From recent papers I think two things need follow-up.
One, while the recent moose story is a nice feel-good piece with human and wildlife interest the point should be made that interfering with wild animals is not a good idea. Unless a person is qualified and authorized they should leave wildlife alone. Use of anthropomorphism is silly and does not make questionable acts any more right. Leave wildlife alone. We cause imbalance enough through feeding of cute critters. The general rule should be to not interfere with wildlife.
Two, the Islam/Muslim issue is, I think, more properly discussed under the heading where diversity is called a social strength. Some degrees or levels of diversity are socially positive. Others are not. When any group sets itself apart they champion social separatism as a societal goal. I am reluctant to accept that as either a social good or a form of useful diversity. Separatism is not diverse and can be damaging to social cohesion and cooperation. If we look for social development and strength it is more apt to be found in unity and tolerance, though surely as we can love animals to death we humans are able to overdo the bounds of unity and tolerance. In any case a social network will be more unified than it is diverse. Think for example unity in common language, laws and measures.
Harry Drabik
Hovland
Leave a Reply