If you go out in the woods today, what do you notice? It's a wild place. But have biologists noticed the same thing? It seems not! How many papers have they written to tell you what the wildness is, and what it is about? You would think that a science that tries to understand its subject would tackle the question of why all animals are wild, and the related question of what is the big advantage of being wild? Now of course, these questions perhaps assume that animals have a choice of being wild or otherwise. So OK, perhaps they are questions that might have been asked by only 50% of biologists? 10% of biologists? Or at least 1% of the really curious biologists? But why almost none (unless I've missed something)!
What if there is a reason for being wild? Shouldn't humans know about it? Most things are for a reason! Being wild affects the mind. But in what way? Is it a good effect, or a bad effect? Why do humans have a fear of the animal way? Biologists should educate and explain, and show people how to live a more natural life, by taking lessons from the wild world that they study (and love?). The layman's fear of the wild can grow without these answers. Uneducated, they will quickly fear things that slither and crawl. It is natural to fear the unknown.
The human position in nature's scheme of things is changing, and its wildness beckons. But is the science of biology leading the charge of change? No. Instead, it throws fuel to the fear fire, and tells you how wicked, selfish, and ruthless nature really is. It even tells you that the wild instincts and genes left over from our animal past makes you competitive, deceitful, and aggressive. 'Beware of nature, because that is where our faults began'.
Beetle insight: 'Beware the biology bogeymen, they got it wrong!'. (Posted December 2000)