Hello folks, long time no see!

Michael said:
> Gary Varner makes the intereting observation in his book "In nature's
> interest" (OUP 1998), that hunting can be compatible with a belief in
> animal rights, when the species being hunted has a tendency to overshoot
> its carrying capacity if unchecked, and destroy its own livelihood by
> overgrazing (r type population growth).  In this situation, controlling
the
> population by hunting (or better still by immonocontraception) would save
> more herbivore lives and prevent suffering in the long run, and is
> therefore compatible with the "comparative harms" argument of Regan.
>
Ray here:
An interesting perspective and one with much appeal.  Of course, the species
that is a major actor in "overshooting its carrying capacity" as well as
disrupting the ecological predator-prey balance is Man.  Perhaps wars,
terrorism, asassinations, murder, should be encouraged and supplemented by
organized, carefully controlled hunting of the human animal.

I suspect that would be much more efficient in restoring some kind of
equilibrium in the ecological system than legally controlled deer hunts for
example.

Michael again:
> If we were still living in a hunter-gatherer society where we were the
only
> top predator which controlled herbivore populations, then it would be
quite
> posible to be both a carnivore and an animal rights activist.
>
> However, our modern agricultural meat-eating society does not preserve
> habitats from overgrazing by herbivores.  On the contrary it  actually
> destroys habitats in order to produce more herbivores than our planet can
> sustain, and far more than we need for health.  I have heard anecdotal
> reports (I would be glad if anyone on this list can verify or otherwise)
> that methane from cow farts are a bigger contributer to global warming
than
> carbon dioxide emmissions from industry.
>
> While I don't want to underestimate the pain and stress caused to an
animal
> through hunting, especially with the primitive weopons our ancestors would
> have used, it would appear to be more humane than our present methods of
> factory farming, eloquently described by Singer in "Animal liberation".
>
Ray again:
The major problem with human use of animals (beef, etc.) is that it is a
very inefficient way of providing energy for humans to exist.  Vegetarianism
is much more efficient and would leave large acreages available for
non-human animal and plant life to exist.  Has anyone compared the amount of
methane produced by cow farts with that produced by human flatulance (humans
don't fart of course).  With 6 billion people and climbing, I suspect that
they are more important contributors of methane than cows???  :-)

Michael:
> I have therefore chosen to be a vegetarian for both animal rights and
> environmental reasons. I  have less problem with hunting than factory
> farming, though I would prefer it if we didn't have to do either.
>
Ray here:
Those are commendable reasons for being vegetarian.  But being vegetarian is
also much more healthy for we humans (selfishly speaking).  My colesterol
(sp) level has fallen to a steady level of about 160 - 170 in the last 15
years +/- that I have followed the vegetarian path.

Try it, you'll like it! :-)

And it tastes better than burnt meat.  (which always reminds me of the burnt
flesh smell we found when we went into Japan at the end of WW2.

But, I guess everyone for his/her own poison.

Just remember, how one views the world is a major factor in how one develops
an ethics for personal action.  IMHO.

Ray

PS. Jim T.  Glad to see your provocative voice here again.  Always livens up
the discussion.





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%