Last week I saw something I had no idea happens. I was looking out my kitchen window at an unusually large squirrel out in front of one of the two sheds in my backyard. Suddenly from under the shed, where we have recently noted a family of rabbits has taken up residence, one of the adults from the rabbit family rushed the squirrel in a most aggressive manner.
The squirrel took off like the proverbial bat out of hell. The rabbit chased him out of sight in a jig saw route across the lawn.
I have no idea whether the squirrel was only reacting from surprise or whether attacks from rabbits lying in wait is a common risk all squirrels know well, but I had no previous hint it was even a possibility. Come to think of it, I realize now that I don’t know, since I didn’t see it, whether the rabbit successfully chased the squirrel up a tree, or how far up the trunk the rabbit managed to follow.
Prior to this event I had imagined the killer rabbit scene in Monte Python’s Search for The Holy Grail was pure fantasy. Now I don’t know what to think.
Maybe the woods are much more dangerous than I once thought. Maybe the squirrel is no more.
I just don’t know what to think.
How much of what we know is just wrong?
My pet peeve is how automatically so many people react to my suggestion that we might be running the risk of planeticide with incredulousness that such a thing is even possible. This is as common amongst scientists as amongst laymen, although it is infinitely more irritating. In every case that I have encountered, the basis for the skepticism is purely axiomatic.
It is an important question. It should be answered by much more than belief.