Shhhh! The Human Voice Has Now Been Declared an Environmental Hazard

In case you haven’t been paying attention, leftists will not be satisfied until they have undermined all human flourishing. Actually, whether they’re willing to admit it or not, human extinction is the highest ideal for leftists. Don’t believe me? Then check out this article in The Atlantic that declares the human voice is bad for the environment. One more piece of evidence to slide next to things like abortion, euthanasia, and environmental regulations and economic policies that make it harder for humans to prosper.

During the summer of 2017, researchers from the University of California at Santa Cruz played recordings of human voices in wilderness areas where humans rarely venture. Populated with predators like mountain lions and bobcats, as well as a variety of other animals, the researchers didn’t force the wilderness residents to listen to loud, obnoxious voices. Rather, quiet voices reading poetry were played through the speakers.  “Some of the animals became jittery. Others stopped eating. A few fled in fear,” The Atlantic explains.

Through their experiments, researchers discovered:

That, the quality of the poetry aside, even the gentlest of human speech can make wild animals—even top predators—unnerved and watchful, in ways that shake entire food webs. It’s the clearest demonstration yet that we are among the scariest of animals—a super-predator that terrifies even the carnivores that themselves incite terror.

All fine and good, I could’ve told them that, saving them the trouble and expense of the research. Of course, the research is more than just a fact-finding expedition for those interested in learning about the quirks of animals. It’s ideologically driven. Buried deep in the article, The Atlantic reveals that:

Suraci’s studies show that through our mere presence, we can affect wildlife by changing the contours of their landscapes of fear. “We’re a very loud and big species,” says Suraci. “Much of what we do is potentially terrifying to wildlife, like industrial activity and vehicle traffic. We tried to get past all of that and isolate the perceived presence of humans, separate from all the other disturbing things we do. And the implication is that we don’t need to cut down the forest to have an impact on wildlife.”

Our very presence is bad for the environment. Our voices are harmful to frightened animals. The article goes on to quote UC Berkeley’s Kaitlyn Gaynor who warns, “Human-induced behavioral changes may be ultimately harmful to species and ecosystems if they make it harder for animals to survive and reproduce.”

Granted, The Atlantic sounds a few optimistic tones, encouraging us to do a better job of living in nature without being disruptive to other species. However, those optimistic tones are within the larger call to prefer the flourishing of animals over that of humans. Starting down the trail of saying that human voices are bad for the environment will end poorly for humanity.