might suddenly need help getting to
shore.
As far as I know, I was the only one using a costly and
cumbersome electrical device mounted on my board
to deter sharks. Others painted their boards with stripes to look
like venomous sea snakes. While most surfed without any form of
deterrent, everyone stuck together, feeling safer in numbers.
A team of scientists has predicted
that the rate of shark attacks in Australia will continue to
increase over the next two decades, before gradually declining to
the same rate as today by the year 2066.
When I asked the lead author, Corey Bradshaw, why he anticipates
human-shark interactions to follow this pattern, he replied: “It’s
in the paper – long-term fluctuations of climate patterns in the
ocean. Exact mechanism? Unsure.”
So, I tried again.
“Thanks. But, if you cannot identify the exact mechanism, then
how could you be confident that your modelling reflects reality? I
don’t doubt the gradual increase depicted over the next decade,
since both populations are increasing. But, why wouldn’t it
continue rising indefinitely? It seems unlikely that the rate of
attacks would decline, as you predict.”
The conversation ended
there. He is a busy man, with a tremendous vision for
humanity.
In another recent paper, he proposes
a “systemic change in the way humanity functions and interacts with
nature”, including “major reductions in meat
consumption”.
According to his modelling, about 1,800 people could fall victim
to shark attack in Australia over the next 45 years. But, if his
hypothesis is incorrect and the rate of attacks continues to rise
at the current rate, there will be an additional 800 victims. This
means the number of attacks in 2066 will be more than double his
prediction for that year.
How many tragedies have to occur before someone in power finally
says enough is enough? The government body tasked with
reducing the rate of shark attacks has deployed a suite of
measures, which is elaborate and costly, but does
little to solve the problem. As far as they are concerned,
reducing the population of sharks is not an
option.
You really have to wonder if they care more about sharks than
people. If that is the case, then the problem is the anti-human
agenda of environmentalism.
Despite being a world-renowned ethicist, whose seminal work inspired the animal
rights movement, Peter Singer has somehow managed to
avoid the shark debate raging in his home country, not even
appearing at a Senate inquiry into the problem. This is the guy who
spent his whole life rationalising values to suit the greater good,
only to change his mind when faced with the uncomfortable decision
of his mother’s passing, finally conceding that “Perhaps it
is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different
when it’s your mother.”
I guess that is the problem with many intellectuals. Enamoured
by the rational mind, they lose touch with their humanity.
This problem is also evident among surfing academics, whose
devotion to nature provides a convenient distraction from the messy
business of real life. For example, Rebecca Olive views the
risk of shark attack through the prism of eco-feminism, which she
explains “questions the assumed authority of humans over … all the
non-human elements that make up the worlds we live in”. She
confesses to being afraid of sharks, but reckons feeling vulnerable
evokes a profound sense of communion with nature.
When I saw two young surfers paddle straight up to their friend
after he had been attacked by a shark, it occurred to me that men
have been protecting each other like that since the dawn of
time.
The bravery exhibited by those boys had more to do with nature
than any worldview contrived by eco-feminists. It is in man’s
nature to protect the clan.
These academics have found status in a system that rewards a
political agenda and punishes opposition.
They rarely face any pushback.
Their self-indulgent fantasies would evaporate if they had to
deal with reality.
How many privileges do they take for granted?
It is despicable that the most privileged people to have ever
lived are so hell-bent on destroying the very culture that supports
them.
But, they have been programmed to think in a certain way, which
not only subordinates the individual to the group, but humanity to
the environment.
They are the “useful idiots” carrying the Trojan Horse of
socialism disguised as identity politics and environmentalism.
