While I don’t condone most whale hunting, regulating the deer population is kinda a mandatory thing in the US.
Since humans made their way into the western continents they’ve radically changed the ecosystem, especially when it comes to Forest management.
Humans have become the main predators of deer the populations and if we don’t hunt the population can explode one season to the next, causing a cascading effect on their environment.
Deer can basically eat just about anything, and once they strip the forest of their natural foods they tend to move on to anything else they can reach. This can lead to large swaths of other animals they compete with to die off, while simultaneously causing health epidemics among the deer population leading to things like chronic wasting disease.
Yeah, I know that angle. And again, veganism and vegeterianism is about necessity.
Regarding population control of animals that wouks otherwise eat up the ecosystem because humans hunted down all other predators before, it’s a necessity right now.
However, there is a thing of returning wolves in Europe at the moment. So there is an alternative to hunting and human intervention, resulting in less necessity (granted, human society would need to allow the wolf to make its return and unfortunately, it doesn’t really seem to be the case, but I think you’re getting where I am going with this).
My point is, as much as necessary, as little as possible (which is something one of my maths teachers taught me, so there’s what you can learn from maths for everyday life).
However, there is a thing of returning wolves in Europe at the moment. So there is an alternative to hunting and human intervention
For some areas this would be possible if as you said humans allowed it to happen. However, that’s not really an option for the majority of the country, as the area where wolves would be effective has been reduced via climate change.
Unfortunately it’s hard to undo 40k years of humans reshaping the ecosystem to work for them. There is no such thing as pristine untouched land, native Americans have been curtailing the environment for millennia.
My point is, as much as necessary, as little as possible (which is something one of my maths teachers taught me, so there’s what you can learn from maths for everyday life).
My point was that the deer population is already way way overpopulated, and we actually need more people to hunt if we want to properly manage what remains of our forest.
Yes, because you’re biased. Killing and eating what you kill is not wrong, it’s natural and historical. Although many would wish we humans were superior species placed above the natural order, we’re clearly not. You can choose to believe it’s wrong to kill and eat animals, but that’s your own personal opinion formed in modern, likely western, society. What is actually wrong are industrial practices of scale that brutalize food production, an indigenous population or small culture following the practices of their ancestors and doing some hunting is not evil, or morally wrong, or damaging to the environment. It’s just the way the natural world was always supposed to work.
Maybe, but we all are. But it seems you got it the wrong way round. I don’t think killing animals is wrong because I’m vegan. I’m vegan because the exploitation of animals and causing harm is wrong. Btw, regarding the killing of animals as wrong consequently leads to vegetarianism, not necessarily veganism.
Although many would wish we humans were superior species placed above the natural order, we’re clearly not.
Well, we developed a lot of things outside the natural order (note I’m not saying above, but outside). Like cars and clothes and computers and stuff. Naturalism is not an argument for killing animals.
opinion formed in modern, likely western, society
That is true.
Killing animals for food once might have been a necessity and normalized out of said necessity. But that necessity is gone. By the way, there are countless non-western cultures with vegetarian diets.
indigenous population or small culture following the practices of their ancestors and doing some hunting is not evil, or morally wrong
There were traditions of human sacrifice in history. Would you consider those traditions also not morally wrong if descendants of those cultures practiced these traditions today? What about bullfighting in spain?
It’s just the way the natural world was always supposed to work.
There is no „way the world is supposed to work”. There’s no plan, no nothing.
I don’t hunt, but there are literally too many deer. Humans have been shaping the ecology of North America for tens of thousands of years. In that process we basically killed off most major predators to the deer population. Mainly because deer are basically an endless supply of food if the land is managed properly.
Since we no longer really rely on deer for a main food source, the deer population has exploded and disease and starvation has become the main moderating forces on their population. Such large populations of deer are also a big part of environmental decline in forest, as they strip the ground of any young sapling or ground cover.
Nah, man. Killing whales is just wrong as is killing deer in the forest. Or any other animal. Just let them live, ffs.
While I don’t condone most whale hunting, regulating the deer population is kinda a mandatory thing in the US.
Since humans made their way into the western continents they’ve radically changed the ecosystem, especially when it comes to Forest management.
Humans have become the main predators of deer the populations and if we don’t hunt the population can explode one season to the next, causing a cascading effect on their environment.
Deer can basically eat just about anything, and once they strip the forest of their natural foods they tend to move on to anything else they can reach. This can lead to large swaths of other animals they compete with to die off, while simultaneously causing health epidemics among the deer population leading to things like chronic wasting disease.
Yeah, I know that angle. And again, veganism and vegeterianism is about necessity.
Regarding population control of animals that wouks otherwise eat up the ecosystem because humans hunted down all other predators before, it’s a necessity right now.
However, there is a thing of returning wolves in Europe at the moment. So there is an alternative to hunting and human intervention, resulting in less necessity (granted, human society would need to allow the wolf to make its return and unfortunately, it doesn’t really seem to be the case, but I think you’re getting where I am going with this).
My point is, as much as necessary, as little as possible (which is something one of my maths teachers taught me, so there’s what you can learn from maths for everyday life).
For some areas this would be possible if as you said humans allowed it to happen. However, that’s not really an option for the majority of the country, as the area where wolves would be effective has been reduced via climate change.
Unfortunately it’s hard to undo 40k years of humans reshaping the ecosystem to work for them. There is no such thing as pristine untouched land, native Americans have been curtailing the environment for millennia.
My point was that the deer population is already way way overpopulated, and we actually need more people to hunt if we want to properly manage what remains of our forest.
We get it you’re vegan.
Do my habits matter to the argument that killing animals is wrong because causing harm.is wrong?
Yes, because you’re biased. Killing and eating what you kill is not wrong, it’s natural and historical. Although many would wish we humans were superior species placed above the natural order, we’re clearly not. You can choose to believe it’s wrong to kill and eat animals, but that’s your own personal opinion formed in modern, likely western, society. What is actually wrong are industrial practices of scale that brutalize food production, an indigenous population or small culture following the practices of their ancestors and doing some hunting is not evil, or morally wrong, or damaging to the environment. It’s just the way the natural world was always supposed to work.
…¿por qué no los tres?..
Maybe, but we all are. But it seems you got it the wrong way round. I don’t think killing animals is wrong because I’m vegan. I’m vegan because the exploitation of animals and causing harm is wrong. Btw, regarding the killing of animals as wrong consequently leads to vegetarianism, not necessarily veganism.
Well, we developed a lot of things outside the natural order (note I’m not saying above, but outside). Like cars and clothes and computers and stuff. Naturalism is not an argument for killing animals.
That is true.
Killing animals for food once might have been a necessity and normalized out of said necessity. But that necessity is gone. By the way, there are countless non-western cultures with vegetarian diets.
There were traditions of human sacrifice in history. Would you consider those traditions also not morally wrong if descendants of those cultures practiced these traditions today? What about bullfighting in spain?
There is no „way the world is supposed to work”. There’s no plan, no nothing.
We get it you’re super vegan.
The arctic isn’t really known for farming.
Seriously, there are so few wild animals. Leave them alone, you are hunting for fun, take up another hobby.
I don’t hunt, but there are literally too many deer. Humans have been shaping the ecology of North America for tens of thousands of years. In that process we basically killed off most major predators to the deer population. Mainly because deer are basically an endless supply of food if the land is managed properly.
Since we no longer really rely on deer for a main food source, the deer population has exploded and disease and starvation has become the main moderating forces on their population. Such large populations of deer are also a big part of environmental decline in forest, as they strip the ground of any young sapling or ground cover.
It’s a huge problem in forest management.