"And while we’re on this thread about the ‘human’ propensity for violence, just take a look at which gender is committing all that violence. It ain’t the women."

Since you brought it up. Just take a look at which gender is responsible for all that aggression or does that not matter. As I said in my earlier post there are people who can inflict just as much damage to both children and adults without lifting a finger. Those people include women as much as men. Violence is one form of aggression - not by any means the only form or even the worst form.

The Bambi view of nature: isn't it nice. Darwin should be stapled to the forehead of every fool who venerates nature as though it is some magical force which casts a benevolent, protective net over humanity.

The other side of the coin are the misanthropists who hate their own kind and support nature so humanity will no longer despoil nature. The misanthrope takes idiocy to new levels.

Everything which is good, decent, humane and interesting in life comes by keeping nature at bay through technology and cheap, reliable energy.

The misanthropes and their allies the greens would take humanity to a time when nature was not kept at bay, when life was miserable and short and brutish.

Misanthropes are despicable. If they hate humanity so much they should show the way by ridding the world of themselves.

"It ain’t the women"

Women don't mind voting for wars. They voted overwhelmingly for Menzies, and did not oppose the conscription of 19 yr old males for Vietnam.

If women were the way you imagine them to be they would have voted against conscripting young men who did not have the vote themselves and were below drinking age, to die in a jungle. You've won the DoB lottery, here is your uniform and assault rifle, see you later maybe.

Out of kindness I did not mention the conflicts in between WW2 and Vietnam.

Come to think about it, women were not too bad at handing out white feathers to shame men into battle.

Maybe women have a fine sense of self preservation and regard men as disposable. That would also explain the disgusting, dirty and dangerous work men do that educated middle class feminists don't have on their bucket list. "A leg-up to a management job NOW! Oh and one on the Board for later".

LOL

Sure Killarney, cannibalistic female spiders are not common in the spider world. Only a very small number of species do it.

Ok, so you’ve had a go at that point in isolation. Does that mean you agree with everything else I have said? What about the overall tenet of my post, do you have any probs with it?

I might also point out that wasps that catch and paralyse spiders are in the tiny minority in the wasp world.

And likewise with birds that eat spiders straight off the middle of the classic spiral-type webs.

But there is certainly nothing unusual about 99.9% of all offspring of spiders (and most other arthropods) being eaten or otherwise perishing before they get to maturity.

In short, the tenet of my post is rock solid. Mother Nature is a vicious dog-eat-dog entity…. totally different to the image portrayed by Ian Nance.

<< …take a look at which gender is committing all that violence. It ain’t the women. >>

Come on, it isn’t anywhere near that black and white, as others have pointed out.

There is no doubt that ' nature' certainly has the propensity for violence in our world.
Take the shark problems we apparently have here in the West. Three young men have been killed in the past 2years ....a truly awful death I would imagine.

Humans can be just as deadly of course. Take all those poor men who were killed by 'one-punch' or cowards punch by other drunken men. Also an awful waste of life.

Then we can look at the many women killed every year in domestic violence incidences.
Where is the huge outcry over their deaths?
Is being killed by your husband, partner or ex-partner any less violent than the other deaths mentioned above?
If not, why not?

http://www.mamamia.com.au/domestic-violence-2/charlie-pickering-chat-priorities/

Diver Dan,

>A pyramid of predators crowned by the greatest threat to survival of the planet; the individual “Man” and his obsession with himself and his own ends!<

Right on the money, Diver!
And, for those who quite obviously fail to appreciate the underlying sentiment, Diver is expressing an abiding respect for nature.
And, contrary to the interpretation of some, Diver's view is not misanthropic, but is rather suggesting a view that mankind may only find ultimate fulfillment by embracing nature, by becoming a benevolent contributor to its preservation, acting in concert with it, as part of it, and not as its frenzied destructive opponent.

For those who look, but fail to see, life without nature could only be a cold and dismal existence, devoid of almost everything that makes life truly interesting and challenging. (Though that would appear to be fine with many who selfishly wish only to revel in their cloistered play pens, immune from any external distractions, just like so many automatons, emulating the little emoticons in their favourite game on the iPad. (And, perhaps like cohenite, who appears to fear nature, and can only see a need to 'keep it at bay'.)

How far is "Man" willing to go, in the 'conquest' of nature? And, at what ultimate cost?
But of course, this is a moot question, because the powers that be, and not 'individual man', are intent on pushing the 'growth machine' forward with injudicious haste, and just who is to stop them? Bob Brown?

Shame on all who can only see trees as 'obstacles' or lumber, non-domesticated animals as competition or 'game', waterways as irrigation or hydroelectric potential, and insects or arachnids as merely 'gnats'.
(They need to get out more, into the 'real world'.)

Nature can certainly be hazardous, but, what are 'we', wimps afraid of our own shadows?
(And, what is breeding our most serious threats - mutated viruses? "We" are!)