Today I dust off an older chestnut in the world of the Monkey Hunt, that old argument of kill verses no kill. This one has been around for a while and easily has evoked as much debate as any other long standing debate on this subject. Personally I take a pragmatic stance leaning towards the no kill stance, and I'll get into thought on both sides of the argument, and admit in advance that some of my stance will be based solidly on the hypothetical. The reason why is simply because no one in the community has produced a body so the creature is unproven to science, thus the hypothetic reference. It's also my opinion that how you feel about this subject is going to have a basis in your own motivations in what brought you into this subject either as a researcher or skeptic or enthusiast. Some want to debunk, some want science to admit the monkey is out there, some are happy to know for themselves and some of the ideas delve further into the paranormal realm for a variety of reasons. Since I am not of the paranormal mode of thought I will focus on the more grounded side of things.
First, the prokill argument as I see it is based largely on the notion of needing the specimen for scientific confirmation. In layman's terms mainstream science won't be happy unless there's a monkey in the cage or a body on the slab. I think blind acceptance of this notion is naive however, partially because this isn't reflective of everyone's motivations in this, also it's not unreasonable for me to speculate that some die hard skeptics who don't get to see the body live or dead, themselves will take an "alien autopsy" sort of read on the whole affair. Simply put, some simply don't want to believe because.
Others don't want to see the subject proven either, and the reasons why will vary but here are a few. Some argue that if we proved the existence of a creature very near to ourselves it would challenge various cultural and religious bigotries we have, as well as some potential commercial interests such as Logging. With the Community itself, although they are loath to admit there are also those with a profit motive, that are cashing in directly or otherwise on the mystery itself and its perpetuation. Solve it and suddenly that's down the drain as well, so it's also naive to think these motivations aren't out there because they are, convenient or not.
These are interesting arguments that have some merit, some would also argue that the Government would grab the body for any of a number of reasons, maybe to protect certain large and lobbying Commercial interests, maybe for another political agenda, maybe for no other reason other than they don't think we the public can handle the truth and thus defend the status quo. As you can see there's a variety of reasons why a body isn't nessicarily going to solve this thing. The bottom line for me, is there are parties out there who have an active stake in not seeing this thing solved and would act to prevent, there are those who will argue the body for science argument and are simply looking for the next great trophy. The great white hunter theory is basically that, once you have this creature proven to exist, it's open season for trophy hunters. in that sense discovery is simply not in the creature's best interest.
I guess in the end I see a great deal of selfish motive in those who want one dead, because somewhere in the end a creature has to die likely due to someone's underlying profit motive. On to the no kill argument, the big two arguments I see, the first is the limited population argument. The numbers attributed to this creature are pretty low, and if they are as many of us feel a flesh and blood animal that has the same wants and needs, it needs a sustainable breeding pool to have a sustainable population. The other argument delves into what the creature might actually be.
Here we delve into the hypothetical, that if the creature is closer to human than it isn't then we have to explore the ethics of killing a fairly close relative, is that right? I would argue no, and that is my largest reservation in this debate. If this creature is so rare, and potential so close to us, do we have the right, or more to the point the need to shoot one? No. It's been doing fine on its own for a long time and it doesn't need or seem to want our help. That leads me to also mention the other argument which I take as semi-pro kill and that is the entitlement theory.
I have seen the attitude displayed on line that the creature NEEDS to be discovered because the person saying so has been waiting for that to happen for so very long, this year will be the year and so on... and that is the dumbest part of this debate. IF the creature is out, it's doesn't owe anyone anything, least of all some whiney asshole on the internet, nor does science, or the rest of community or anyone else, grow up.
So, that's my take on this piece of the puzzle, and I throw this out there for debate and discussion. What's your take and why?