Mojo
Mostly harmless
Does this mean that all carnivores are unnatural?
No, not all but some can be.
OK, which are natural, and which are unnatural?
And how about omnivores?
Last edited:
Does this mean that all carnivores are unnatural?
No, not all but some can be.
Are you talking individual or Darwinian (reproductive)?Which type of relationship we have with these animals? Symbiotic? If yes, which type out of below?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symbiotic_relationships
How about cows? Are they natural? Where on earth are the wild cows?
It is a point. Later. Many beings, artificially, inorganically, unnaturally or genetically modified need attention for the purpose of this topic.
I tend to opt equanimity. It can lead to selflessness.Are you talking individual or Darwinian (reproductive)?
Killing and eating an animal isn't very beneficial to it (unless you're talking about Douglas Adams' fictitious cow), but if it's tasty and nourishing, it might make you want to help its relatives reproduce. Are you a fan of Dawkins and The Selfish Gene?
On the other hand, even some parasites seem to have certain beneficial effects on their host's immune system.
Then they will be classified under other term of symbiosis.Are you talking individual or Darwinian (reproductive)?
Killing and eating an animal isn't very beneficial to it (unless you're talking about Douglas Adams' fictitious cow), but if it's tasty and nourishing, it might make you want to help its relatives reproduce. Are you a fan of Dawkins and The Selfish Gene?
On the other hand, even some parasites seem to have certain beneficial effects on their host's immune system.
I tend to look both sides.
So nothing is one sidedness from my POV.
Agricultural can also be f two types...
Clearly not. You're just buying into a lot of hypocritical nonsense and considering it to be a priori equivalent in merit to the reality of the food chain and the longstanding domestication of animals for any number of purposes. The overreactive pseudo-moralistic handwringing that seems to have informed your diatribe does not simply make history go away.
Your view is entirely one-sided. You've subscribed to a moral view that has no basis in fact and whose end result would be biological absurdity.
We've already established that you are not an authority on agriculture.
Btw, are you suggesting, if law permit, if humans are nourishing, tasty and serve as food, should/can they be also treated similarily?
Btw, are you suggesting, if law permit, if humans are nourishing, tasty and serve as food, should/can they be also treated similarily?
Btw, are you suggesting, if law permit, if humans are nourishing, tasty and serve as food, should/can they be also treated similarily?
Sorry, beyond my understanding.Oh Kumar Babu, this is very dynamical topic! Big land countrys like India bit especially can look into! Pakistan is hungry, India toomuch full. Can be/do solution lies in surplus Hindu? Vegetable raised diets, tasty oh my goodness damn yes. (Cut off tobacco & betel for some months prior of processing will make flavour.)
Dung-smeared idolators finally good for something, isn't it?
Sorry, beyond my understanding.
What sort of shops do you frequent?![]()
![]()
![]()
This is, not surprisingly, not a surprise.