Lisa McLeod wrote
At 05:29 PM 07/10/99 +1200, you wrote:
>Chris Perley here
>
>How does it follow that someone not hunting for food is showing "a profound
>lack of respect and care for the dignity of life"? Depends on the
>circumstances surely. It is quite possible that the death of one thing may
>be a very ecologically sensitive thing to do. This is, of course, premised
>on a view that humans are part of a greater ecosystem - and that death is a
>necessary process for life. Ultimately, if you choose to value one element
>of the ecology by saving it, or by encouraging its propagation (perhaps
>because it has big eyes and is often nicknamed Bambi), you are sentencing
>another ecological entity to death. The charismatic megafauna and
megaflora
>win - the smelly, invisible, large teethed, smelly, prickly, flora & fauna
>lose. Is this showing a more "profound lack of respect and care for the
>dignity of life"? I think not.
Killing to restore an ecological balance is unfortunate, but sometimes
perhaps necessary. But don't forget one of the primary reasons for this
imbalance. Careless human actions. We should address the source of the
problem and begin to reconceptualization our place in the natural world.
CP here
Agreed. - a reconceptualisation that has its base in an understanding of
ecology and our place within it, not as an observer and exploiter from
without. Killing is not necessarily evil in that context. However,
sometimes saving an individual might be. Is this counter-intuitive?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|