What is your excuse for killing animals?

[SonOfLaertes]

Why do you think something we did 10,000 years ago is more natural than something we do today?

And even more importantly, why do you think that "more natural" is better?

I didn't say that everything we do today is more natural than what we did 10,000 years ago. I said that sterilization is a modern tool, and not a "natural" tool.

In the context of this argument, "natural" refers to the means that we manage the wildlife on Earth, including any hypothetical domesticated food animals that we release into the wild.

My contention : hunting is "more natural" than sterilization, because:

1). We evolved as hunters, not sterilizers;

2). our prey evolved with the fact of predation encoded in there genome (ie, all animals produce more offspring than the normal mortality rate of their young would indicate, to compensate for young taken by predators);

3). hunting is the only way I know of to mimic the natural process of "survival of the fittest" in the wild. Sterilization is unnatural because it does not discriminate for the fitness of it's target animals in their environment.

Truthfully, I don't understand why it is so hard to see that hunting is an integral part of any ecosystem, encoded in the DNA of every animal that has ever walked the earth, including man. Therefore, natural to our genotype and phenotype.

Sterilization, on the other hand, is not natural. In this context, if it were natural, one of our fingers would extrude a needle which would inject birth control serum into animals that have a surplus population in the wild.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I didn't say that everything we do today is more natural than what we did 10,000 years ago. I said that sterilization is a modern tool, and not a "natural" tool.

In the context of this argument, "natural" refers to the means that we manage the wildlife on Earth, including any hypothetical domesticated food animals that we release into the wild.

My contention : hunting is "more natural" than sterilization, because:

1). We evolved as hunters, not sterilizers;

2). our prey evolved with the fact of predation encoded in there genome (ie, all animals produce more offspring than the normal mortality rate of their young would indicate, to compensate for young taken by predators);

3). hunting is the only way I know of to mimic the natural process of "survival of the fittest" in the wild. Sterilization is unnatural because it does not discriminate for the fitness of it's target animals in their environment.

Truthfully, I don't understand why it is so hard to see that hunting is an integral part of any ecosystem, encoded in the DNA of every animal that has ever walked the earth, including man. Therefore, natural to our genotype and phenotype.

Sterilization, on the other hand, is not natural. In this context, if it were natural, one of our fingers would extrude a needle which would inject birth control serum into animals that have a surplus population in the wild.

Bolding mine.

Then by what process, other than evolution, did we reach the ability to sterilize animals? Evolution isn't limited to the genes and their expression; behavioral patterns of groups of a species adhere to the same laws as genetic patterns. Anything and everything we do is a product of evolution.

Even more importantly, even if we accept your definition of "natural", why should we care? What makes the "natural" way of doing things more desirable?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Bolding mine.

Then by what process, other than evolution, did we reach the ability to sterilize animals? Evolution isn't limited to the genes and their expression; behavioral patterns of groups of a species adhere to the same laws as genetic patterns. Anything and everything we do is a product of evolution.

Even more importantly, even if we accept your definition of "natural", why should we care? What makes the "natural" way of doing things more desirable?

Sigh ... by utilizing Science and technology.

If you are going to pretend that you can't instinctively draw a line between the natural world and the world of Man; then let's drop this conversation. By your definition oil spills in pristine waters are "natural", because "anything and everything we do is a product of evolution". If you want to insist that oil spills are natural, then we have nothing to argue about.

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

 

[Pup]

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

Fittest for what, though? If those who can avoid hunters with guns survive, that's not "natural" by your definition, since guns are technology. Are hunters with bows and arrows natural enough? Or would it have to be pre-iron age hunting? Or only non-human predators like wolves? Is it still natural if we deliberately introduce and encourage the predators? Or only those which survive disease and lack of food?

The problem is that any population will respond to environmental pressures. Only the animals most fit for living in a highly radioactive area survive around Chernobyl, but that's a different kind of environmental pressure than big American cities where pigeons and English sparrows outcompete most other birds and are the fittest species, or dairy farms where cows that give the most milk are the fittest and survive. The animals that can still reproduce despite attempts at sterilization will be the most fit for that kind of environment. Obligatory movie quote: life will find a way.

Darwin proposed that "natural selection" was an extension of the similar process of human-guided selection, such as what happens with the dairy cows when the farmer culls the herd of his lowest producers.

But if humans are deliberately deciding that only the animals which can avoid humans with guns should survive, that seems to me somewhere in between natural and human selection, and shows how the line blurs.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who cares? If we are justified eating some meat, then there is no reason not to take advantage of other sources. As I have stated before, no matter how many domesticated animals we let free, they will multiply and destroy the environment. We might as well eat them, too.



What a foolish point. See the word "bizarre" in your statement, and realize that your statement requires "bizarre".

What's the difference? You are arguing that if it is ever okay to eat meat, it's okay to eat meat whenever we want. Why doesn't this argument work for you when it's something other than eating meat? If it's ever okay to punch someone it's always okay, if it's ever okay to rape it's always okay, if it's ever okay to assassinate someone it's always okay?

This seems to me to be blatant special pleading. You made up an argument to defend meat eating, but you won't apply that argument to any other behaviour and you resort to empty insults when this is pointed out.

Wrong. "Natural" in this sense has a very well-known meaning - human actions that are in compliance with the ways of nature. Sterilization as a means of population control is not natural. Hunting is. By definition. Get over telling me to get over a well-understood definition of natural.

Raping? There you go with requiring "bizarre-ness" to bolster your argument again. Sterilization is not natural by definition. Or did we roam the plains of Africa 10,000 years ago with a syringe in our hand? I missed that Discovery channel episode.

One more time, using very simple words.

Natural does not mean good.

Lots of natural things are really bad.

Lots of unnatural things are really good.

Bizarre. Here you are claiming that predation does not result in the selection of the fittest. I think this will be the last response I make to your counter-arguments, you obviously will grasp at any available straw to push your bias against meat eaters.

Sorry , apparently you weren't dodging my point. You believe that predation has no effect on adaptation. If that's the case, we really don't have anything to argue about. You need to take your points over to a "mechanism's of evolution" thread and bandy your theories about there.

You're making two very simple and very common mistakes about evolution. You think that "fitness" means something other than "fitness for this one niche the species is in right at this very second", and you think that "fitness" is a good in and of itself.

Fitness does not mean awesomeness. A three-toed sloth is as fit in the evolutionary sense as a cheetah.

Unleashing predators on a species is not doing it a favour, unless you have a pre-existing idea that a species adapted to deal with that predator is better. Doing so will not make the species "better" or "worse", merely different.

If you don't get this, you don't get evolution.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Sigh ... by utilizing Science and technology.

If you are going to pretend that you can't instinctively draw a line between the natural world and the world of Man; then let's drop this conversation. By your definition oil spills in pristine waters are "natural", because "anything and everything we do is a product of evolution". If you want to insist that oil spills are natural, then we have nothing to argue about.

I do understand how you define the term. But it's only "intuitive" to you because of some preconceptions. You use the term "natural" to mean everything except what men do, which is one definition, though not the one most of the other people in this thread have been using. And where exactly do you consider technology and science to start? The use of spears, or even rocks, for hunting is a form of technology, but even non-human animals use tools.

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

And why should we effectively manage wildlife populations? And why should we care whether the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

 

[Manopolus]

If a cow had the capability and the desire to kill me and eat me, he'd do it to me...

(added) oops, she... a cow is a she.

 

[Dog Town]

There are arguments abound, that our eating meat, kick started our higher thinking brains.
Are you trying to DEVO?
What the hell are canine teeth for, anyway? Eating rabbit food can't be it.
I loves me some BBQ'd flesh!

 

[NewtonTrino]

I just wanna say that I was just in Boston and had an AWESOME steak (dry aged ribeye) at the oak room. Wanna know why I'm kill animals? That's why. yumyum

We evolved eating meat. It's part of who and what we are. I am against unnecessary cruelty and would gladly accept an increase in meat prices to salve my conscious. But I doubt most people feel that way.

 

[Brocolis]

And that's fine. But you won't convince the majorities with that.

I’d we are convincing the people of that. (Even if slowly)

Considering that the number of vegetarians/vegans are increasing around the world, things such as fur production is illegal in some Europe counties. And the Great Apes have rights in Spain, I’d say animal rights are getting stronger with time. That is the tendency of civilization, more rights, not less

But I'm guessing you'd have trouble explaining why it's the fairest, as your choice of criteria is subjective and the terms involved (sentience, for example) are nebulous. You also probably can't explain why we should adopt your system because the argument you're making runs contrary to the beliefs and feelings of most people, and frankly, implementing it universally would be a detriment to most people as well.

I explained why I think this is the fairest way. How do you explain why your way is the fairest? Giving rights to all humans, because they are human is in my opinion gibberish

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There are arguments abound, that our eating meat, kick started our higher thinking brains.
Are you trying to DEVO?
What the hell are canine teeth for, anyway? Eating rabbit food can't be it.
I loves me some BBQ'd flesh!

I just wanna say that I was just in Boston and had an AWESOME steak (dry aged ribeye) at the oak room. Wanna know why I'm kill animals? That's why. yumyum

We evolved eating meat. It's part of who and what we are. I am against unnecessary cruelty and would gladly accept an increase in meat prices to salve my conscious. But I doubt most people feel that way.

To the extent that humans can rise above being creatures of instinct, we're better and more important than animals.

But only to that extent.

If the best justification you can come up with for killing and eating a conscious being is "Hurr... tasty!" then you're on the same moral level as, say, a hyena.

That doesn't mean that there aren't better justifications that might work for you. Some have been posted in this thread already. However if you don't have one and don't see the need for one then you're not a moral being at all in the sense I understand it. You're just a puppet of instinct and social conditioning.

 

[phantomb]

I explained why I think this is the fairest way. How do you explain why your way is the fairest?

I don't, I deny that any one system of morality can be objectively more fair than any other, and thus promote my own way by naming the reasons I follow it, which I did above in response to Kevin_Lowe.

Giving rights to all humans, because they are human is in my opinion gibberish

And giving rights to all things based on their "interests" is in my opinion gibberish.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I’d we are convincing the people of that. (Even if slowly)

Considering that the number of vegetarians/vegans are increasing around the world, things such as fur production is illegal in some Europe counties. And the Great Apes have rights in Spain, I’d say animal rights are getting stronger with time. That is the tendency of civilization, more rights, not less.

It's a recent trend in some parts of the world, but to claim it's a universal tendency of civilization is reaching.

Anyway, there are plenty of good arguments for vegetarianism, but the ones that start from the idea of "animal rights" aren't convincing. Vegetarianism is spreading, but it's not because of the points you've presented in this thread.

I explained why I think this is the fairest way. How do you explain why your way is the fairest? Giving rights to all humans, because they are human is in my opinion gibberish

If that is "gibberish" to you, then you don't understand the English language. If you just disagree, you should say so.

 

[DC]

What is your excuse for killing animals?

Hunger and sometimes mercy

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Cheese and rice! I somehow missed a hunting thread!

I kill animals for food, but sometimes keep a trophy.

Click any of these to see a larger image. The skull is from the animal in the back of my truck in the previous picture.

 

[Brocolis]

Ok, let’s take a break with the basis for rights and the cheap shots. Lets talk a bit about the “trend” of Animal Rights

It's a recent trend in some parts of the world, but to claim it's a universal tendency of civilization is reaching.
Anyway, there are plenty of good arguments for vegetarianism, but the ones that start from the idea of "animal rights" aren't convincing. Vegetarianism is spreading, but it's not because of the points you've presented in this thread.

It is not just a trend. The consideration for Animal Rights is being seriously discussed for 300 years. I can't claim that it is universal, human rights are also not universal, but it certainly is growing in the developed parts of the world, just like any other rights movement did.
Veganism is a very clear tendency. Globalization permits access to all sorts of substitutes for animal products for the common man. Bullfighting and Wearing fur are frowned upon even by meat eaters because they are considered by the public as totally unnecessary. We have lots of options for quality entertainment and clothing that do not involve the suffering of an animal.
Free Range products are also a very interesting phenomenon. I wouldn’t buy it, but think it is nice that people are actually considering animal suffering and are willing to pay for those products
Whenever we are capable of creating quality steak on a lab and market it for a reasonable price factory farming is gone.

 

[phantomb]

It is not just a trend. The consideration for Animal Rights is being seriously discussed for 300 years.

I believe the discussion of animal rights goes all the way back to the ancient world, actually.

I can't claim that it is universal, human rights are also not universal, but it certainly is growing in the developed parts of the world, just like any other rights movement did.

I'd say it's probably a universal, however I'm also a bit pessimistic about how these things work. We tend to only grant rights when it becomes convenient to do so and inconvenient not to. Women's rights made great strides at a time when our countries needed women to take the place of men, who had gone off to die in the war. Abolition of slavery happened at a time when the industrial revolution was beginning a long term reduction in the desire for slaves (they were a threat to jobs), and was perhaps also affected by politics and pressure from European powers.

Similarly, once it becomes easier to grant rights to animals (probably won't happen until we can synthesize most of the products we get from animals) and less desirable not to, animal rights will happen. I think this is true universally.

Whenever we are capable of creating quality steak on a lab and market it for a reasonable price factory farming is gone.

Exactly. But again, this implies that it's not going to be a moral decision for most people. Regardless of this, I'm sure people in the future will look back with disgust at us animal-killing savages. Of course, they may also be looking back on you plant-killing savages with equal disgust.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Bullfighting and Wearing fur are frowned upon even by meat eaters because they are considered by the public as totally unnecessary.

This meat eater frowns upon bullfighting because it is cruel. I do not frown upon fur wearers. I wear a lot of leather belts and boots. I have leather chaps, gloves and jackets for motorcycling. A good pair of leather gloves is great for working with some rough materials. Some meat eaters may frown upon wearing fur but I doubt if the majority of us do.

We have lots of options for quality entertainment and clothing that do not involve the suffering of an animal.
Free Range products are also a very interesting phenomenon. I wouldn’t buy it, but think it is nice that people are actually considering animal suffering and are willing to pay for those products

Would I pay extra for free-range leather? No. Native Americans are usually respected for using all parts of the animals they kill. The agricultural industry uses as much as they can and still make a profit. Much of what doesn't make it to a human plate or closet goes into feed for other animals (dogs, cats, etc.).

Whenever we are capable of creating quality steak on a lab and market it for a reasonable price factory farming is gone.

I can see it now. Bovine embryos have their upper brains removed surgically in utero. The resulting "birth" is hung up in a lab/factory and fed via tubes while electrodes are inserted to artificially stimulate muscle growth. That sounds much more humane and efficient. It's hard to get much cheaper than just letting cattle graze.

ETA: Did you know there are more deer in the U.S. today than there were in the year 1900? Most of the money I spend on hunting (license fees and property leases) goes to maintain their habitat (the free range). They are now so numerous that many of them would starve each winter if we didn't thin the herd each fall.

 

[Drudgewire]

Regardless of this, I'm sure people in the future will look back with disgust at us animal-killing savages.

Or in the future food may be made out of PEOPLE!!!! You've got to tell them!! We've got to stop it somehow!!

 

[Mirrorglass]

It is not just a trend. The consideration for Animal Rights is being seriously discussed for 300 years.

The age of the concept doesn't matter. There has also been much discussion of eating meat.

Veganism is a very clear tendency. Globalization permits access to all sorts of substitutes for animal products for the common man. Bullfighting and Wearing fur are frowned upon even by meat eaters because they are considered by the public as totally unnecessary. We have lots of options for quality entertainment and clothing that do not involve the suffering of an animal.

Veganism is a tendency, but so is scientology. That some people do it is not an argument for it. Also, it's far from popular view that meat and fur should be rejected. Vegetarians and vegans remain a minority, although they have gained acceptance. A lot of that is vegan rights more than animal rights, though.

Also, presenting bullfighting (a form of animal torture for entertainment) and eating meat (no torture, and for food) as if they were similar things is a straw man. No one thinks it's okay to torture animals for fun.

Free Range products are also a very interesting phenomenon. I wouldn’t buy it, but think it is nice that people are actually considering animal suffering and are willing to pay for those products
Whenever we are capable of creating quality steak on a lab and market it for a reasonable price factory farming is gone.

The availability of vegan products isn't an argument for veganism, either, any more than the availability of carrots is an argument for not eating potatoes.

I'd say it's probably a universal, however I'm also a bit pessimistic about how these things work. We tend to only grant rights when it becomes convenient to do so and inconvenient not to. Women's rights made great strides at a time when our countries needed women to take the place of men, who had gone off to die in the war. Abolition of slavery happened at a time when the industrial revolution was beginning a long term reduction in the desire for slaves (they were a threat to jobs), and was perhaps also affected by politics and pressure from European powers.

I think comparing women's rights to animal rights would not please many feminists, and neither would assuming those rights only came to be because the men needed the women to "take their place".