Quote:
Originally Posted by duga
Let's say hypothetically we stop breeding animals for food and let animal numbers fluctuate naturally. We evolved eating plants and meat, so even though we have the intelligence to rationalize killing animals, we are still technically part of the food chain. What if a certain animal (let's say deer), due to our refusal to participate in the food chain, overpopulate and throw the ecosystem into chaos. Would the vegetarians here reconsider?
This isn't me trying to convince people to not be vegetarian, I'm just curious what you guys would think of the situation.
|
You're talking about wild animals, not domesticated animals, correct, duga? I ask just to clarify, because in many livestock situations people artificially inseminate the animals to make them produce offspring, so simply stopping artificial insemination would cause the domesticated animal numbers to plummet.
With wild animals, such as deer (and we have a fair number in Iowa), hunters do currently kill many thousands. However, Iowa also lets hunters kill deer predators such as coyotes and bobcats.
So then obviously, if people stop killing deer, since people have wiped out natural predators, the deer population will increase, altering the balance of the ecosystem...which has already occurred in Iowa. If humans were to stop killing deer, humans would also have to stop killing animal predators in order to prevent a huge increase in the deer population.
Of course, the impact of *humans* on the natural exosystems of Iowa and the world is much greater than that caused by deer. The impact of deer is more subtle: as their numbers increase, the ratios of tree species and other plants in forests change, due to herbivory. Most of Iowa and Indiana are now covered in corn crops (tasty food for deer), due to people. The impact of deer on ecosystems is negligible, in comparison to that of humans, I'd say.
I forgot to answer your question! My answer would be that, no, I wouldn't reconsider my vegetarianism or support people killing deer if people feel the deer population is too large. (I would argue the human population is too large.) Also, whenever people feel they have to resort to killing others (whether animals or humans) to solve a problem, I think this means that people haven't explored other options thoroughly enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
First, I should say I don't like mistreatment of animals in any shape and I do try to be an aware consumer! Still, as a meat eater, of course I do accept mistreatment of animals in order to put food on my plate. It would be naive to deny it.
Mistreatment as a "side effect" of animals being used for food is something I find a lot more tolerable. The goal is not to cause pain, but to get some kind of animal food product. Killing animals for food doesn't mean you're a heartless psychopath.
|
Except whether people kill animals purely for fun (the challenge of the "kill," and the adrenalin rush of hunting) or for fun but unnecessary food, the basic goal is the same: to increase human pleasure.
I feel that with meat-eating, the main reason people do it is emotional pleasure, since there are non-meat alternatives that satisfy nutritional needs just as well. This is one reason I see very little difference between killing an animal to have fun, and killing an animal to have fun food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk
I agree with Tore. You could argue that the end result is the same but i i think there is a huge difference between killing animals for produce and killing animals for sport.
Ive said already that i think its perfectly natural for humans, as animals, to eat other animals and so yeah, id have to say that i support the killing of animals to an extent.
|
And yet it is also perfectly natural for animals to *enjoy* hunting and killing other animals, mojo.
I've seen cats and lions and other animals hunt and then "play" with their living food a little. They definitely look like they are enjoying it. Chasing and killing another animal is fun...for them! One would expect animals selected to be predators through natural selection to have a positive emotional state connected with the hunt. Just like sexual activity can feel good...so that people want to do it.
So, why shouldn't people like your flatmate just do the "natural" thing and enjoy hunting for pleasure, or gain pleasure from their traditions that involve chasing and hunting animals? He is benefitting from the pleasure caused by the hunt and kill, just like people benefit from the pleasure of the meat they get from people killing animals.
I will argue again that whether some behavior is "natural" or not should not determine whether we feel that behavior is an ethical behavior we want people (or ourselves) to follow.
Since non-meat alternatives exist, sport hunting and meat hunting are united by their ultimate goal: increasing human pleasure (and that is their main purpose, I'd say). Neither meat nor sport hunting is *necessary*. So, if killing animals unnecessarily for sport is barbaric, like you say, mojo, then why shouldn't killing animals unnecessarily for unnecessary food be seen as barbaric?