 |
 |
-----Original Message----- From: Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 6:31 PM Subject: Re: "True beauty" Steve B. wrote... Hunting/gathering however >has been around 2,000,000+ years and has shaped our genotype/phenotype. Bryan asks: Hi Steve, well, since gathering has been around for *at least* as long as hunting, how come we don't see any "middle class white americans" going out into the woods to collect herbs and other non-animal foods? I don't expect you to go into a lengthy explanation, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. If you hunt because it's in your "historical genetics," then why don't you also "gather"? Or do you? Bissell here: Actually this is a bigger quetion than you think. I use the term "hunter/gatherer" as one term, not seperate. And, although I admit it's a bit obtuse, while there may, indeed likely is *not*, any gene or such for hunting, the fact that we are hunter/gatherers has shaped our entire genotype. That is my point, and you are very correct, if I'm going to justify hunting on this basis, it directly implies gathering as well. I do that as well, in fact I hope to gathering some asperagus and morel mushrooms shortly. Bissell went on: Lions don't "need" to kill, we can put them all in zoos and feed >them vegetable protein and they'll do fine, and we can go on Sundays and >laugh at them and take their pictures and buy cotton candy for the kids and >feel very smug that we've "saved" the species. What crap! Bryan responds: I don't think this is a solid analogy at all. The lion has no choice of whether or not it's taken into captivity and fed vegetable protien. We have a choice of whether or not we "kill for sport." Bissell here: Wasn't making an analogy, I was responding to the issue of "need to hunt." And, to a lesser extent, "enjoy hunting." I'm never sure what to say about this issue of choice. A lot of people seem to put a great deal of importance on it, but when it comes to environmental issues, it never has impressed me. We can "choose" to continue the present rate of environmental degradation, but only in the short term. In the long run, there is no free lunch, and we'll pay for our "choice." From an evolutionary point of view, most species make bad "choices" sooner or later and become extinct, or at least a majority of them do. I know you mean rational choice, but I hope you see what I mean. In the long run, acting in a responsible manner is not a rational choice, it's the only course we can take for survival. Last note: "kill for sport" is a choice and I don't do it. I kill for the same reason I try to act responsibly in all ecological issues, it's the best way to survive in the long run. Steven %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%