The Human Population Tsunami by Martin Jacoby

Our genetic information has become disorganised and needs to be checked. We human beings experience loss of hair, teeth and muscle, stiffness, wrinkles and other signs of old age.

DNA is a huge and delicate molecule that makes mistakes in time. If an individual fox is fitted to its environment, why does it bother to have cubs? There are three main, technical, reasons:ġ) the genetic information that directs how a fertilised egg will develop into a recognisable fox is stored as a digital code in chemicals collectively called ‘DNA’. Evolution positively selected Fox 1 as an individual better fitted to its environment than Fox 2. Fox 1 had the behaviour necessary to find food and shelter and to avoid lights at night and rifles. The genetic information that makes a fox a fox is carried on to the next generation by Fox 1 but not by Fox 2.

This encourages us to think of an individual fox in one of two ways: Fox 1 dies having had cubs, Fox 2 dies having not had them. The information that directs a fertilised egg to develop into a fox and not a badger is carried by its parents. ‘Foxiness’ is clearly passed on from generation to generation. Firstly, what is a fox? We recognise a fox as a fox, though we may not recognise individuals. “Fox shooting is bad for foxes.” That sounds like a meaningful proposition worth looking at. What does ‘bad’ mean? Bad for whom or what? It won’t survive because far more people feel that it is ‘bad’. If the survival of shooting in any form depends on whether the majority of people like or hate it, it won’t. Here he lays down the central argument against banning shooting: Shooting – good or bad?

The Human Population Tsunami by Martin Jacoby