He’s my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I’ve worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don’t want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.
Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.
I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.
Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it’s how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)
There is necessity but there is also ethics. Do they clash? Of course. But this clash isn’t unique to the world of the food chain, and in these other situations, there is at least substantial acknowledgement and regret that ethics is being sacrificed. I am not a vegetarian elitist like many people are (I encountered quite a few of those here where I faced the opposite criticism), but I still quietly frown upon the idea of me descending to the mindset of survival at all costs. Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.
Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.
“let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can’t be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn’t declined, but it’s somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.
And this isn’t the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.
But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don’t provide an answer.
We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.
I’m confused then, what are you trying to say? I was saying spare the fish, you argued against that, but now veganism is ideal? Nothing against you, but I’m lost.
I did answer whether or not hunting is off the table. The first few sentences alludes to hunting (a necessity) versus abstaining (ethics). It is ethical not to kill (which hunting is), no? Even farming, though often not great, is morally superior to hunting. You can live off farming, you don’t need hunting. Hunting exotic animals can have good aspects, but it’s still killing, not always necessary anyways, and these good aspects don’t apply to, say, going to a Korean restaurant and lo and behold they have live octopus. If by any chance there are no invasive species, you can do just fine with everyday farm animals (supposing one absolutely had to eat meat). Everyday life isn’t Survivor and deliciousness shouldn’t/doesn’t have to be someone’s whole ideal.
I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it’s not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.
Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements “eat meat to survive” and “eat x exotic animal” have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don’t relate to the question at hand.
If they can live without meat, they should, and so yes, it would give their actions a morally questionable aspect by definition. Never really had damning in mind though, I’m devoted to honoring the ideal when possible but am not extremist about it.
What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?
He’s my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I’ve worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don’t want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.
Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.
I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.
Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it’s how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)
There is necessity but there is also ethics. Do they clash? Of course. But this clash isn’t unique to the world of the food chain, and in these other situations, there is at least substantial acknowledgement and regret that ethics is being sacrificed. I am not a vegetarian elitist like many people are (I encountered quite a few of those here where I faced the opposite criticism), but I still quietly frown upon the idea of me descending to the mindset of survival at all costs. Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.
Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.
We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.
While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can’t be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn’t declined, but it’s somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.
And this isn’t the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.
But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don’t provide an answer.
I’m confused then, what are you trying to say? I was saying spare the fish, you argued against that, but now veganism is ideal? Nothing against you, but I’m lost.
I did answer whether or not hunting is off the table. The first few sentences alludes to hunting (a necessity) versus abstaining (ethics). It is ethical not to kill (which hunting is), no? Even farming, though often not great, is morally superior to hunting. You can live off farming, you don’t need hunting. Hunting exotic animals can have good aspects, but it’s still killing, not always necessary anyways, and these good aspects don’t apply to, say, going to a Korean restaurant and lo and behold they have live octopus. If by any chance there are no invasive species, you can do just fine with everyday farm animals (supposing one absolutely had to eat meat). Everyday life isn’t Survivor and deliciousness shouldn’t/doesn’t have to be someone’s whole ideal.
I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it’s not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.
Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements “eat meat to survive” and “eat x exotic animal” have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don’t relate to the question at hand.
For the third time, yes. I am baffled as to why hunting would be necessary if meat eating isn’t.
So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.
If they can live without meat, they should, and so yes, it would give their actions a morally questionable aspect by definition. Never really had damning in mind though, I’m devoted to honoring the ideal when possible but am not extremist about it.
I truly have never heard that response!
What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?