3 ms·
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 subsist
by 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 agoStrictly 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.