“We cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them” Einstein.

It is time for us to start thinking differently on the kangaroo situation, which has been created by the quantitative bias of ‘left-brain’ thinking.

Kangaroos - like all creatures in the wild - have had instinctive wisdom guiding them in sustaining the balance of nature for millions of years - long before Homo sapiens ever existed. Man incorrectly believes, however, that he is above instinct with his rational logic, scientific “proofs”, anthropocentric laws, and arbitrary patriarchal hierarchical values.

Although applied to the material world, left-brain scientific thought is relative to abstraction, not living reality. Although it prides itself on being “disinterestedly objective”, science is in fact absolutely prejudiced against the 90% of living reality that it can’t “prove” with its scientific methodology, even though its so-called 'proofs' are consistently disproven in time. Unscientifically, science chooses to ignore this inconvenient fact.
Truth is absolute; proofs are not. The only thing proven in the laboratory or theoretically is the hypothesis, not the truth of experimental or theoretical conclusions.

Man falls into error when he assumes to know beyond his abstract jurisdiction, and applies his abstraction to living reality. The rational thinking that informs science (and from there, politicians) relates only to its own abstraction, not the living reality from which it abstracts and modifies, and then (mis)applies to living reality.
Applied science and technology - no matter how wondrous it actually is - is not proof of our superior evolution. Its abstract foundation has in fact left the evolutionary spiral and set humanity on a fast linear track to oblivion.

“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.”
Science does not, nor can it 'know' beyond the quantitative parts, which represent less than 10% of living reality. Science does not 'know’ the causal dynamics of the evolutionary web of life, nor what multidimensional interconnectedness and the balance of nature actually IS, let alone how it is sustained; yet in its lust for 'proof of life' science assumes to 'know' better than Mother Nature, and invalidates life by default. Life is self-evident; it doesn’t need to be 'proven', rather it needs to be understood. Only then can wise decisions be made with regard to keeping the balance of nature.

Let the ancient wisdom of kangaroo instinct prevail.

The point is that the science that informs politicians is inherently biased and erroneous, and within that error lie dire consequences for the continuum of evolutionary life on planet Earth. Which is why concern over the kangaroo slaughter in Canberra is not only local or national, but also global (as is the survival of all of wildlife, wherever it is on the planet).

The causal dynamics of life on Earth have both created and sustained evolution for billions of years since life first began, but in just under half a century, scientific, legal, and economic (science applied to business) abstraction is destroying the balance of nature and the very fabric that sustains evolutionary life. Corporate globalization is destroying vast areas of living habitat and displacing species (including indigenous peoples) to accommodate and sustain an exploding human population (seven billion in all), with towns, cities, and now megacities of tens of millions of people; that are totally dependent on the plundering of planetary resources by a false global “economy” for their every need (or, rather, manufactured wants).

Although over 10,300 people from all over the world signed a petition against the 2012 slaughter of kangaroos in Canberra, their outraged voices were effectively silenced by the ACT Legislative Assembly because of undemocratic petition guidelines, which invalidated the petition, and prevented its presentation in person to the Assembly.

In a democracy, politicians are elected to represent real people, not abstract science. As an elected representative of the people, a politician’s duty is to uphold their position as the voice of the people who are demanding that humane options be considered in dealing with the alleged kangaroo problem. There is no such thing as humane killing. Killing is murder - whether of a sentient human or animal - and it is morally indefensible. But science has no moral compass, nor do political, legal, or commercial systems. They are pure abstractions.

The persons who protest the slaughter bring evolved human consciousness and caring into the equation, something entirely missing in today's scientific and legal mindset that upholds the 'cold, hard, facts', which are - in fact - extremely fallible. It’s too late to say “Oops, we made a mistake” when the damage is done, and the kangaroos become extinct because science “didn’t know” (as is claimed with increasing frequency when the science or law is overturned by an environmental or social disaster).

Politicians need to listen with an open mind and a human heart to the local, national, and international people's concerns about the immoral slaughter of Canberra’s healthy kangaroos and their families. Please act conscionably, and stop the slaughter of kangaroos in Canberra’s nature reserves permanently. There ARE other options.


Letter to
TAMS Minister ACTLA Shane Rattenbury
Chief Minister ACTLA Katy Gallagher
Minister for Environment ACTLA Simon Corbell
Dear Shane,
As you know, the fate of 1,445 kangaroos and their joeys living in Canberra’s nature reserves will be determined by the courts around the 9th July 2013. However, I am concerned that only scientific 'proofs' and 'points of law' come into the equation, and the question of whether the killing of wildlife is morally right, or not, is arbitrarily dismissed.
Scientific 'proofs' and legal 'points of law' do not fully account for the qualitative causal dynamics of sustaining wildlife habitat - nor can they - because they are inherently biased against the quantitatively unprovable aspects of qualitative living reality (such as interconnectivity). If it can’t be proven scientifically, then it is deemed invalid. In this way, the qualitative ‘web of life’ is invalidated by default and has no rights under man’s arbitrary law. I oppose the slaughter of kangaroos and the fracturing of their social groups on conscientious moral grounds and ask that you genuinely consider the many humane alternative options available for dealing with the kangaroo 'problem' that has been created by human ineptitude.
We who oppose the killing bring the qualitative factor of human conscience to the table. We know that indiscriminate slaughter is not right, regardless of what scientific experts or the courts hold true. We want our viewpoint and finer sensibilities to be respected, heard, and taken into account by our representatives in a democratic parliament.
Please conscionably reconsider the options and don’t stoop to heinous butchery as a solution.
It isn’t civilized.