Anthropological code and hunting

Bocharnikov Vladimir Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0002-6574-7864 Doctor of Biology Leading Researcher of the Pacific Geographical Institute FEBRAS 690068, Russia, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Chkalova str., 10, sq. 51 vbocharnikov@mail.ru

Markov Boris Vasil'evich Doctor of Philosophy Ìàrkov Âoris Vasilyevich – D.Sc. (Philosophy), Professor of the Philosophical Anthropology Chair at the Saint. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Leningrad region, Saint Petersburg, nab. University, 9, of. 205 bmarkov@mail.ru

Problem. Today, the saying from "Antigone" is often quoted: "The most terrible thing in the world is a person," forgetting about the ending: "if he is without a place."

In the era of the formation of large states, there was a transformation of traditional territorial codes, which intensified even more in the era of globalization. All this forces modern philosophers to build a kind of retrotopia, in which the "bright future" is seen not in the light of new technologies, but in the reclamation of traditional spaces of life. The modern world is an increasingly illusory world where everyone is at a distance, where people have forgotten how to live together even with their loved ones, where virtual reality distorts the understanding of what is happening. Of course, history cannot be turned back, people will not be able to abandon the achievements of scientific and technological progress. The paradox is that in the era of globalization, people are longing for a place where they feel at home. In this regard, the question arises about the relationship between network communication technologies and traditional unity practices based on historical memory of the development of the territory of residence.The territory is not only the landscape, climate, biosphere, but also the natural environment of a person who develops it, and in the era of settlement cultivates and beautifies.

Therefore, the marking of the Earth's biosphere occurred long before the appearance of large states and high cultures. When they talk about the natural integrity and the roots of national consciousness, first of all, they point to the role of the territory and landscapes. This is a very important addition, indicating the influence of the environment on human qualities.  Borders were mainly laid by mountains and rivers, as such allowed, or were limited by barriers to impassable or uninhabitable land plots. Among the various forms of practices for the formation and accumulation of human abilities that contribute to adaptation to nature, an important place was occupied by hunting, which is now condemned by animal rights defenders. The direct connection between hunting and territory development is widely known: it consists in the fact that all animals are territorial, as a result, communication mechanisms work effectively, predatory animals mark the boundaries of their participants, and they are usually not violated by other individuals.This is not a matter of power, the biological structure, the ecosystem determines the order here: within a certain territory, a number of animals will be able to live, and, consequently, feed themselves.

The development of the territory also depended on how far the hunters of migrating animals advanced, as well as on the abundance of individual species and populations of prey objects of ancient hunters used for food, for making clothes, household utensils and household items. The situation was different from anthropogeographic positions. The land, as Russian traditionalists put it, is not "labor, but free." Its development was a common cause of traditional society, it cannot be appropriated and sold. In this sense, the initial settlement of people did not take place according to imperial scenarios, but in a natural way. However, natural-geographical constants always act in connection with their interpretations, therefore, in the era of states, regulatory and legal grounds arise that clearly regulate, among other things, hunting practices. And it is worth remembering that for the peasant there have always been and remain clear beliefs about who is the enemy in nature and who is not for his agriculture. His usual occupation is also hunting, which often provides a significant "welding" to the family.   It is necessary to distinguish between the "trends of the era": now the emotional connection of a human hunter with the place of food production in the era of globalization is not as strong as in traditional society, however, the call of the "small homeland" as an archetype still lives in the minds of our contemporaries.

Since the number of living species is catastrophically decreasing today, and hunting has ceased to be the main means of subsistence, hunting as a way of self-affirmation in the form of a trophy demonstration should undoubtedly be limited, and in this regard, official hunting rules have been adopted in all countries of the world. The question arises, how to preserve and transfer the skills and abilities that were formed by hunting practices?  Finally, how can the "instincts" and desires that we inherited from our hunter ancestors be realized. In what form should the discharge of accumulated energy take place?At first glance, according to the arguments of animal rights activists, specialized TV channels about protection and fishing and computer games dedicated to them are more humane than outraging the reluctant cruel spectacles reminiscent of the Colosseum arena and gladiators.

 On the other hand, it is obvious that the skills of human and human protection are necessary for the implementation of many "civil" activities from search activities to the fight against dangerous microorganisms, which our doctors and biologists today are not for life, but for death. This is a reality, but, unfortunately, the moral and anthropological risks of converting hunting to digital format have not yet been sufficiently studied. Wouldn't it be right, instead of prohibiting hunting in all its forms and declaring hunters the incarnation of world evil, it would be more reasonable to look for such substitutes for hunting types that will preserve the human qualities formed through hunting activities? And it is impossible to call the proposed task an easy task, it is enough to give an example with the so-called "humane traps".At the turn of the century, under pressure from the European Community and Canada, foot-grabbing traps used in hunting for centuries were banned in our country.

Furs, as a source of currency that has always been scarce in the country, and which has provided Russia for at least four centuries, has become useless for two decades. In fact, they were abandoned, depopulated the gigantic expanses of the North, Siberia and the Far East.  Hunting itself as a means of survival of indigenous peoples has ceased to exist. And this is not all that concerns the practical aspects of hunting. Undoubtedly, its role in the education of human qualities is important, and the problem is how to remain a humane and responsive person in society, to be able to protect yourself, your loved ones, your Homeland. But on the other hand, the destruction of animals with high-tech weapons, besides not for food, but solely for self-affirmation, looks like a disgusting act for most members of modern society. And what about computer viruses, "fakes", information terrorists, which, if not hunting, is the basis of information immunity? It is important to make yourself cleaner and better than everyone, as the norms of morality and the canons of religions convince a person.

It is necessary to study hunting in all kinds, and not only by modeling and in a virtual environment, you can create exciting games that develop the dexterity and ingenuity of children, compensating for the hunting instincts still preserved in some people. The main problem is not this, but what, how and how rooted is the need or needs that make people hunters? What determines this process in a person and how, is it possible to find the link of the anthropological code that is responsible for hunting?  What would be more reasonable – to look for a "third way" that combines traditional values with modern high technologies, or to take the hunt into the shadows and lose another of the legal ways of channeling human aggression and violence? And maybe many people need to go out into "natural hunts", and at the same time we will not have to forget about the biological nature of man, understand more about dormant, but easily flaring affects, which we are more inclined to attribute to wild animals, but not to ourselves. It is necessary not only to "sublimate" aggression to combat various kinds of maniacs, as well as dangerous microorganisms that cause epidemics. Poisons, chemicals, radiation, everything goes into action in the fight against infestations and infections.  Culture and nature.

The cognitive approach is not limited to the study of the criteria for the verifiability of scientific knowledge, Neuroscience has discovered the influence of brain processes on the work of consciousness.

Cognitive anthropology simultaneously describes the norms and codes of culture, which, in addition to regulating the behavior of people in society, perform the function of attitudes in creative processes. Turning to the concept of "code", clarifying it, or, on the contrary, using it as a metaphor, allows, instead of the dichotomy of natural and cultural, to "decipher" many transitional modalities of human life.The codes and norms of exchanges between the primitive community and nature had a sacred and mystical meaning. Attitudes, standards, traditions, customs, rituals belong to spiritual culture.The thesis about the "death of a person", perceived as a kind of provoking performance, today becomes a proposition that informs about a radical change in a person.

Modern digital media have finally severed man's connection with the natural world. The environment has become virtual. Meanwhile, despite the comfort and life in cities, man is still a living organism. He can take shelter from the rain and cold in the four walls of his cozy home, but still has to breathe air, eat, go outside and communicate. The concept of “culture” has different meanings. In the sacred sense, culture is a cult, veneration, worship. There are internal, deep foundations of culture that cannot be translated into everyday language.  The results of social activity constitute material culture. The semiosis of traditional society is quite fully represented in anthropology, ethnology, ethnography, cultural geography and ethnic ecology, but it remains unintelligible in the aspect of the interaction of man and nature.What and how does a person preserve from the living when creating an artificial habitat shell?

A dwelling, a village, a city is still built from natural materials, fits into a landscape that is safe for life, corresponds to the climate, biological, geographical and other parameters. Of course, this was not the "cosmos" – the ideal waste-free container described in Plato's Timaeus, nevertheless, harmoniously connected the existential place, the biosphere and the economy. The "horizontal", functional connections of the social space were complemented and reinforced by "vertical" connections with transcendent entities. They were embodied in rituals, as well as in traditions, beliefs and other archetypes of consciousness. These procedures predetermined the natural ways of human involvement in routine and much-needed energy-exchange processes of interaction with nature. Besides the sacred meaning, material incentives were also important, in particular the practices of gathering and hunting.

If until recently it seemed absolutely true that a person was “inscribed” into the biosphere of the Earth, today the microcosm (viruses, microbes, parasites) it was as if they had violated the agreement on peaceful cohabitation with a person that had existed for millions of years. The simplest wins on all fronts. The virus, not even being a bacterium, becomes a real threat to the complexly organized living, and the measures of society management based on prohibition and violence discard the accumulated and embodied – in institutions, regulations and procedures – social experience of fighting epidemics. There is every reason to assume that the culprit of the pandemic is not only viruses, but also people whose immune system is disrupted by the anthropogenic consequences of new technologies for the development of the world. Therefore, in response to restrictions and prohibitions, to attempts to put people into self-isolation, spontaneous forms of protest arise, many of which turn out to be even more senseless and destructive than formal administration. What can be shown and approved here?

A pet is, first of all, the person himself. He is born too early and needs protection from the effects of the natural environment for an unprecedented long time. First, the mother's body and home, then tools and other tools mediate its exchanges with nature. These traditional mediums were responsive, in the sense that "at the entrance" they were connected to the outside world, and "at the exit" they were adapted to the individual's body. Genetics does not explain much in this, and the question arises about the supra–biological program - the anthropological code. And our response to this invisible, but deeply and necessarily existing in us acquires as an exceptional value in human communication with nature in those natural forms, many of which are associated with the direct presence of living beings not in isolated social containers, but in the wild.Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev wrote that man and the cosmos are connected by a common fate.

The world is structured and maintained by humanity, it changes every time with everything new produced by man, be it a poem, a painting or a scientific theory. Since man is inseparable from the world, he is responsible for the preservation of nature, for what happens in it {1, p. 306]. The anthropological code is a generalized concept, in its structure, invisible and still not realized integrity, such concepts as "civilizational", "cultural", "social", "religious", "personal", "ethnic" and other designations of the corresponding encoding, construction and evolution of man and the human are split. There are quite a few "blind spots" in the standard evolutionary theory of the origin of man. At the same time, there are many facts, there are not enough original concepts of anthropogenesis, where it is not the change of species and subspecies of living things that is important, but cultural genesis – the alternation of formations, the explanation of the formation of ethnic groups, and the emergence of high cultures.

The image of the surrounding nature formed the human soul. The contract with space was and remains a form of transfer of the cosmic order to the human. Classical cultural studies takes a person to a higher level of socialization, but does not explain the motives for accepting the requirements of space. The generic function of a person can be designated as the protection of Mother Earth. This collective mission should be fulfilled by every person who, being a specific biological individual, is a cultural, social personality with freedom of choice not only socially, but also in terms of worldview. The essence of the "cosmic" purpose is that in a particular area of the territory of its habitat, each ethnic group, each nation ensures the harmonious maintenance of the biosphere. The common belief in the truth convinced that everyone living fulfills his task in the existing world. But the opposite is also true: space, territory, living environment is the matrix of the development of any individual or social organism. Therefore, every nation always has a reference geographical location, and this ethnocode determines in what ways we can effectively interact with nature as the basis of our existence. The deep psychocultural mechanism of identification, through which an individual acquires his human essence, is located on the border of natural and cultural.

Despite the primitive technologies of nature development, the primitive community was already such an ecologically impeccable closed container in which there were no landfills. The mythopoetic representation of the world in traditional cultures, in which gods, humans and animals were represented as equal participants in communication, gave way to transcendent religions, where God was thought of as the creator of all things. But even in this case, he was understood not as an evil Demiurge, but as a reasonable organizer of the order of nature, the pinnacle of which was man. With the formation of a highly technological civilization, the place of the divine sovereign was taken by his earthly representatives, who began to reshape the space of the earth in their interests.The skills by which a person of a traditional society adapted to the world are most often not specifically reflected, but are passed from hand to hand from the older generation to the younger.

Even in ancient times, education was not limited to the transfer of economic, hunting and military skills, but included familiarization with the spirits of nature. Our ancestors believed that not only humans, but also other beings and objects, have souls. Communication with them was mediated by a system of myths and rituals that provides both protective and communicative functions of exchanges between society and nature. Hunting, even performed by a citizen who feels little about nature now, sharpens the sense of space, and time itself slows down its run. It is no coincidence that hunters have a saying that the Almighty does not take into account, does not count the time spent hunting in his life. The language of myth was an active representative of culture, so the mythological picture of the world can be considered as a kind of semantic superstructure of society. But there is no man without a world, the space of which has been mastered since prehistoric times, but has been lost with the growth of "civilization".  Culture is a specific artificial world that a person creates in order to maintain himself in a "human" state, and hunting is no exception to this. Nomos of the earth

 The ecumene mastered by modern man is an industrially transformed territory with its own laws, and it is well known that they are not ideal.

Today, it would seem, in the space age, harmony with the cosmos is not the dominant worldview. The Covid pandemic, contrary to the expectations of romantic existentialists, not only did not bring people to reason, but on the contrary led to the formation of an even more "beautiful new world" than the one that was before. But now the Libertarian man's mind during the epidemic is forced to accept what he denies. Covid exposed the conceptual question of who is the real "master" on the planet. It became obvious that each person is a microecosystem with its own set of inhabitants and their interrelations. Most often, they somehow adapt to each other. The balance is disturbed when, due to external disasters, malicious viruses actively multiply, enter the body, whose immune system is either weakened or absent under the influence of external circumstances, because people have not met with such a virus before.Since the invention of the microscope by Leeuwenhoek, the inner universe has been opened to physicians and biologists, the device of which turned out to be very complicated, but in its own way orderly.

We must not forget that microbes, viruses, bacteria, parasites make up the internal ecosystem of each of us, and all the biological properties of coexistence. The problem arises with a large-scale violation of the internal ecological balance. The first theories appeared, based on which it was possible to treat, and most importantly, prevent epidemic diseases. Parasitism, commensalism, predation, antibiosis, etc. are an integral part of the functioning of a healthy human body. But now the threat of infection leads to a sharp restriction of the territory of free action. The former places of work and entertainment have been reduced to loci of isolated existence, which are rapidly shrinking in their volumes. The situation is clearly exposed, indicating that there is a reality outside the mind, moreover, a fundamentally unreasonable reality.The consequence of the epidemic is the change of all the boundaries existing before its appearance, natural and cultural, social and personal, external and internal, effective and ineffective, permitted and prohibited.

And this becomes an essential challenge to our entire culture, permeated and grounded in rationality. In this case, the complex is replaced and replaced by the simple.  With the help of digital technologies, a new artificial environment is being constructed, in which the skills and abilities necessary in natural conditions of life are no longer used. Contrary to the expectations of globalists, the pandemic did not unite, but very significantly divided countries and continents, peoples and races, those in power and ordinary people.The order of human development of the territory – land, water, sky, food, plants and animals – is already fixed in the first myths.

As the productive forces develop, new arrangements with space are formed. According to the historian of law K. Schmitt, the nomos of the earth was formed in the era of states ^[2]. Indeed, the construction of Rome and many other ancient capitals began with the laying of a furrow, i.e. the boundaries of the future city. According to J. Deleuze, "deterritorialization", i.e. systematic seizure, and then sale and purchase of land is the result of capitalism ^[3]. The value of the plots is determined not by biological resources, but by raw materials that can be used in the industrial economy. At the same time, both the natural-ecological and existential connection of the earth and man is destroyed. Heidegger called it homelessness.^[4]

Ancient man lived in a world inhabited by many hostile beings, but at the same time his ability to control space was amazing. L. Levi-Bruhl, talking about the so-called "primitive thinking", wrote: "the reality among which primitive people live and act is itself mystical. Not a single being, not a single object, not a single phenomenon of nature is in the collective representations of primitive people what they seem to us" ^[5]. Economic and financial interests have exacerbated global problems, followed by an aggressive policy and, as a result, war. Against the background of new repartitions of the world space, humanists call for the observance of universal values. But globalization encounters the desire to preserve personal and national identity in competition with "others", to save one's local culture from the melting pot where the "universal" is brewed. Therefore, many seemingly reliably agreed agreements on the creation of a universal house are crumbling like houses of cards.Scientific theories, even those confirmed by facts and based on reliable principles, are not absolute truths.

It's not just a lack of facts. Since they are created by man, accepted by the community of scientists and implemented on the basis of existing technologies, they are loaded with prerequisites that form a layer of background knowledge, in the context of which facts are observed and hypotheses are put forward ^[6]. In the array of "implicit knowledge", the main role is most often played not by extraordinary theories (they, due to their unusual nature, are just in sight), but by ideological principles, norms and values of culture. As a rule, they are not subject to reflection, but, like beliefs, are perceived as obvious. The disenchantment of the world has led to the loss of "vertical instances" regulating the behavior of people in the "horizontal spaces" of house-building. The methodological question arises, how did the symbiosis of external and internal, organism and environment, the coexistence of internal and external ecosystems develop?When understanding the crisis of modern culture, which takes place in the capsules of economic time, conservative-minded philosophers and sociologists suggest returning to the messages of the ancestors.

Unfortunately, the "angry youth" rejects the moral teachings of their parents, although they are more lenient to the instructions of their grandfathers, but rarely turn to generic archetypes of communication with nature. And how can the worldview of an ancient man be revived in the memory of people? It is obvious that museums storing the remains of extinct animals and Neanderthal tools are not enough for this. It is necessary to essentially immerse yourself in the mythology of ancient people, reconstructed by anthropologists and culturologists. There is a rapid simplification and simplification of much of what was taken for granted before the epidemic. And against the background of the struggle with the internal enemy – there is an external enemy – the HUNTER!

 Hunting and animal rights.Hunting is one of the ancient, but still not understood, worse, unacceptable by today's standards, occupation.

According to the opinion of authoritative psychologists, philosophers and scientists, consciousness arose and formed as "an instrument of orientation of an individual in the space of society." ^[7]. But even today, watching the upbringing of children, it is not difficult to notice that in addition to mastering moral instructions, children learn, for example, to walk on two legs, which is no less difficult than writing an article on philosophy. Today, animal rights are most actively protected. Hunters, followed by meat consumers and fur carriers, are perceived as imperialists and even fascists. These subjects are subjected to such public condemnation that they have no choice but to become vegetarians. In cognitive science, in addition to thinking, the role of bodily skills is recognized, the development of which contributes to the formation of creative abilities. Hunting is, first of all, a form of exchange between man and nature.In hunting, of course, not in what happens in special plots on animals tamed for feeding, the matrix of spatial interaction of man with nature is always reflected.

It is not only the navigation of the path or the search for a goal, it is an inexpressible feeling of being fully included in nature, where every step you take means something. One can more or less confidently assert that the reason for the appearance of human consciousness was predetermined by hunting game, as a special bonus for compliance with the contract with Space. What is the degree of innate aggressiveness, is it not the source of law, morality and culture, which were invented as a kind of immune systems against the self-destruction of humanity? Purely biological explanations are not suitable for human behavior, even at the pre-civilization level of development. Cultural conditions have to be taken into account.F.

Nietzsche, following the logic of the English naturalist Ch. Darwin argued that man, who descended from the ape, is now giving way to superman, whose biological instinct is not atrophied by morality, but on the contrary becomes, in the form of a "will to power", the engine of the development of a viable culture. If liberal thinkers proceed from the fact that a person is kind by nature, i.e. he is an altruist, then conservatives pay attention to his egoism. In fact, "human nature" is a multi-valued concept. It is used to characterize both biological and socio-cultural parameters of people. Therefore, the forms of violence are largely determined by both the economy and the mentality of people. For example, within the framework of civilized societies, there are such forms of violence that surpass the past in their brutality. The transformation of forms of evil can be judged by the discussions of doctors, lawyers, politicians, priests, as well as specialists in ethics and conflictology.Some believe that a person has a special aggression gene.

K. Lorenz ^[8] attributed its formation to the fact that evolution for the survival of weak animals compensated for this disadvantage with increased aggressiveness. On the question of the existence of genes for altruism and aggression, molecular biologists and geneticists take a more cautious position. The human genome as a whole determines only the physical nature of a person, who must have a built-in mechanism of protection from external attack, but does not answer most of the questions asked by morality, culture, ethics. It is impossible to note such an evolution of humanity: the abolition of the death penalty, the fight against the nuclear threat, the victory over mass infectious diseases, assistance to the poor and other important achievements prove the existence of not only technical, but also moral progress. Humanity is becoming more humane, and murders, wars, genocide, diseases, poverty are already unthinkable in relation to it. All forms of cruelty are condemned, and in all spheres of life, from school to barracks, one can observe the struggle for nonviolent relations between those who order and obey.  

Meanwhile, even during the discussion between Leo Tolstoy and I.A. Ilyin about whether it is possible to defend good by force, it turned out that pure justice is powerless, and force is unfair. Tolstoy condemned politicians, officials, scientists for not reducing people's suffering. However, for example, law combines force and justice, and money combines labor and wealth. Of course, one can see in law the rule of the strong, who establishes the law in his own interests, and in money – a new, more sophisticated form of power than slavery. But you can look at it as an achievement of civilization. For example, even an employee is still not a slave. And the use of money is not robbery. N. M. Girenko linked violence with the need to preserve society and from an anthropological point of view investigated the situations when it occurs. "Violence appears as one of the ways to resolve the conflict that has already arisen and has become apparent, in which both parties to the conflict act as a victim of circumstances in relation to the destroyed, decaying social and cultural environment ^{[9, p.103]}."Speaking about the eradication of violence, it is necessary to distance oneself from morality.

Its absolutization leads to the degradation of the institutions of society. Today, animal rights defenders are making noisy actions against causing suffering to animals. But by making moral diatribes, or taking part in protest actions, they turn a blind eye to the roots of what is happening, and thus do not control the evil that they are denouncing. What if there are still "inhumane" occupations in modern society, which today include hunting. For example, what to do with stray dogs or wild animals that come to city landfills? What to do in case of an attack by homeless packs of dogs on people, and not only on children, but also on adults. Hunters and hunters know how destructive packs of stray dogs turn out to be in the spring forest: the intelligence and cunning of the former companions of people makes them a hundred times more dangerous than any wolf or bear. Only at first glance, animals and plants act as passive objects of consumption, victims of human violence. In fact, if they cannot fight back against a man armed to the teeth, then by their very disappearance they pose a threat to his survival. It is necessary to discuss with the participation of the general public various kinds of regulatory documents that should guide people, both those who keep pets, and those who, by their professional activities, ensure the safety of other citizens.It is this circumstance that should become the core of environmentalism.

After all, if you look at the causes of the catastrophic disappearance of many living species, then this is not hunting at all, but man-made factors of the destruction of living systems. The loss of ecological habitats is a source of many problems, many of which have not even been realized yet. Of course, "natural" hunting must necessarily be controlled so as not to harm nature. For example, poaching is a crime, not hunting. But even if legal methods are banned, the question remains, who can, and most importantly, who will control illegal "hunting"? For the first time , the regulation and mass prohibition of the extraction of rare animal species began in the twentieth century . Regulatory restrictions have changed the status of many animals, they have ceased to be "hunting" species, are under legal protection, and violation of the ban is punishable by law.

Let's consider another form of everyday violence that has been "swallowed" in the modern world. Not modern "high-tech" hunting, but the slaughter of pets causes a shudder in any mentally normal person. And although biologists have not proved, but believe by default, that some animals, and of course plants, do not feel pain, the suffering of mammals, judging by their death cries, is beyond doubt. But hunting is still not a slaughterhouse, where they pluck and skin animals that have not yet been killed. In modern agricultural holdings, animals are not allowed outside and they suffer and get sick from this, the taste of products changes, many of which become dangerous for consumption. But it is not in the interests of business to conduct investigations. Meanwhile, humane methods of extraction are inscribed in the traditions of hunting. Although this does not justify depriving a living being of life, it does not in any way introduce elements of sadism into hunting.

The situation with animal rights is even more ambiguous. Do they have something to protect, do they have property, do they want freedom, what rights do we want to give, do they need them? Most likely, we are talking about the regulation of our relations with animals. But first of all, it is necessary to figure out which animals we are talking about, which of them are friends and who are enemies. It is obvious that pets need protection, as well as endangered species of animals. And what about dangerous predators, and, most importantly, with microorganisms that cause diseases? The task of philosophy at this stage of the discussion of animal rights, which could be included in the general theory of law, is not only to clarify the specifics of the animal, but also to reconstruct its image in modern culture. It is necessary to discuss how their similarities and differences are thought, how to connect the worlds, to harmonize the relationship of animals and people to each other. Only after that, it is possible to formulate legal norms, legal and moral formats, and introduce other public ways regulating legal relations.

Heidegger believed that the bodily resemblance to an animal is incomprehensible. An animal lives, a person exists. In the Letter on Humanism, he wrote that animals are adapted to the environment, and man distances himself from it, he lives in peace. The animal is not just another, but someone else's. It obeys instincts, is enclosed in its habitat. On the contrary, man is open to the world, he is a neighbor of being ^{[4, p. 208]}. J. Agamben regarded this differentiation as repressive: since the animal has no human qualities, and they are not capable of suffering, then you can not stand on ceremony with them ^[10]. Undoubtedly, people see animals and other cosmic actors differently than they are given to themselves.

According to the worldview of primitive people, there is a soul not only in humans, but also in animals, plants and even stones. Hence, they are all personalities. If they have an inner world, something like consciousness, specifically gifted "public relations specialists" – shamans can penetrate there. We can say that everyone used to be a shaman, because shamanism is based on a contract with space through intermediaries-spirits. Preserving the human status, shamans carry out a dialogue with natural and divine beings. Shamanism is a specific spiritual practice that allows you to overcome bodily boundaries, to touch the spirit of non–human beings, negotiate with human souls, and return to yourself so as to set up the necessary relations of non-humans with people. We should also note that shamanism is very popular today in the modern social environment of the city. Hence the popularity of the works of Brazilian anthropologists.

If the discussions of the free public in the West are based on multiculturalism, then Viveiros de Castro described the space policy of Indian shamanic perspectivism as "multi-naturalism" ^[11]. The proposal to seek humanism "on the other side of man" looks not just extravagant, provoking a rejection of Eurocentrism. Today, the "new archaic" in politics is turning into extremism, accompanied by the destruction of cultural monuments. The "coherence" of the development of nature and society is more adequately and thoroughly presented in the theory of the biosphere and ethnogenesis, which was developed by geographer L.N. Gumilev ^[12]. In his opinion, if an ethnic group could not cope with the "spatial" task of preserving the habitat, then it either disappeared or became a servant of other more passionate neighbors.From the point of view of common sense, the socio-cultural status of the hunter should be assessed more carefully. He is not an incarnation of world evil, a murderer, a relic of a bloodthirsty savage who eats meat not only of animals, but also of people.The future of hunting is in human conservation.

  With proper control, even today hunting remains an occupation necessary for the restoration of nature.

It should be recognized that the hunter as a type of person has changed significantly. In plain sight, far from poor and hungry people, armed with perfect small arms, night vision devices, transport mechanisms, etc., satisfy their not flawless passion. But there are also real rangers who are able to regulate the number of dangerous animals, for example, wolves. The globalizing humanity does not need hunting, but the rise of ethnic consciousness, the revival of national traditions, customs, cultures somehow makes us think about the meaning and purpose of hunting as a civilizational practice that forms a special type of person. The true meaning of hunting is hidden behind the facade of a photo of a happy hunter against the background of an outstanding trophy, here a personal desire to be different from Another dominates. Therefore, animal rights defenders successfully win the sympathy of the majority by presenting visual images of a well-equipped person next to a lifeless victim.The danger of loss of biodiversity, the literal dominance of invasive species and animals aggressive to the environment and local inhabitants is a problem not only for biologists.

Paradoxically, and not in the best way, radical animal rights defenders decide on the question asked. Their actions are also hunting, only not for animals, but for hunters. Why are there tens of millions of hunters in the modern world? Every amateur hunter can evaluate what personally attracts him to hunting, why it is needed. Hunting appears to be an escape from a closed, monotonous life, difficult to bear even in luxurious mansions, where the unique dissolves into the standard, and the private – in general. The popular slogan of hunting magazines is: "Hunting is my passion for communicating with nature!". Indeed, hunting allows you to shake off the routine and familiar, test yourself in extreme conditions, and eventually escape from the massive broadcast of the media apocalypse. The hidden truth of hunting is found in emotional experiences, in states of affect. On the border of life and death, love and hate, anxiety and happiness, loneliness and unity, the hunting code built into everyone, but not acting for many, begins to vibrate.Hunting is a simple activity in its essence: I saw, I crept up, I got it.

In case of failure, make the following attempt. In this apparent simplicity, the quintessence of life and death, the struggle of the new with the old, the replacement of the obsolete with the newly appeared. Hunting is aggression and expansion, as integral properties of the living. Hunting is a tool, and the hunter is an instrument of evolution! The hunter as a subject marked the territory with his knowledge, invested the energy of his emotions in it, regardless of whether it was fear overcome in hunting a dangerous animal, or the quiet joy of constantly learning new things in nature. The evaluation of hunting from the standpoint of biological determinism is acceptable if the environment is more or less constant. In this case, the ability to successfully compete with other organisms in conditions of limited resources comes out on top. But where do we still have such territories and ethnic groups that depend on what they get and eat?The smirk of globalization is that everyone should eat from supermarkets and lead a civilized lifestyle.

In other words, this is a consequence of the internal struggle in man, which is irreconcilably conducted between bright ideals, which include the unconditional value of any form of life, and the desire to exterminate, if not literally, then symbolically, the hunter as his opponent. What then about the armies of hunters in Europe and the USA? They are accused of cruelty, and extremists file hunting towers, where hunters are waiting for wild boars and deer who have come out for the evening food promenade. A warming Europe does not need furs, and the post-Soviet rule in our country has finally destroyed the tradition of commercial hunting, condemning Northerners and Siberians to total poaching. In the discourses of animal rights activists, human norms of morality, the rights to freedom and life are confused with speculative reasoning and the transfer of human ideas to animals ^[13]. What will animal rights defenders advise the residents of Chukotka, who are forced to survive after the disruption of food delivery?Residents of Anadyr may not freeze from lack of coal, but their collective opinion on hunting will differ from the political correctness of residents of Berlin or The Hague.

The indignation of animal defenders may be quite legitimate with respect to wealthy people who are fond of hunting, because of boredom from their amazing life. The exclusively branded part of this lesson is important to them. Tens, and more often hundreds of thousands of dollars, it costs to organize a hunt for a fairly rare capricorn or ram. There is a circle of people who are able to appreciate the coolness of such an occupation. Their successful exploits are written about in specialized publications, and photographs of the skulls and horns of slaughtered animals are placed on the pages of expensive illustrated magazines. Does society need it, but what kind and how much?

In modern society, hunting becomes either a sport or a form of recreation and extreme tourism. In places untouched by civilization, people live with a completely different "residence permit" than visiting hunters-tourists who get on a motorized vehicle, catch up with any fast-running animal, shoot it from a safe distance, and then take pictures against the background of a bloody carcass to post a picture on the Internet. All this makes the protests of animal rights defenders morally impeccable. And yet we must not forget that the conversation between man and nature takes place not only in the language of morality, which often turns into resentment. Trophy hunters with their interests to be the coolest and above all, and not only among the conquerors of mountain peaks, but also on the "Mont Blanc" trophy ratings, as Herzen said, are terribly far from the people. Reading detailed reports, and looking at the slightly exhausted, well-groomed faces of specifically non-poor people who have torn their loins from office chairs, you clearly understand what "pulls" them into the mountains. The talk that trophy hunting helps preserve nature contains a fair amount of guile. Examples when a successful hunter gives prey to the inhabitants of a nearby village, is able to feed them to the brim with meat once or twice, and even support them with dollars spent on gifts to aborigines, only demonstrate the loss of the original purpose of hunting. Similarly, attempts to reintroduce those species that once existed and disappeared are of exclusive interest mainly to their organizers and ideologists. It is always PR, and it is not difficult to predict the negative response of any sane person. The problem is that hunting ceases to be necessary, the period of its existence in the true guise of fishing and means of human survival has come to an end.The old slogan "Hunting is the oldest occupation of mankind!".

  it is already seen as an epitaph on a bronze plaque of a tombstone to people who called for the preservation of natural traditions and human skills. The question arises, in what form is the "gene", "instinct" or "pattern" of hunting realized in the modern post-secular and post-humanistic world? The first thing that comes to mind is the need for entertainment, and in extreme forms. But if you ask a hunting lover why he goes into the forest, sits in ambush, and then tries to light a fire from damp branches, then for a red word he will answer that he is drawn to nature from the city, but most likely he will remain silent, since he does not know what he finds as a result. Probably, the code of hunting and gathering, deeply embedded in the human soul, makes itself felt, which makes you leave a comfortable home and start on the trail in search of prey. So the deep purpose of hunting is somewhat different than taking a selfie against the background of a dead animal. The action of the code inscribed in us draws a person to nature, to the simplicity of the feeling of space, to the campfire and life, where there is enough space for everyone.Hunting persists in modern society, and this is an indisputable fact: "in 2006, more than 87,000,000 Americans over the age of 16, which is 38% of the country's population, were engaged in fishing, hunting or eco-tourism.

Their costs for the implementation of their goals amounted to 120.1 billion dollars, which corresponds to 1% of the gross national income of the United States" ^[14]. And it's better to remember our own history and literature: the existential" meaning of hunting was well represented in the great Russian literature by I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Bunin, S.T. Aksakov, M.M. Prishvin, V. K. Arsenyev, etc. Moreover, hunting is popular among the people, even if it is served in a comedy format, as can be judged by the popularity of the film "Peculiarities of national hunting", it still lives in the consciousness of modern man. It's funny and sad, the abundance of alcoholic beverages confuses, but it's obvious that the heroes of the film did not gather to hunt for wine. And if, in general, this film exposes the "bad habits" of urban civilization, as well as reflects their desire to purify themselves in the form of an amusing "being-in-nature", then millions of videos on YouTube are devoted to the beauties of nature, as hunters see them.

There are also cult films (for example, the series "Happy People" by Mikhail Tarkovsky), which are popular among people who know firsthand the harsh hunting life. For such people, the Motherland is important, which is often forgotten in big cities. A person who has reached the glade of love meetings of grouse, before the flight of ducks, can pick up not a gun, but binoculars or a camera. The main thing for a modern amateur hunter is often a meeting not even with an animal, but with a person who perceives vibrations that are drowned out by the noise of big cities. Hunting allows everyone to meet with the natural space and make such contact unforgettable, in reality, and not to be a person dissolved in the indifference of society or pushed into the galaxy of the Internet.