A point was brought to my attention about being "a wild animal". So of course I have been thinking about that quite a bit. The "wild animal" was defined as non-migratory and more of a singular figure rather than being in a herd. So they gather their direction without any pre-determined path. I realized that these "wild animals" may not migrate like other animals- but they do follow the path of the herd. This is how they gain their sustenance- following the path of the herd- making themselves predators. They do not follow for the exact same reason- but the main reason for both groups of animals is for "food". The "wild animals" don't follow the complete migratory pattern- but they do follow the "food."
So in a way- it seems like even in nature there is a need for sustenance, protection, and guidance that is found in the "herd"- whether or not you are part of the "herd". Even the "wild animal" relies upon the herd.
Another question was raised about the "migratory" animal and the "wild" animal. How do you mesh their lives? How do they live the way they each feel they should and co-exist? I think the answer is also found in nature- they don't. One will always be predator and the other prey. I can't think of any examples to refute this. However- I'd love to know if I'm wrong on this one.
Just some more food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment