Predator: “any organism that exploits, victimizes, or [otherwise] exists by preying upon other organisms:”
Organism: “any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole.”
Prey (verb): to prey upon another is “to exert a harmful or destructive influence.”
In a perfect world, predators would only exist as a matter of life or death. And, perhaps, in a more perfect world, prey would not be tasty food. Be it actual tasty food or some other tasty means to an end (such as the poor victimized by the rich to maintain status quo), tasty is not necessarily necessary, but it is tasty. Today, it seems we can look back and in hindsight see the injustice and from there we frequently rule in the favor of the victim, but only where there is a spotlight. Outside of a spotlight, in the shadowy blur of everyday circumstance, we typically do not look past the tasty food. If we could see past the tasty food, we would find an unending parade of gratuitous victimization. And there it is again: why are the powerless so damn tasty?
We glorify Humanity and celebrate our theoretical free will, but in this regard would we maybe be better off as artificial intelligence able to suppress our human urge for tasty food? Perhaps an objectivity chip implanted in the carnivorous-hungry reaches of our brain? I cringe at the thought as well; AI feels inhuman, but a victim might argue that artificial suppression of some human urges is favorable to (and more humane than) the inhumanity of gratuitous victimization. One way we get around this logic is by blaming the victim. It is easy and convenient to blame the poor for being poor, the uneducated for being uneducated, the underprivileged for being underprivileged, the unlucky for being unlucky, the masses for being lamb chops. According to the Shepherd and the Wolf, anyone can leave the flock at any time to become any thing; simple.
Untrue.
And, according to the behavior of the Shepherd and the Wolf easy and convenient applies not only to blame but also to answerability. In my mind, power does not excuse one from responsible behavior. In my mind, power should compel one to set the example.
To be a part of the flock, at one time and/or another, is inevitable. To be a Wolf is a choice. To be a Shepherd is a privilege that (I believe) every one of us is granted (again) at one time or another. And in this role, we would like to believe we are compassionate and caring; Good Shepherds. But in this role, over time, I believe we will tend toward our urges. So as long as the Shepherd and the Wolf are in charge, answering only to more powerful Shepherds, bigger Wolves, they (we) can continue to choose easy and convenient to align with their (our) quest for tasty food. It is human. It is not humane.
There is another factor helping to drive this predator-prey dynamic: many predators, (moreso the Shepherd than the Wolf), are largely unaware of their destructive influence and/or any resulting collateral damage; the Wolf is usually aware but doesn't care. And to complicate this aspect further, an already-more-powerful-predator's humanity frequently misinterprets another's efforts toward improvement and/or their complaints of mistreatment as an attack. And this perceived attack, (like a full moon), transforms the predator into an aggressor defending their territory, which (unless a spotlight comes on) typically does not end well for the prey. But of course this is the fault of the prey. Right? If they would have simply stayed in their place to begin with, the predator would not have had to forcibly put them back in their place.
And what happens when two predators face off? No matter the face-saving concessions claimed by one or (possibly) both sides, I believe one predator will always end as prey; perhaps only nibbled upon around the edges, but tasty food nonetheless. In turn this predator-turned-prey is now primed to turn back to predator in order to take out its frustrations, (another human urge), on other nearby powerless victims thus further perpetuating the cycle.
Bottom Line:
As long as we enable the predator… as long as the predator can blame the prey… as long as the predator is not answerable to the prey… as long as the predator is oblivious to the harm they inflict upon the prey… our future is decided.
The only two solutions I have come up with are an objectivity chip and spotlights. I don't see AI happening in time, and I don't think we have enough spotlights. A possible third solution is to make the food less tasty, but that would involve way less capitalism and way more socialism. And as long as the Shepherd and the Wolf are in charge…
