Wow Thieves could you be just a little more arrogant? What he meant was that both of you were getting a wrong veiw on each other's life styles and and FMA JPD wanted to start off witha clean slate and you just go and up to him and basically shove the offer back in his face.

Yes, Sonic, sadly I could be so much more. They say that I have a superiority complex, but what do they know? However, I am open to anyone who can come up with good reasons why hunting is good. It's just that so far, there isn't any. If the only thing s/he can offer me is a truce, then yes, don't mind me shoving it back.


Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.
-Marquis De Sade <----is one sick man. And writes boring literature.

Probably the best argument for hunting is the very fact that it seems to be part of our nature. It's basically a game of hide and seek that's deadly. We play hide and seek since childhood and other games similar to it. Hunting is one expression of this. The theme of seeking to conquer something seems to be quite prevalent in our history and current cuture. It's just that not all lead to something being killed.

There's the sense of the hunt with finding a mate, finding a job, advancing in a job, etc... So, it's a hobby that satisfies what appears to be a natural desire for people. At least with modern hunting, it is agreed that we will hunt animals at appropriate times so as not to overly burden the ecology as well as hunt other people (typically different races or groups).

None of this says that it's ethical unless you think that you must do what is natural to be ethical. I think that hunting is a compromise. It's an outlet that's far more appropriate than going out and hunting people or, while regulated, causing extinction.

So, hunting isn't necessarily a psychologically deviant behavior. It may be the aggregated normal behavior, but in a form that actually kills something.

Note: I haven't properly cited anything here and am just bringing up some concepts to support hunting. My attempt here is to frame the debate as to whether hunting or a form of it is naturally part of being human and that the actual act of hunting is just another form of participating in that nature. I also say that as regulated, it may be deemed a better activity than the activities of a businessman "hunting" investors to screw over

i hunt birds that keep running into my windows..and maybe a rabbit or two..

When I finally move to P.A. I'll hunt Deer and Turkey.But now I just Run over or beat down rabbits or squirrels.

OMG what a man!

You have inappropriately displayed aggressive behavior. You should get that checked out and learn some better cognative/behavioral strategies for managing your aggressive behavior.

Remember kids, inapropriately aggressive behavior is the behavior of spousal abusers and other low lifes in society

Not to mention serial killers start off by torturing and killing animals. Looks like a couple of 'em here are praticing for their roll as the next Jeffery Dahmer.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and say that the real value of hunting is that it thins out the numbers of certain species whose populations have exceeded the amount of food they have access to. A bullet through the brain is much better than having to starve to death as a result of overpopulation.

what, no bacon ?
you do have a good point

Not to mention serial killers start off by torturing and killing animals. Looks like a couple of 'em here are praticing for their roll as the next Jeffery Dahmer.

[/quote]

thats right they TORTURE animals. I do nothing of the sort

Nobody said anything about you personally. I'm talking about others here who beat down rabbits and shoot birds who happen to have the misfortune of flying into their windows.

Read before you speak.

Ok. just sounded like it

who cares anymore. either you shoot or you don't shoot.......

*laughs*

Well, I like to go fishing, but I throw all the fish back, so I'm not sure if that counts. I could never shoot an animal.

No offense but what's the point of fishing if you just throw it back?

Dunno. I think it's just the thrill of pulling your line out of the water and seeing the fish on it. I enjoy it, anyway.

Fishing is enjoyable. Just don't like the sound when you rip the hook out of it's mouth. Ooooohhhh, you're not supposed to do that...

Nah. Save a bullet. The best solution to overpopulation is to stop the creation of vaccines and all life-saving or life-prolonging medications. Maybe the money could go into education and people could actually become enlightened before they end their little lives.

Last I checked, they don't make vaccines for wild animals.

^I was just commenting on human overpopulation.

How morbid

I used to know some people who truly thought this way. What I found shocking was that they would go to the doctor when they were sick. If they believed that the survival of the fittest was supposed to apply to people now also, they should recognize that they aren't fit and just die when they have pneumonia.

Anyway, I usually encountered this on college campuses. Once people hit the business world and leave the ivory towers, their opinions change quite drastically (turns into an egoism viewpoint). No offense to those in college, but the only thing worse than an undergraduate student is a first year grad student I sometimes wish I could hunt down the kids at the college where my wife works . They cross a main street without ever looking both ways. Didn't their parents teach them anything about crossing streets

Now back on topic:

So where is anyone on the good/bad of hunting anyway. Is it a meaningful hobby? Is it ethical or not? Why not? I get the feeling that some feel it's a psychologically inferior hobby or an unenlightened hobby. Is that because it's not necessary? What hobbies are necessary? What enlightenment is necessary and appropriate as a hobby?

Not so morbid really. We are overpopulated, we're there people it's a done deal, do not pass go do not collect $200. There is no sign of slowing down, people still insist on having litters of children and consuming as much as they can in the short time they are here.

As you all know I can go on about this all day long so let me stop while I'm ahead.

Hunting:

I have mixed feelings about hunting. As a meat eater I understand wanting to have fresh meat and not only that fresh meat without a bunch of hormones pumped through it. On the other hand I think it's kind of creepy how some people are so into going out in the woods and shooting a defenseless animal.

So to make a long post short. If you hunt for meat I have no problem. If you hunt to make yourself feel like a man because you shot Bambi with a 12 gage shotgun then you're a pussy. If you want to make yourself feel like a man go hunt a bear with a bowie knife then I might be impressed.

Unfortunately, deer, elk and moose are three of the types of animals that most commonly face overpopulation problems.

If humans wouldn't freak out and shoot every predator that had the misfortune of wandering into an area that humans took over then we wouldn't have that problem.

Easy for you to say. You've never been face to face with an 800-pound grizzly bear.

...I mean, neither have I, but I'm sure it's not pleasant...

From that does it follow that we have a right to hunt? This inherent right to fight and destroy? Sounds pretty.

you have get licnse to kill deer.do you know that ????

Annnnnnnnnnd your point is?

I don't agree with hunting as a hobby because you kill something for pleasure. Think about that: KILLING FOR PLEASURE!!! Doesn't that sound wrong, but then you can't describe hunting as a hobby in any other way. Hunting as a necessity is an entirely different thing though because then you have no choice but to kill.

And about human overpopulation... Think about it. All of the 12 billion or so humans out there are a single species and yet they cover the globe. What other single specie group has accomplished this same feat? Rats? Pigeons (I think pigeons)? Certain types of bacteria? I cannot even think of any other such species! And you say we have too many deer and elk? Can you find the same species of American elk in places like Nepal or Siberia? No but you can find humans there. Scientists even say that the human population is greater than any other large bodied animal. I even think they would say any other mammal out there if only rats didn't exist. I'm not saying humans are like rats and pigeons. I'm just following the logic.

And about us people who think humans are overpopulated going to the doctor when we are sick. You're right Arche, I would go to the doctor if I was sick. And following my logic that would make me selfish. I accept that. But I still wouldn't do something like have three or more kids because I have the right to.

I'm not saying that having three kids is selfish. My mom had three kids and I am happy to have my own life and my two sisters with me. God am I grateful for that! But saying you have the RIGHT to have as many kids as you want...

Good point, but we're only up to 6 billion right now. We still have a way to go. But it won't be long.





You also have to have a license to kill humans. So what is your point?

Once again Thieves is right (I looked it up)... Fine 6 billion humans. It's not 12 billion but that's still a huge number.

Are we then the second most populated species? Besides insects?

No because then you would have to consider things like bacteria which could reproduce exponentially and their numbers could be in the millions in under a day I believe. Then there's insects and rats... I don't know what else.

And viruses if you consider them to be living organisms.

I don't think it follows at all that there's an inherent right to hunt. It's simply saying that there may be a natural tendency for human beings to participate in behaviors that are similar to hunting. So, it's now an issue of ethics as to what actual behaviors this "hunting" tendency are appropriate.

Overpopulation: Being a dominant and diverse species doesn't really say much about the acutal value of that species reproductive habbits (at least not unless that fact in itself causes damage). What does cause damage is what people do within these different parts of the world. Some of what's being discussed is an issue of reproductive desire vs. social responsibility, which is not really an overpopulation issue alone, but rather an issue of general socio-economic management.

For instance, the extended use of natural resources due to a larger population is not due entirely by numbers of people alone, but also by actions/behaviors of those people. As in the US, the consumption of gasoline is a function of number of cars and mileage per individual/family. If the culture had pushed harder for cooperative activities rather than individualistic activities, people may not feel the need to have 1+ cars per family and drive everywhere they go. There may have been more desire to have developed more cooperative transportation methods that can increase the amount of families/individuals served per gallon of gasoline.

Basically there's a whole lot more to the issue than just the very fact that people are everywhere. You need to think more about the total socio-economic structure of the communities and concepts of government interaction. Current methods in the US typically give money to the individuals for purposes of meeting social needs. This is usually due to the idea that people should be responsible for their own destiny.

I think it's the lifestyle of us humans coupled with our overpopulation that leads to our negative presence on this planet. You're right Arche that's not only our overpopulation, but a few hundred humans living extravagantly won't cause that much damage if they were the only humans in the entire planet. But multiply those few hundred by twenty million then you have a situation leading to global disaster in a few centuries.

Lucky I won't be around when it happens.

But remember that the majority of the population of the world lives in relative poverty without even using the natural resources of the world. It's a smaller percentage of people that use most of the worlds natural resources. There are billions of people who don't even have cars to pollute the world and deplete oil resources in the world.

You got a point there Arche.

But still, there is no doubt that humans are overpopulated and the biological effects of overpopulation always lead to a burden on the environment.

My whacky MMW teacher once told me about a rabbit problem in Australia. Some time ago rabbits were imported there from Europe or accidentally brought there, whatever. The rabbits liked it there in Australia then their population grew until the rabbits were a burden on Australia's environment. I think he even said the fields would be covered with rabbits but I'm not sure if it got that far. I'm working on memory here!

Anyway, I think farmers were complaining that the rabbits were eating their crops, so the government decided to take action. I think they legalized the use of a pesticide that killed 99% of the rabbits until the rabbits became immune to the pesticide generations of rabbits later then they used a new pesticide... And I don't know how the story ends... But here I make my point. Rabbits are not known for being extravagant animals. They eat what they need right? But it was their overpopulation that burden the Australian environment and forced the government into action.

And here we have humans who are also overpopulated. Maybe only a small percentage of humans are extravagant, so what? The planet is like Australia and the rabbits are like humans.

This is getting kind of depressing...

The smaller percentage are essentially living off those in poverty.

Remember, a lot of people in third world countries who do reproduce lose a large percentage of their kids. The surviving rate is depressingly low, so it evens out in the end. The part of the problem is not because we are reproducing in such a high rate, it's also becuase we've stopping dying. Kudos to technology and medicine, but do we really have the natual resources to continue?

It's technically a fallacy to think that nature is self-balancing. We don't know whether the world and all creatures on it will regulate themselves. I believe that we ascribe this sense to the world in part because of the libertarian philosophy and desire for natural competition to be an equilibrium.

We don't know what the world would look like without human technology. It may or may not be self-balancing. In some respects, it's inevitable that one or more species would "evolve" to dominate and potentially destroy the world.

I also say that it's not self-evident that the human race is over populated. I think a definition of overpopulation needs to occur. What you seem to want to say is that human behavior causes problems. Behavior is different than simply existing.

I don't hunt. It's strictly against my principles. It's not only disgusting but inhuman.

I woulden't use the word inhuman to describe it.

It's in everyone's nature to want to live forever. Even animals want to extend their lives as long as possible. We have the capacity, but if any other species had the technology, it would do it also. Create an economic system that requires proper distribution of wealth while respecting the innate nature of those born in the world. It's quite difficult.

Anyway, this is turning into some existential angst of the highly educated elite that usually goes away once they get jobs and buy a house

And Arche is speaking from experience?

(This thread's also consuming my brain energy when I should be using that energy to write my stinkin' MMW research paper. Oh how I love procrastination!!!)

Don't we all.

I don't own a house, but I've seen it many times over and it's true that my views have changed as I've gained an appreciation for the complexity of the issues discussed. First year grad students were the worst as they would often spew out their professor's ramblings on the subject without realizing what they meant. Anyway, these issues are like ethical issues in that in theory there are many appealing options, but when you experience it yourself, it's not so much fun.

I now have a daughter that I am willing to fight as hard as I need to to keep alive and allow her to succeed. I will not sit back and watch her die if she gets a disease, but rather fight as hard as I can to allow her to get treatment and survive. Multiply this irrational selfishness for every family (and almost all human beings) and you have the root of your problems. I've personally been with people who have had severe familial loss.

Anyway, the point is that it's naive to just complain about the fact that people are everywhere without acknowledging the nature of those people. There's a reason why people live longer and why people like to exist in many places. I agree that there are many problems of excessive procreation, but I'm not sure what the solution really is (my theology gives me some help as it doesn't require people to live in harmony and justice, but I'm not going to get into that).

Many people are born without the ability to even cope with existing in the world. Others can cope, but have not capacity to understand the suffering of others. It may be nice to just have all those who "leech" off society die, but it isn't that easy when it's your child. This is the problem of democracy as you have to get too many people to "buy into" your system. Perhaps when one of us becomes World Dictator, the problems will be solved

arche, you should write your own personal manifest on dictatorship

ontopic: I don't hunt! I like animals too much to hunt anything. Except for flies, ants, spiders,... that get into my house... I don't think that's a threath to the ecosystem?

Hmm. And I hunt bishies, but that's another story

[quote=DarkWater Alchemist,May 23 2005, 02:36 PM]

ontopic: I don't hunt!


yah, this has gone off topic.

@Arche: I'm not saying that people should die... That's just too cruel! I'm aware of the fact that humans are overpopulated and that may have a detrimental effect on the planet, but that's all. I'm not willing to suggest any ways to fix that "problem" or help implement any "solutions" that have been suggested if those "solutions" involve lessening the quality of life of other people or ending that life. I just want people to be aware that there is a limit to how many humans can exist on this planet at the same time. Then if people are aware then maybe a valid solution can be found, like making Mars like Earth and moving people there. Who knows.

Raise your daughter well, let her live as good a life as possible, because it is her right to live a long and happy life just as it is the right of every other person out there. It's not their fault that they are alive right? And is being alive ever a bad thing?

I brought up the issue because of the idea that people are living longer was suggested as causing an instability in the overall systems. Plus I disagree that the world is simply overpopulated. I'm arguing that there's a more comprehensive issue involved especially one that requires economic/social analysis and possibly new prescriptions.