Plutarch on animal ethics

[JohnDonne]

No. I am talking about biology and soil science. Those carrots you ate were a product of soil decomposition, which always has animal life somewhere in the chain.

To be truly vegan, you literally have to grow food in hydroponic greenhouses, using industrial fertilizer in the water.

Nature is one big system, kiddo. LOL

You're right nature is one big system, but veganism is about reducing harm going forward. Animals are not harmed by growing carrots in soil that has flecks of animal life from ages ago.

[StCapps]

Indeed, humans and other animals are made of meat and nerves, brains, eyes and hearts. It doesn't matter how many legs there are, what type of fur, we all possess the ability to desire to live, we are all conscious and capable of suffering.

Hunting is the same as any action, when there is a victim, there must be a justification, but of course, there is no justification, it's no accident, it's no necessity, it's premeditated killing for fun. And this blood lust is passed onto children that otherwise wouldn't dream of killing beautiful deer.

There is justification for hunting quite often, the animals desire to not be killed does not override all justifications for killing animals. Deer overpopulate, culling them is doing a favor to the other deer, so they don't starve to death, or eat food needed to feed other animals than just deer. Hunting is often of benefit to the environment, the ecosystem and the animals.

Pretending the sole justification used for hunting is, blood lust for entertainment, that just shows that you know nothing about hunting, and are out to demonize hunters.

I'm not out to demonize hunters, but they're obviously in it for bloodlust. If hunters are all about conservation, why aren't they agitating for animal vasectomies as opposed to culling, when vasectomies are more effective long term?

Keep in mind that animal overpopulation is of a piece with meat eating. It is the result of cattle ranchers and farmers lobbying for the government to kill/nearly extinct predators for the sake of the meat industry. If there was no meat industry, predators would be allowed to roam free and undoubtedly animal populations would become more stable.

Animal vasectomies would not be more effective long term, medium term, or short term. Also they are way more expensive that hunting, therefore hunting frees up resources to spend on more effective measures than giving wild animals vasectomies.

Animal overpopulation sometimes had nothing to do with meat eating, animals would still do it, even if there was no humans on the planet. Can't give enough animals vasectomies to cull species quick enough, before the overpopulated species starves, does damage to environment, or to other animals.

[StCapps]

I get it JohnDonne, you want to live in a world were no animals need to be killed, and killing them is always a bad idea, but nature refuses to allow that to ever happen, that will never be the case, no matter how much wishful thinking you engage in. You're an idealist, sticking his head in the sand in the face of realism.

[JohnDonne]

I said with natural predators animal populations would become more stable, not that “overpopulation” only exists because of humans. Again, the idea that nature is supposed to always be balanced is a human one. My position is hardly idealistic or controversial.

Animal vaesectomies are actually more effective in many cases, and though more expensive, they remove the element of premeditated killing. In a society where animal lives are considered ethically valuable, surely people would be willing to bear the cost.

Or perhaps animal populations don’t need to be managed at all, perhaps in a vegan society we would not take it upon ourselves to control outcomes like that.

What I have read is that hunters culling animals often results in population explosions.

In any case, if the only meat people ate was animals killed for “conservation”, it would indeed effectively be a vegan society, as only a tiny percentage of people would ever even see meat.

[StCapps]

In a society where animal lives are considered ethically valuable, surely people would be willing to bear the cost.

Not true, cost is too great, effectiveness not worth the bang for the buck. Killing the animals is more humane than letting them starve to death, destroy the environment, kill too many other animals, or eat the food sources that other animals need to survive. Your strategy does not reduce the amount of animal suffering, which is the goal you want to achieve, but your suggestions are counter-productive to those ends.

It's almost as if you are all for animals suffering, so long as it's never at the hands of humans, even if humans causing the suffering results in less overall suffering of animals. Of course it's probably just because you haven't thought it more than halfway through, and don't realize you are promoting more animal suffering with your suggested courses of action.

So long as you feel like you are helping, actually helping doesn't matter, because you are easily fooled by vegan propaganda into thinking you are actually helping, even when you are doing the opposite.

[JohnDonne]

It’s hard to say how a vegan oriented society would deal with questions of wildlife management, but my guess is they’d be willing to pay more to kill less. You’re free to disagree.

One thing: as a vegan I’m not trying to reduce suffering, I’m trying to live more ethically, which means reducing the harm and impact my life has on others. It may reduce suffering to cull human populations at some point, but I would not consider that a vegan solution. Ends don’t always justify means.

[StCapps]

It’s hard to say how a vegan oriented society would deal with questions of wildlife management, but my guess is they’d be willing to pay more to kill less. You’re free to disagree.

One thing: as a vegan I’m not trying to reduce suffering, I’m trying to live more ethically, which means reducing the harm and impact my life has on others. It may reduce suffering to cull human populations at some point, but I would not consider that a vegan solution. Ends don’t always justify means.

If inaction leads to more animal suffering, doing nothing is not ethical. Reducing needless animal suffering is ethical, even if it means killing some of the animals.

Culling the human population will not lead to less suffering, especially compared to the alternatives. The same is not true of other animals.

[JohnDonne]

I’m not against suffering, I’m against myself causing suffering. I’m not obligated to put suffering people or animals to death against their will to end their suffering. That would be tyrannical.

[JohnDonne]

If anyone wants to stop their own suffering they have suicide as an option. It’s not my job to kill you for your own good.

[StCapps]

I’m not against suffering, I’m against myself causing suffering. I’m not obligated to put suffering people or animals to death against their will to end their suffering. That would be tyrannical.

If you don't want kill animals yourself, others will pick up your slack. Acting like you are morally superior to those who are reducing actual animal suffering, is laughable. You want to be a vegan go ahead, but everyone being a vegan, would be bad for human civilization, and bad for the animals, you aren't helping by virtue signaling your "ethical superiority", it's all in your head.

Other people do not share your ethics, and if they did, the results would not be good. So get off your high horse, if you are going to be vegan, you don't have to be a douche bag and act like people not doing as you do is a some great crime.