The Discovery Channel is about to celebrate their 25th year of presenting Shark Week on their popular television weeklong event. In front of that celebration a friend of mine suggested that sharks were a wonderful way to illustrate the merits of social engineering failures that have occurred among human beings. His reasoning was that sharks were a brutal prehistoric oriented species of sea life that are born violent hunters which make them a fascinating study. Their desire to hunt and destroy is natural. But what if they could be taught not to eat people? That would be a wonderful thing that would save many arms, legs and lives if only we could convince sharks from wanting to destroy the human population with mindless hunger simply to fill their bellies.
Well, as my friend suggested one possible solution for the sharks would be to go on a welfare program similar to what human beings use in their societies. If the sharks were just given food instead of developing their hunter instincts to track it down themselves, they might become “nicer.” Because looking at the life of sharks the way a progressive does, the reason that sharks are so mean is because they are always hunting for food. If someone just gave them food, they wouldn’t be so angry all the time, and wouldn’t desire to eat people at beaches.
If there were a welfare system for sharks, human beings could just feed them everyday to purchase peace. The sharks would learn that when the boats came, the boats would bring food, so the sharks would be inclined to stay away from the beaches where human beings enjoyed swimming. The sharks wouldn’t have to be so vicious having to compete with other sea life for food because the food would come to them. This would save the lives of millions of other fish and sharks in the ocean and of course the human beings who wished to swim in the ocean.
That makes perfect sense—if you’re a progressive liberal. Unfortunately, the fate of such a program would be the same as what has happened in the areas where welfare among humans occur. On land, the people on welfare become placated and unaggressive. They typically wait for their check to arrive in the mail so they can eat. But in their complacency they don’t tend to pass on good traits to their young. The youngsters not naturally desiring to wait for the check to arrive in the mail try to take their lives in their own hands and develop gangs to fight over the limited resources available in their communities that are built by placated adults fed by government. Much of the violence of gang behavior can be traced back to the creation of welfare, and the limited movement of the human population in ranges of thinking. That is the side effect of the human species that has lost its ability to fight for its survival. A welfare society becomes lazy, and inept.
Among the sharks, the unforeseen tragedy would be that the sharks would begin to travel in packs along the paths of the boats that brought food to them. Sharks being a solitary species would adjust their nature to that of collectivity passively waiting for the boats to bring them food. The younger sharks that hadn’t lost their desire to hunt would gather up in packs and attack the boats on occasion to take all the food destined for the rest of their shark society. But peace would be maintained for the most part, so long as the human population kept the sharks fed.
But what would happen if the food ran out? Or what would happen if the sharks became obese, and developed the need to eat more food than the humans could provide? What if it took two boats to feed a pack of sharks that used to take only one? That’s when the sharks would begin to attack humans again. But this time instead of only being solitary hunters, the sharks would attack in mass. On land in the human communities, this activity is called “protests.” Humans protest when the government doesn’t give them the amount of food they think they should have.
Sharks would do this as well when the boats did not bring enough food to keep them fat, dumb, and happy. It would become increasingly impossible to fulfill the expectations of the shark populations all over the world, because there would not be enough food to give the sharks.
This is what happens when progressives inject their “feel good” theories of social engineering into the natural world. They intend to do well, by feeding the sharks; to keep the human population from being eaten. But instead, the progressive makes the human population slaves to the sharks by spending all their time trying to catch free food to keep the sharks at bay. Inadvertently the sharks become a collective based society that becomes even more dangerous if they are enraged making the risk for future violence much more serious. Also within the shark society the progressive has created a rift within the young and the old. The old are happy to be fed since they have learned to let the food come to them. The young functioning from their youthful instincts wants to catch something and prove their worth, so they incorporate the collectivity taught to them by their parents and mix it with their natural impulse for violence—so they form gangs of sharks that are far more dangerous than what the single sharks used to be.
This is what humans have done to their own society. The creation of welfare was intended to be a helping hand to those less fortunate. But instead, it has created a society of lazy humans that have collected in mass in locations where free things are given to them to appease their natural aggressiveness. Welfare has created the culture of gangs that terrorize inner cities and the drug trade that is the lifeblood of such violence. The gangs created something in a desperate desire from limited resources within the welfare culture to gain something valuable. In a society where the limited resources are driven by how much food is on the feed boats the only way to advance in such a society is by inventing something else that has value. In the human case, it is drugs and illegal activity that creates an alternative economy within the welfare state. The ultimate villain is the welfare system because it is what robbed people of their ambition, and the desire to “create” wealth making them dependents on the suppliers of the welfare checks.
The sharks being dependents on the food supply of the boats would become far more dangerous as a collective unit who could then “collectively bargain” to gain more food from the boats. And if they didn’t get the food, they could protest against the boats threatening to kill all on board. So the humans trying to save the lives and legs of other human beings inadvertently would have created a much more dangerous species of shark by attempting to put the sharks on a welfare system. The appeasement would only be temporary, and might in fact keep the sharks from the beaches where humans like to swim. But ultimately, the sharks would become much more dangerous than they ever were as solitary hunters. As a collective herd of sharks, they could demand all the food they could eat, and if that food could not be supplied, they’d have the power to hunt down and destroy with much greater capacity many more humans than ever before. And it would all have started with the good intention of giving the sharks food for free in the hope that they would become less dangerous.