5 ms·
> For some, the hunting-antihunting debate boils down to Western environmentalists trying to dictate their agenda to Africa—a form of neocolonialism, as Marnewe
by d0lph 9y ago
> For some, the hunting-antihunting debate boils down to Western environmentalists trying to dictate their agenda to Africa—a form of neocolonialism, as Marnewecke puts it. “Who gives anybody the right, sitting in another continent, to preach to us how we should manage our wildlife?”
Just because from your view point killing an animal is murder, does not mean everyone agrees. No one is ethically or morally bothered, because, one animal killing another is a foundational part of our ecosystem.
- sova 9y agoIt's one planet and one wildlife. Until that fact is noticed, there will be much conflict.
- jimmies 9y agoThere is one planet, yet an average American child's impact on the environment is 35x an Indian and the American child consumes 53x goods and services more than a Chinese child [1]. Hey, do they get a chance to ask the American one to not destroy the Earth, or only the American one can lecture them to not hunt some food? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumpt...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jimmies 9y agoJust another day I was seeing a picture of some people riding on an elephant's back in the recent Nepal flood: https://i.redd.it/a1hbn1nfosiz.jpg https://i.redd.it/a1hbn1nfosiz.jpg And there it is, someone jumping in commenting about how you're not supposed to ride on the elephant's back. I guess one can always take the moral highway when they are in an AC cooled room with 1Gbps internet arguing about what other people should do.
- jimmies 9y ago>one animal killing another is a foundational part of our ecosystem. At the same time though, our """ecosystem""" wasn't designed in billions of years to take our guns into the equation. Human has the ability to conquer pretty much every (big) animal there is on earth. Give me an AK-47, some generous supply of bullets, and let me hunt whatever whenever I want, I'd sure be able to clean out a very significant part of a jungle. It would not have happened if I had to wrestle with the bears for their meat.
- d0lph 9y agoAre you saying that since humans are more efficient killers we should no longer be able to hunt animals? These hunters are not destroying entire populations of animals, they're paying an exorbitant amount of money to hunt one animal, and probably an older one at that.
- jimmies 9y agoWhat I was trying to say was the original argument of the stronger eating the weaker ones is part of nature/the ecosystem, therefore, it is natural, thus it can't be easily labelled as unethical, is not a totally sound one. The argument based on the premise that it is natural to do so. There is nothing natural about dominating another living with a gun that you can shoot at a ridiculous range. It doesn't matter how much money you bring to it, maybe that bear is destined to die of old age if it wasn't for the human shooting him down. We don't know for sure what's the impact of hunting an old bear or a rhino down (I'm aware that there are some arguments about it being a good thing), but sure that wasn't what nature did for billions of years. Does the good triumph over the bad aspect when you pay for a kill? Maybe, possibly. Is it ethical? Debatable. Is it part of nature? No.