4 ms·

"As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. " This is a natural, humane view. I

"As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. " This is a natural, humane view. IMO, it comes from a good place. If I didn't have the knowledge I have, I would also hold this view. Bonafides: I grew up hunting. I wouldn't say it was subsistence hunting, but it was a substantial portion of our winter protein. I was blissfully ignorant of it at the time, but we were what you would consider poor today. (Pretty much all my friends were poor too.) I stopped hunting after college when my father did - we both liked nature but we didn't like killing. Hunting is probably the least terrible way for an animal to die. If you are removed from nature, you may not realize that nature while beautiful, is also horribly, horribly cruel. In winter, the deer starve, get weak and then are run down by predators and killed or freeze to death. If the snow it deep, they may not even have to be weak since they can't run as fast in the deep snow. I can only think of 2 less cruel ways for population control: extinction (or a localized equivalent) and birth control. The 2nd option might be viable...

kbenson 12y ago
For me, the desire to not cause pain is offset by the needs of the ecosystem and humanity. We may need to manage certain animal populations through killing members of that population, and allowing hunting may be the most humane way to accomplish that, at least with our current understanding and capabilities. If someone enjoys hunting, and it serves a cause, such as population control, which we don't have a better method for enacting? I'm fine with that. It's suffering, but it's justified. If that needs subsides, but people still want to hunt because they enjoy it, or it's something they were raised doing and they want to continue? I'm not very sympathetic in that case.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It's surprising, given that you understand all that, that you object to hunting for food when that food is not strictly necessary. Even if you are not a subsistence hunter, it can still be good. The hunter can enjoy hunting, the department of fish & game can use the hunter to manage populations, the burden on industrial agriculture & farming is reduced...
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Strictly speaking, I don't. I think there are better choices than factory farming, and better choices than hunting, but they may not be ready or sustainable currently. If it was purely a choice between cattle, pigs and chicken raised in horrible conditions and hunting, then I would prefer people hunt. But it's not as simple as that, and there are other options on an individual level. They may not be appealing (to me either), but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to ignore the consequences of their actions. This may be a case where the actions are ethically troubling but helpful for society. The problem arises when it becomes less helpful to society, but people feel entitles to continue their prior actions. I think forcing people to confront the ethical portion the entire time helps prevent this, to a degree.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  I can see where you are coming from I think - hunting for pleasure when there are other alternatives is something you aren't sympathetic to. I sympathize with your view. The thing is, the alternatives to hunting are all crueler than hunting. The dilemma thus becomes choosing between (a) humans taking pleasure in killing animals (which should bother anyone IMO) (b) animals suffering more when nature does its thing Those are admittedly sucky choices but that is the reality at this point in time at least. The modern "solution" is to hide the reality behind some facade that lets us maintain our a more pleasant mental model of our world and our place in it e.g. I don't torture chickens, I get my eggs from the grocery store.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    A lot of people are putting forth (b), but without a lot of justification other than disease, predation, old age. What I'm interested in at this point is how is that different than applying to towards people. What's wrong with "people die of alzheimer's, car crashes, old age, etc. and these are arguably worse than just allowing some people that enjoy killing other people from saving them from that burden." The question is somewhat ridiculous, there are easily many differences depending on your stance on the importance of sapience, etc, but that doesn't mean there aren't important facets to examining why it's different, and what beliefs hold up or do not under careful examination after deciding what the important differences are.
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      This is a worthwhile thought exercise. I'm not sure why people are down-voting you. I thought about it some and I think the difference is that for humans, we have other less horrible choices than animals. Our choices aren't (a) get eaten by wolves or (b) starve to death (c) get shot by a hunter At end of life we humans can get palliative care for example. I sympathize with your rebellion if you will, against the cruel choices nature has presented the other denizens of our planet. However, one must consider the reality not what we simply wish the reality was unfortunately.

kbenson 12y ago

For me, the desire to not cause pain is offset by the needs of the ecosystem and humanity. We may need to manage certain animal populations through killing members of that population, and allowing hunting may be the most humane way to accomplish that, at least with our current understanding and capabilities. If someone enjoys hunting, and it serves a cause, such as population control, which we don't have a better method for enacting? I'm fine with that. It's suffering, but it's justified. If that needs subsides, but people still want to hunt because they enjoy it, or it's something they were raised doing and they want to continue? I'm not very sympathetic in that case.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It's surprising, given that you understand all that, that you object to hunting for food when that food is not strictly necessary. Even if you are not a subsistence hunter, it can still be good. The hunter can enjoy hunting, the department of fish & game can use the hunter to manage populations, the burden on industrial agriculture & farming is reduced...
- kbenson 12y ago
  Strictly speaking, I don't. I think there are better choices than factory farming, and better choices than hunting, but they may not be ready or sustainable currently. If it was purely a choice between cattle, pigs and chicken raised in horrible conditions and hunting, then I would prefer people hunt. But it's not as simple as that, and there are other options on an individual level. They may not be appealing (to me either), but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to ignore the consequences of their actions. This may be a case where the actions are ethically troubling but helpful for society. The problem arises when it becomes less helpful to society, but people feel entitles to continue their prior actions. I think forcing people to confront the ethical portion the entire time helps prevent this, to a degree.
chrisbennet 12y ago
I can see where you are coming from I think - hunting for pleasure when there are other alternatives is something you aren't sympathetic to. I sympathize with your view. The thing is, the alternatives to hunting are all crueler than hunting. The dilemma thus becomes choosing between (a) humans taking pleasure in killing animals (which should bother anyone IMO) (b) animals suffering more when nature does its thing Those are admittedly sucky choices but that is the reality at this point in time at least. The modern "solution" is to hide the reality behind some facade that lets us maintain our a more pleasant mental model of our world and our place in it e.g. I don't torture chickens, I get my eggs from the grocery store.
- kbenson 12y ago
  A lot of people are putting forth (b), but without a lot of justification other than disease, predation, old age. What I'm interested in at this point is how is that different than applying to towards people. What's wrong with "people die of alzheimer's, car crashes, old age, etc. and these are arguably worse than just allowing some people that enjoy killing other people from saving them from that burden." The question is somewhat ridiculous, there are easily many differences depending on your stance on the importance of sapience, etc, but that doesn't mean there aren't important facets to examining why it's different, and what beliefs hold up or do not under careful examination after deciding what the important differences are.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    This is a worthwhile thought exercise. I'm not sure why people are down-voting you. I thought about it some and I think the difference is that for humans, we have other less horrible choices than animals. Our choices aren't (a) get eaten by wolves or (b) starve to death (c) get shot by a hunter At end of life we humans can get palliative care for example. I sympathize with your rebellion if you will, against the cruel choices nature has presented the other denizens of our planet. However, one must consider the reality not what we simply wish the reality was unfortunately.