Killed Anything Today?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not sure I'm convinced that hunting really keeps overpopulation in check, that's something I would have to look into. I would assume we've done a lot of things to the environment which keeps that in check already.

A swamp near my home holds deer. The Bambi-supporters had it closed to the yearly hunt, which was a controlled culling of excessive numbers in a confined area.

The result: there is now a swamp fully of sick and dying deer, living in a landscape increasingly stripped of greenery. And the Bambi-supporters will still not allow the return of the cull.

Another story: the northern bear hunt was banned. Now northern cities are targeted by increasing numbers of aggressive bears.

These sorts of stories are everywhere. It starts because humans habitation conflicts with large predators, and then numbers of wildlife become unbalanced and unhealthy. Without some means of population control (the natural limitations of predators, or the artificial limitations of the hunt) numbers of prey animals spiral out of control, resulting in environmental devastation, disease, and ongoing conflict with humans.

What's your solution?

[Impenitent]

to reduce the number of aggressive bears, prosecute more streakers

-Imp

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

A swamp near my home holds deer. The Bambi-supporters had it closed to the yearly hunt, which was a controlled culling of excessive numbers in a confined area.

The result: there is now a swamp fully of sick and dying deer, living in a landscape increasingly stripped of greenery. And the Bambi-supporters will still not allow the return of the cull.

Another story: the northern bear hunt was banned. Now northern cities are targeted by increasing numbers of aggressive bears.

These sorts of stories are everywhere. It starts because humans habitation conflicts with large predators, and then numbers of wildlife become unbalanced and unhealthy. Without some means of population control (the natural limitations of predators, or the artificial limitations of the hunt) numbers of prey animals spiral out of control, resulting in environmental devastation, disease, and ongoing conflict with humans.

What's your solution?

There was more to my post originally, but I deleted it because I was going on an (admittedly uncertain) tangent. I was going to say that overpopulation of a species is a mostly temporal, self-fixing problem, unless it's good at adapting to new or bare minimum resources, or is a dangerous animal. I remember reading an article about how the rabbit overpopulation in parts of asia is mostly a myth because it fluctuates from stable to overpopulation on its own. I would have to recheck those sources though.

As I was saying, my concerns about hunting are mostly irrational. I don't personally like it, but I don't want to stop it. I don't think people should be allowed to hunt or poach the smarter animals like dolphins or the great apes, which they already aren't.

[Immanuel Can]

As I was saying, my concerns about hunting are mostly irrational. I don't personally like it, but I don't want to stop it. I don't think people should be allowed to hunt or poach the smarter animals like dolphins or the great apes, which they already aren't.

Fair enough. Hunting's a traditional male activity. There's no reason you should like it, or feel easy about it. if it has to be done, it should be being done by somebody equipped and prepared to do it, and to accept the psychological consequences if they come, be it a male or female.

Even for those who do it, there is some challenge to learning it. It's hard, not just in terms of technique, but because killing anything has an element of horror attached to it. It's something that even farmers will admit is a bit hard to learn to accept. They do it, because somebody has to; but hardly anybody will tell you that it's not difficult to become comfortable doing. And the first time, it's a watershed moment, emotionally.

That's not really a surprise, though. I'm sure you know that even killing a mouse, a fish, or a cockroach is something that comes attended with real anxiety and distress. I suppose only professional exterminators ever get totally beyond that.

Well, and psychopaths.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

As I was saying, my concerns about hunting are mostly irrational. I don't personally like it, but I don't want to stop it. I don't think people should be allowed to hunt or poach the smarter animals like dolphins or the great apes, which they already aren't.

Fair enough. Hunting's a traditional male activity. There's no reason you should like it, or feel easy about it. if it has to be done, it should be being done by somebody equipped and prepared to do it, and to accept the psychological consequences if they come, be it a male or female.

I'm not quite sure if you're suggesting you think I'm a woman, but I'm not. Truth be told I've actually bow-fished before and have no problem with that. The dissociation begins for me at other mammals.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not quite sure if you're suggesting you think I'm a woman, but I'm not.

Oh. A "Sir," not a "Sister." Sorry.

Truth be told I've actually bow-fished before and have no problem with that. The dissociation begins for me at other mammals.

Yeah, that's a second leap. If you're like most people, the first time you killed a fish you felt kind of weird about it. The same would happen if you killed a mammal...even if it were only a rat. That's how it seems to go.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Fair enough. Hunting's a traditional male activity.

Tradition alone is no longer a justification for human activity in a changed world. In today's world the old image of man as rightful predator is superseded by man as steward.

While culling is arguably necessary on occasion you need to inspect why natural predators are culled. Often culling is done to preserve the artificial habitat of some sporting species such as grouse.

Killing food animals is justifiable only when the animals have been bred, reared, fattened,transported, and slaughtered according to the best welfare standards. Welfare standards are not adhered to because people won't pay more for good meat.
However I started this thread to try to alert members to the pleasure-killing of deliberately- farmed wild animals such as lion and giraffe. I do wish that humans would show more dignity.

[thedoc]

I was going to say that overpopulation of a species is a mostly temporal, self-fixing problem, unless it's good at adapting to new or bare minimum resources, or is a dangerous animal.

Yes overpopulation is a temporary situation, the wild population will rise out of control till everything is sick, starving and dying. Not only the large herbivore prey animals, but all ground dwelling herbivore will be wiped out for lack of food. What IC has described in the swamp near his home has been reported numerous times before, a total lack of green as high as the deer can reach.

[henry quirk]

"Killing food animals is justifiable only when the animals have been bred, reared, fattened,transported, and slaughtered according to the best welfare standards."

If a body doesn't know how to go out and fend for itself (including hunting, killing, cleaning, cooking, an animal) then said body ain't a grown up.

[Belinda]

Thanks, Henry, I quite agree. I can tell that you are a practical man.

[Greta]

Taking another being's life just for fun shows a lack of appreciation the connections of life's web and a failure to empathise at all due to an inflated sense of self-importance.

You mean like when a woman aborts her unborn baby? That kind of "failure to empathize," and "inflated sense of self-importance"? In that case, I would agree.

No, not at all. Little squishy things without a functioning nervous system are in less need of empathy than grown mammals with relationships and life experience.

Causing harm and suffering for kicks to intelligent animals capable of emotional suffering is the worst thing anyone can do. Thus, if that's not morally wrong, then nothing is.

Yes, it's morally wrong. But you have no logical explanation for why you say it is. In a merely material universe, nothing is actually wrong...not even that.

The logical explanation is that order is more rare and precious than disorder.

[Belinda]

Taking another being's life just for fun shows a lack of appreciation the connections of life's web and a failure to empathise at all due to an inflated sense of self-importance.

You mean like when a woman aborts her unborn baby? That kind of "failure to empathize," and "inflated sense of self-importance"? In that case, I would agree.

No, not at all. Little squishy things without a functioning nervous system are in less need of empathy than grown mammals with relationships and life experience.

Causing harm and suffering for kicks to intelligent animals capable of emotional suffering is the worst thing anyone can do. Thus, if that's not morally wrong, then nothing is.

Yes, it's morally wrong. But you have no logical explanation for why you say it is. In a merely material universe, nothing is actually wrong...not even that.

The logical explanation is that order is more rare and precious than disorder.

I agree with Greta. The early clump of cells should not be accorded any rights because it is not sentient. When it does become sentient then the foetus should have rights. Elective abortions are universally hated but are sometimes the least bad choice.

All animals are sentient. Apart from our insulting our human dignity, once we know that animals are sentient it is unreasonable to insult our feelings by causing animals to suffer. It seems then that those who cause animals to suffer are either ignorant or sadistic. Probably ignorance is much the more common cause of cruelty to animals.

I am fast approaching my terminal disorder and I am not as sure as Greta that order is best. (Sure I have lived as if it were and still do so). If ordered systems were much more durable the world could be knee deep in geriatric wood pigeons and pet cats too feeble to strike them down.

[Philosophy Explorer]

How do you feel about AI? Can that become sentient?

PhilX

[Greta]

I am fast approaching my terminal disorder and I am not as sure as Greta that order is best. (Sure I have lived as if it were and still do so). If ordered systems were much more durable the world could be knee deep in geriatric wood pigeons and pet cats too feeble to strike them down.

That is very sad news, Belinda

Whatever one may prefer, there's seemingly nothing we can do about wearing out. Physical systems all break down over time.

Your post leads to parsing different kinds of destruction, so there's a vast difference between professionals demolishing an unsafe residence and a hostile bombing, even though each is a destructive act. We all regularly perform unconscious mental calculations based on the value placed on different entities. For instance, most of us will think harder about and work harder towards making dinner for family as compared with the family dog or cat. Another: if there's a fire, and you can only save a few people, chances are you will try to save your children before other people or pets.

[Belinda]

Gosh sorry Greta! I wasn't trying to be dramatic only realistic about human life span and I am currently in good enough health.