Hunting and Furries

[Tocs]

If over population is an issue I'd say relocation may be better.. but eh I don't know much about the topic so I guess anything I say can easily be counter argued. I just personally disagree with killing endangered or sentient animals.

[Leeward]

In any environment, natural or not, you need to have a balance between birth and death rates for a species not to become over-populated and ruin their environment. Culling is an unfortunate consequence of having a lack of natural predators, but it achieves the same thing. That's what bunny-huggers don't understand, sparing them is worse for the ecosystem as a whole. Sure, relocation is an alternative, but that's not always a viable option. I could say that humans are a perfect case in point, but somehow I don't think that's going to go down too well. I'm not a misanthrope, I swear.

[Cape_F0X]

If only we did not have such powerful weapons. We could have had a 3rd world war and keep the population in check.

[Leeward]

Alternatively, we could sign a petition to relocate to Mars.

[Raven Song]

Cape Fox to quote Einstein:

I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but I know World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

But I digress
Tocs I wish moving them was simpler, it would save many animals...

Leeward... Don't tempt me

[Cape_F0X]

Alternatively, we could sign a petition to relocate to Mars.

Don't want to grow potatoes with my bowel movments

[Adagio]

Way to oversimplify. I imagine there was a petition against a cull, not against reducing the population. It's totally possible to relocate animals but it's more effort and many people don't think it's worth it because it doesn't benefit them.

Further the reason you get that sort of overpopulation is because wild animals are now kept in enclosures that limit their movement and hamper natural mechanisms to control population levels. There's been too much interference because people believe their entitled to the land and every other species is an invader.

Relocate? To WHERE?

In any environment, natural or not, you need to have a balance between birth and death rates for a species not to become over-populated and ruin their environment. Culling is an unfortunate consequence of having a lack of natural predators, but it achieves the same thing. That's what bunny-huggers don't understand, sparing them is worse for the ecosystem as a whole...

Exactly!

Rakuen. You deal way too much with ideal variables and circumstances...
You're a scientist, that's your job...

But the real world doesn't work that way...

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Relocate? To WHERE?

Well according to Wikipedia:
"In 1979, Africa had an estimated minimum population of 1.3 million elephants, with a possible upper limit of 3.0 million. /.../ The IUCN estimates a total of around 440,000 individuals for 2012."
So we've got about a third to a sixth of the population from 30 years ago. There shouldn't really be a shortage of places to move them. At least assuming a fairly even spread of elephants.

Rakuen. You deal way too much with ideal variables and circumstances...
You're a scientist, that's your job...

I know that's meant as a negative but it could be taken as a positive too.

[Cape_F0X]

We strive to ideal, does not mean we are going to get there first try. And there has to be realism.
[Wise sensei voice] Balance in all things.

[Adagio]

I know that's meant as a negative but it could be taken as a positive too.

Nope... I didn't mean that as negative...
I meant, we should be practical...

[Raven Song]

According to WWF we have 600 000 African elephants left in the wild. that's split between savannah elephants (those found in SA) and forest elephants (the type found further north like in the Congo etc).

[Sev]

600k

Wow, that many? I never would have guessed.

[Raven Song]

It's conflicting because on the front page of the elephant department they say 470 000, and further down it says 600 000...

http://www.wwf.org.uk/wildlife/african_elephant/

[Sev]

Either way, that's a healthy population.

In comparison, there are only 500 Siberian Tigers in the wild.

[Raven Song]

Glad you think thats healthy.

There are currently an estimated 3600 tigers in the wild (distributed between seven subspecies - 2 other subspecies have gone extinct in the pastfew years) but they are doing the census at present.
There are approximately 4800 black rhino in the wild, the white rhino.howver.is a big sucvess as they went feom 20 to 20000.thanks to wwf.
There are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild.

Elephants are still.vital to their ecosystems and shouldnt be hunted...

[Sev]

Glad you think thats healthy.

There are currently an estimated 3600 tigers in the wild (distributed between seven subspecies - 2 other subspecies have gone extinct in the pastfew years) but they are doing the census at present.
There are approximately 4800 black rhino in the wild, the white rhino.howver.is a big sucvess as they went feom 20 to 20000.thanks to wwf.
There are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild.

Elephants are still.vital to their ecosystems and shouldnt be hunted...

Now those are scary numbers. Snow Leopards are also in that ballpark.

[Ryall]

Well, pretty much what I said before. Killing sentient beings is unethical.

Is killing any 'sentient' being unethical though?

Is a lion unethical for killing game? They're both sentient animals. Yes the lion kills to survive, but why is the lion's life more important than the lives of so many game that its existence is justified?

I say that game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat.

I'm okay with hunting, so long as it's clean. I abhor animal cruelty, because animal cruelty quickly becomes cruelty to humans.

[Raven Song]

yeah snow leopards are estimated at between 4000 and 6500...

that being said Snow Leopards are the second most adopted animal on the WWF list, just behind Polar Bears.
Third are Panda's.
Last is the Asian Elephant, and second last is rhino's

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Is killing any 'sentient' being unethical though?

Is a lion unethical for killing game? They're both sentient animals. Yes the lion kills to survive, but why is the lion's life more important than the lives of so many game that its existence is justified?

I say that game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat.

There are at least two different issues being asked about there.

First, no it's not unethical for a lion. The lion kills to survive which is perhaps, from a purely utilitarian perspective, not a good enough reason but I would put survival of the self as a being's first priority. That is why you can have an exception for killing in self defence.

Sentience is the criteria used here for assigning moral worth to a being, though it's not necessarily the only one, but it's not the criteria used to judge someone's actions. Actions must be judged while taking into account the capabilities of the actor. Lions are not able to understand ethical problems and can not be expected to follow such high level reasoning. This is not new, we similarly do not hold children, who have not fully developed their ability to reason, to the same standards as adults.

[Ryall]

Is killing any 'sentient' being unethical though?

Is a lion unethical for killing game? They're both sentient animals. Yes the lion kills to survive, but why is the lion's life more important than the lives of so many game that its existence is justified?

I say that game is so dumb that it barely knows it's alive: that's why it's okay to kill it for meat.

There are at least two different issues being asked about there.

First, no it's not unethical for a lion. The lion kills to survive which is perhaps, from a purely utilitarian perspective, not a good enough reason but I would put survival of the self as a being's first priority. That is why you can have an exception for killing in self defence.

Sentience is the criteria used here for assigning moral worth to a being, though it's not necessarily the only one, but it's not the criteria used to judge someone's actions. Actions must be judged while taking into account the capabilities of the actor. Lions are not able to understand ethical problems and can not be expected to follow such high level reasoning. This is not new, we similarly do not hold children, who have not fully developed their ability to reason, to the same standards as adults.

If you want to take a utilitarian perspective though to justify the lion's life over all the game it kills to survive, then consider that unlike children, a lion will never feel empathy, and will never grow up to be able to follow a high level reason.

Lions' worth to humans is that they are exciting and interesting, and that they form a part of a balanced ecosystem. If there are enough lions for us to sustainably and responsibly use for other purposes that give us humans utility, such as sports hunting, then surely we should be allowed to kill them? I would wager that gives the greatest utility: hundreds of buck will be happier for not being eaten by that lion, and the humans who kill it will have gained utility. Buck and animals are happier that the lion is dead, and it won't have suffered as a sentient being for long. A death by rifle would be much quicker for a lion, than its more natural causes of death: starvation and disease once it gets old.

Humans are protected from this line of thinking: ultimately humanity should strive towards a world were human lives are highly valued and we all cooperate with each other. That's how we as individuals would like to be treated, and that's what we should aspire to for the greatest utility.

We have a double standard of protecting animals we like - e.g. lions - from hunting because they suffer, but there's much less controversy about us exterminating pests like rats, bats, mice and birds by the millions, even though they suffer.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I didn't say I favoured utilitarian thinking. It has some benefits but it's not a great starting point. It's more useful as a secondary way of thinking to help resolve conflicts that occur.

We have a double standard of protecting animals we like - e.g. lions - from hunting because they suffer, but there's much less controversy about us exterminating pests like rats, bats, mice and birds by the millions, even though they suffer.

There are some practical differences but in general I do think that's a problem. Especially when you distinguish food, pet and pest and when that differs between cultures. But really it's all a case of people coming to a decision, then trying to find a reason for that rather than reasoning their way to a conclusion and that people don't (or don't want to) think deeply about those issues.

[Leeward]

On the topic of pests and vermin, I find it both amusing and tragically hypocritical that people will scream and freak out over rats and mice and such, and yet when they see pigeons and squirrels in a park they'll happily feed them. Because fuck logic.

Personally I don't think sentience is an adequate criterion. I think the capacity to suffer is more relevant. It is however much more difficult to gauge.

If it is not unethical for the lion to kill a buck for sustenance (and much less humanely than by gunshot, at that), then how is it any less ethical for a human to do so without inflicting nearly as much pain?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

If it is not unethical for the lion to kill a buck for sustenance (and much less humanely than by gunshot, at that), then how is it any less ethical for a human to do so without inflicting nearly as much pain?

Simply because it's unnecessary.

[Raven Song]

I agree with Rakuen on this. Unless the hunter had no other means of getting food, he shouldn't be hunting the animal. way back when we used to hunt because we didn't have a Pick 'n Pay down the road with cow and pig and chicken. We do now. So why hunt non "purpose bred" animals?

[Leeward]

I agree with Rakuen on this. Unless the hunter had no other means of getting food, he shouldn't be hunting the animal. way back when we used to hunt because we didn't have a Pick 'n Pay down the road with cow and pig and chicken. We do now. So why hunt non "purpose bred" animals?

Because in the large-scale food industry (i.e. the one that supplies Pick 'n' Pay and such), the purpose-bred animals are being treated worse than human slaves have ever been, and no that's not an understatement. They are overcrowded, mutilated, traumatised, and generally treated like... well, cattle. That's not a figure of speech for nothing. Hunting is far more humane when you consider that the animal is in its natural habitat right up until death.

[Leeward]

Rakuen, you keep using that same argument every time: it's unnecessary. That is not a good argument because necessity is subjective. In the strict sense, nothing is necessary. If that were reason enough not to do something, we wouldn't be doing anything. If you mean that in conjunction with an action resulting in pain, again, that logic fails in many cases, for example painful medical procedures like lumbar punctures. Necessity in the social sense is very subjective. It can mean for survival, for minimal comfort, for adherence to social norms, and so on. I understand that ethics is an arbitrary matter, but basing your premise on something meaningless makes your conclusion just as meaningless.

[Sev]

I agree with Leeward here. Some of mankind's greatest achievements are because someone thought "why not".

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Rakuen, you keep using that same argument every time: it's unnecessary. That is not a good argument because necessity is subjective. In the strict sense, nothing is necessary. If that were reason enough not to do something, we wouldn't be doing anything.

Necessity for survival comes into play here because it's an action that is inherently unethical. It doesn't matter if it's necessary to write a book or watch a movie because those things are not harmful to another being. The necessity is just providing the exception that allows an otherwise unacceptable act.

If you mean that in conjunction with an action resulting in pain, again, that logic fails in many cases, for example painful medical procedures like lumbar punctures.

Medical procedures are both helpful and harmful at the same time which is why a big deal in medicine is consent. Without consent doctors will not perform unnecessary surgery. They will, without consent, do whatever is necessary to stabilise a patient (if the patient is unable to provide consent) but once the patient is stable they will wait to receive consent to continue. If an animal consented to being hunted, that would be fine as well, but they lack the conceptual thinking necessary to consider and consent to such a long-term proposition.

[Leeward]

So what you're saying is that ending sentient life is inherently unethical, but what justifies it is necessity for survival? Then what about plants? There is recent research that suggests that plants have a primitive form of consciousness, on top of their responsiveness to stimuli (which in itself is not yet sentience). Sentience is not a good metric either, because it is difficult to qualify or quantify. The ability to consent as a cut-off point does not work, because who in their right mind would consent to being hunted?

[Leeward]

Pic related.