It really bothers me when people use “fear” and “respect” interchangeably. This borders on that.
Is this meant to be serious?
Yes but humans are not wolfs. Each behave differently.
Primates also have territories, and chimps, one of our closest relatives, have wars over them.
That’s not accurate. Humans behave very predictably in most cases
Ok, sounds like we don’t have to put so much energy into policing them then.
I pee on things when I walk around the farm
Is this what enlightenment is?
Am I allowed to immigrate across countries if I engage in a match of melee combat with the leader of said country and perform well? Murder optional.
You have my vote, melee matches to the death preferred. I think the first two matches should be Trump, then Bibi. Is there any way we can expand this to billionaires before filling out the rest of the tour agenda?
I know it’s just a shitpost but it’s so fucking stupid.
It’s comparing a home to a country. Like arguing “If you’re so against borders, I’ll just come into your house at any time.” No, fuckface, there’s a difference between personal space and (what should be) public land.
They overlap significantly. In addition to what’s seen in the image, the wolves’ territories will move around due to various conditions. There are no fixed lines that could be likened to states’ borders, only vague areas that can be likened to respecting personal space. Compare the wolves’ ranges with the white line indicating the national park border also seen in the image, which does not move around based on vibes.
The modern notion of nation States, with clearly defined borders, and mechanisms of violence to enforce them, only arose around the 17th century.
Wolves don’t build border walls, have customs checkpoints, or leave refugees to drown in the Mediterranean.
This isn’t a “science meme”, it’s a falacious attempt to cloak reactionary rhetoric in the aesthetic garb of scientific rigor.
Only a half truth. Borders may have been loosely defined but they were absolutely defended with violence. You couldn’t wander in and hunt in your neighbors woods, take their timber or set up a farm too close. Hell, sometimes they even had well defined natural borders or walls (see: Hadrian’s wall, the great wall of China)
Moving through an area in large numbers might draw a violent response and you might be coerced to leave if you spoke the wrong language or dressed the wrong way. If you were an unknown group of strangers they may well let your boat sink or leave you to starve outside their walls. Modern states have simply codified these reactions into law.
Proto-states and the associated mechanisms developed extremely quickly once sedentary agriculture became dominant. If your entire livelihood is tied to a field of grain you no longer get to run or hide from conflict; controlling who can and can’t get near it becomes imperative.
Only a half truth. Borders may have been loosely defined but they were absolutely defended with violence.
Yes, but the means by which that state violence was organized and carried out often looked very different. Obviously there was some sort of distinction between medieval lordships or what have you, but the organizational form of the modern nation state wasn’t codified until the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years war. This was co-constitutive with the enclosure of common land, and the birth of modern capitalist property relations.
But the nitty gritty details are besides the point. The main thing I’m stating in my comment is that OP is making a falacious appeal to nature. As though a dog pissing on a rock somewhere says anything at all about how humans should conduct border policy.
Might as well show plant tissues with defined cell walls and say “borders are natural”.
Cool, now overlap with the paths of migratory animals
Would that disprove that wolves don’t enter each other’s territory?
No, it debunks the appeal to nature as a basis for ethics and civilization
Animals are more civilised than Israelis it seems
Not a hard bar to clear.
“Sorry sir, we have to deport you back to your impoverished, war-torn country, because wolves pee on trees”.
Very compelling.
Also, countries need authoritarian governments because lobsters pee on each-other’s faces.
It’s as good an excuse as any 🤷♂️
Yes, exactly what they’re saying. lol
The top quote is refering to borders as a state construction. Nobody denies the existence of boundaries between things in general
Nobody denies the existence of boundaries between things in general
I do, I refuse to admit the existence of rivers!
those wolves don’t cross borders those because they already have what they need, and avoid upsetting their neighbors. not because the other wolf built a fance and has an army that will kill him, and is forced to live in his territory and pay taxes so his territory can be protected ny an army that will kill any wolves that enter without permission.
Borders are trees covered in pee.
Sigh Unzip. If that’s what I’ve got to do to carve out some space, then so be it!
Welcome to Border Peetrol.
Paw Peetrol
Maintaining healthy trees with urine covering with federal employee benefits and a government pension sounds like a dream job.
No doubt they’d find a way to make it a bureaucratic nightmare of a job. But I’m down.
We should draw congressional districts like this.
