Cases before my eyes yet another diatribe men vs snakes, which apparently erupted one last time with a great crash involving even those who have nothing to do with it, because some scholar of reptiles or in any case of wildlife would seem to have been angry a lot for the millionth pontata of "kill everything you see that weighs less than 1 kg and then ask questions", but would have decided to deal with the public pillory, becoming a champion of the ophidians and holding the flail of blasting and penitenziagite hoping in vain to be able to change things (which will not change).
This of snakes happens punctually every year and every year the same things are repeated, even if they are protected fauna. Like many useless diatribes, I normally wouldn't care, if it weren't for the funny, angry protests towards reactions that are actually written in the DNA and that scholars should understand well.
The protest that intrigued me most would be the complaint that the dealer of Allen screws terrified by the length of the biscione for social envy or the bored housewife looking for emotions would not be able to distinguish a fearsome Viperas Alqaedis Arrakisensis, who can take you hostage family and threaten to blow up a 100 megatone device if you do not accept its conditions, from a lovable Colubrus Creampieus Suckdickus who brings you home the newspaper and prepares you tea and bisccottini and does other services that can be VERY pleasant (but it depends on the your orientation).
The fact is that the human being is EXACTLY programmed for this reaction and therefore not only would not be surprising, but it is perfectly useless to complain. It has not been many thousands of years since we lived in the savannas and forests with only a stinky fur on them and this, in evolutionary terms, the zoologists themselves tell us, is a blink of an eye, a trifle. Our genes are roughly the same as those that have been selected by nature to allow us to survive in those hostile environments, and although perhaps thanks to technology, what would have been aberrations incompatible with a long life are spreading in other eras and prosperous, such as nearsightedness, or some food intolerances, which today we can compensate with glasses and supermarkets full of all kinds of gods allowing porters to survive and transmit their genome to their offspring, basically we still remain hominid of the savannah to which it is A computer was given to type (someone was elected president and he was given the briefcase of nuclear missiles, too). All this also includes the genes that regulate our instincts and behavioral reactions. In the savannah, stop to contemplate the beauty of that crocodile that is approaching you that you started drinking, of that black widow that you decided to take in hand to better observe it, of that slightly thin lion that suddenly stares at you, it was say a little winning strategy. I mean, the lack of stimuli to fear, the predisposition to love rather than fear creatures, from the point of view of survival and reproduction, led more often to an atrocious death than to becoming the David Attenborough of prehistory. Maybe it happened rarely, but over a period of 100,000 years for Homo sapiens the tendency was still to select in the negative who approached the lion, the crocodile or the viper intrigued. Instead, those who instinctively kept away lived an extra day to reproduce and transmit their genes, including those of cowardice. Fear, that is, as much as we grew up in a system with universal education may seem silly or useless, evolutionarily PAYS.
And we keep in mind that in reality human evolution did not start 100,000 years ago, but 3 billion years ago: we are the culmination of an ancient process and we are descended from creatures that have ALREADY faced these dangers in the past. It is not that the monkeys of 15 million years ago did not have to deal with the vipers (and other snakes that may be harmless to us but which for a 3 kg paleobertuccia could have been fatal even without poison), while the similar rats 100 million years ago and beyond had to deal with significantly larger reptiles. The fear of dangerous animals therefore did not even appear 100,000 years ago in the savannah, but millions of years ago, and was transmitted from generation to generation through the changes in species because it PAYS.
The fear of snakes then, together with other things such as insects or especially spiders, is particularly rooted in us men (phobia is more widespread for even the only images of vipers or spiders than for sharks, lions or wolves , although the latter are probably more dangerous if approached) for such a trivial reason that I am surprised no one thought about it: they are small animals that hide, but potentially lethal, blend in with the undergrowth, or among the stones, you can find them in the bed or stumble upon it without even noticing it before, unlike a lion or a bear that you may perhaps see from afar and who could even do their own thing. They are, so to speak, subtle animals from our point of view, because they can kill you without you even noticing, and to those who remain bitten, it does not matter that they could have been more careful or learn to know the fauna of the place or that basically animal defended himself. So here a particular atavistic reaction has been selected so as to be even more accentuated, and lead us to instinctively reject tiny creatures, 1000 times lighter than us, and to want to crush them before they bite (or run away), because without noticing you may be bitten.
And therefore it does not matter if it is a snake, a snake or a worm that is not even a snake: in our DNA it is written that the brain must react with fear and repulsion for what has been a danger for millions of years fearsome and that even now, if we were in the savannah, it could be in the form of a viper, and then the instinctive reaction is threatening. We add that when one of these animals enters your home, the perceived threat is ten times greater: it is your lair, where perhaps you keep your children, the reactions selected in the savannah are even stronger, because without offspring your offspring vanishes and your fear genes do not pass on to subsequent generations.
The normal natural condition of man is to be FEARED. To beat BEFORE the crawling creature and only AFTER wondering what it was. So, the naturalists and zoologists who get angry because some fork has triggered the world war and called the marines for a bisetta, or given off his virile might by posting the photo on facebook and bragging with his friends that he has tamed the fearsome beast (social status), they may be right on paper from the point of view of the civilized man but they misunderstand or ignore a detail that should instead be well aware: it is human nature and it exists for a very specific reason that perhaps now does not exist more 'but in the past it was fundamental, and there is not much you can do in those who have this ancestral instinct nor hope that these things stop happening. They can only hope that in thousands of other years the offspring that by chance have not inherited the genes of fear will reproduce more often, thanks to a society that allows them to survive and prosper as it is more than who is more suitable. to the savannah because it is no longer in contact with the daily dose of dangers that were experienced in the Rift valley or in the Neander valley, recombining their genes and diluting ancestral instincts in the population.
No, you will not eradicate the fear of snakes, put your soul in peace.
(Feed generated with FetchRSS )
From the Facebook page Supporters of Kein Pfusch / Uriel Fanelli