| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What is your view on hunting?; Does hunting contribute to conservation? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 20 2014, 03:19 AM (8,750 Views) | |
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 06:52 AM Post #61 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evolution only deals with the way life develops, you can believe in God and evolution but you can't believe in biblical literalism and evolution. A lot of people believe in God and think that he caused the Big Bang and the rest happened by natural processes. All you have to do to believe in God is to believe that he exists. What you're describing is creationism and biblical literalism. Edited by Palaeogirl, Jul 3 2014, 06:53 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Jul 3 2014, 06:56 AM Post #62 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, but the majority of Christian denominations and Christian scientists disagree with you there, Canadianwildlife. "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education" - see here: http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution Also see The Clergy Letter Project: http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/ |
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Jul 3 2014, 06:58 AM Post #63 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now that that ridiculous claim has been refuted, shall we get back to the topic of hunting? |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 06:59 AM Post #64 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, thats true. |
![]() |
|
| vegetarian | Jul 3 2014, 05:22 PM Post #65 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't feed the trolls and the Canadianwildlife
Edited by vegetarian, Jul 3 2014, 05:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ARM0R | Jul 4 2014, 12:22 AM Post #66 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The concept of right and wrong is the result of human intelligence. Intelligence itself doesn´t change the fact your body consists of flesh, blood and bones - it´s nothing but a specialization which helped us survive and get on top of the food chain. You might as well say: - there´s cheetahs and animals because animals aren´t as fast as cheetahs or - there´s blue whales and animals because animals don´t grow as big as blue whales or etc. |
![]() |
|
| Nordred | Jul 4 2014, 01:28 AM Post #67 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All types of hunting are bad and cruel for me... But hunting only for fun and provoking species to extinction only for make happy to patetic people who likes steal lives of inocent animlas... for me is one of thousands of human decadence. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 4 2014, 04:15 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can use that neutral view, but it is not enforceable in real life, it is that simple. I question the honesty of the people who think they can do so. In philosophies, everything is possible, but what conclusions about this should I draw for my life? The benefits another human or another animal brings to me are completely different ones, applying equality would fail. Larger animals are treated differently than insects and that not for supremacy reasons, but for benefit questions. This also would force vegetarianism because I would never eat another human. P.S. I know that talking about benefits sounds plainly selfish, but I just wanted to provide an illustration why equal treating is problematic. Another reason would be communication which leads me to understand the thinking of another human more and therefore (not always intentional) valuing him more. |
![]() |
|
| Imperator | Jul 6 2014, 04:54 AM Post #69 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It depends on where, what you're hunting, how, the scale of the hunting... here's something I posted on another forum about a similar topic. I'm gonna copy/paste it. It's not a spectrum of opinions on the issue of taking large predators out of the population, IMO. Go look up how many of this planet's large predators are threatened, endangered, or dangling right off the brink. It's no secret, no more research need be done, into how much an ecosystem suffers when the large predators at the top of the food chain are removed from the food web. And, due to the loss of the vast majority of this planet's large predators... believe me, they dont need us to take individuals out of the population to keep it in check. We've been hacking away at the numbers for centuries. We dont need to take any more. We need to work to protect the remaining individuals. |
![]() |
|
| Troodon | Jul 6 2014, 09:18 AM Post #70 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bears can also survive on a diet of only plants, but they still prefer to eat meat sometimes. Does that mean bears are evil? No, they just like the taste of meat. Humans are the same. |
![]() |
|
| vegetarian | Aug 4 2014, 12:58 AM Post #71 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wait ... a man is worth more than 1000 animals? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 4 2014, 01:16 AM Post #72 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ss far as it is used to acquire food, hunting is a natural part of human behaviour (and that of many primates actually), essentially there is nothing wrong with it. I think it’s a little arrogant of humans to discuss whether their natural behaviour is still ethical actually, especially when they replace it by something even worse. I don’t see why it is better to eat an animal that has been raised in captivity–which is actually way more problematic imo since it does not give the animal fair chances of survival. The problem hunting poses is that since many animals are endangered it requires control to not cause extinctions, especially since human populations have gotten really big. But that’s a modern problem and not so much a matter of hunting itself (after all, every carnivore hunts, that’s a physiological and ecological necessity, and humans are partially carnivorous). "Hunting" is far too broad to give a catch-it-all statement. As long as it is in moderation and done for a (natural) reason, I think it’s ok. It’s not ok to do it just for fun, sport or trophies, without regard to species survival, or in an active attempt to extinguish a species. |
![]() |
|
| Tyrant | Aug 4 2014, 02:13 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My view on this is simple: If you are a person who goes around and kills abundant prey animals for food/controlling their population/both, you are okay in my book. If you are a person who kills endangered animals so that he or she can get their d ick or c lit hard when they kill a lion from three hundred feet away, and hang its severed head on a wall like a freaking psychopath, you are an ass hole. |
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Aug 4 2014, 03:08 AM Post #74 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think humans go a little far with the whole "population control" justification. We don't need to be controlling any populations, even ones that multiply to a detrimental amount. They'll eventually experience a crash or a new predator will arive. Natural selection did just fine without a sapient helper, and interfering with it seems wrong to me. We sometimes go to great lengths to do what we think will help the biosphere (keep populations of indigenous species low, try to save species which became endangered for reasons aside from humans, cull invasive species, etc), forgetting that natural processes exist that will take care of it itself. This may not be the most beneficial way for us to deal with problems in nature but to me the continued evolution and progression of nature as a collective whole without interference is far far far more important than the progress of a single species.
Edited by Palaeogirl, Aug 4 2014, 03:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Aug 4 2014, 03:25 AM Post #75 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The reason why human population control is sometimes necessary is that humans are the reason why those invasive species exist, or why those natural predators don’t exist. Not all the processes in today’s biosphere are entirely natural, at least given that we consider human intervention non-natural. In some cases extant ecosystems may collapse if humans don’t fix the damage they have done. Edited by theropod, Aug 4 2014, 03:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)








9:48 AM Jul 11