Subject:
|
Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:40:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > I would say that the deer were not 'put' on earth, they were born just like
> > us. And thus, there is no 'purpose' as such.
>
> Perhaps not some preordained purpose, but they do fill a role as prey, just
> as humans fill a role as (for instance, with thanks to George Carlin) the
> manufacturers of plastic.
I didn't know that George Carlin was crucial to the plastics industry. ;-)
Absolutely. They are prey to wolves, people, etc. -- and they prey on
vegitation (preferring my juvenile apple trees to all else, so it would seem).
> > Like humans, they have the ability to make whatever purpose they want for
> > their life.
>
> Do you actually believe this? We're talking about deer, right? A deer does
> not make its own purpose, beyond what is programmed into it or, to a more
> limited degree, what it learns.
I believe that your description is exactly accurate for the deer and likewise
for humans. Clearly, humans learn and cogitate on a more sophisticated level
and thus have more choices available than do deer.
> What can it "choose" to do, other than to
> make a few very minor alterations to its behaviors?
It doesn't matter. Whatever choices a deer has available, it has available.
We have more. So what? It can use those choices and options to make whatever
purpose it can conceive of. I don't know to what degree deer are capable of
such thought.
> Can it choose not to be an herbivore?
Clearly not.
> Can it choose a life of abstinence?
The paltry evidence that I have suggests not, but I don't think it would take a
huge leap in mental sophistication for the deer to have that choice.
> Can it choose not to be prey?
I think deer (like everything) choose this as often as possible.
> I don't understand how you feel deer can "make whatever purpose they
> want" or even how you would define what a deer "wants".
I wouldn't define what a deer wants. That isn't within my abilities beyond
fairly gross observation and assumption. (e.g., we can assume deer don't want
to be hungry since they continue to eat)
> > Mostly all they'll do is try to live as long as possible and procreate. That
> > purpose -- being good enough for them -- is good enough for me.
>
> Deer do not "want" either of these things;
Demonstrate that to me.
WRT procreation, I find it hard to believe that the males want that. I suspect
they just want to feel good during copulation, and so they do. And I doubt
that females associate copulation with mothering, but it strikes me as quite
possible that mother deer remember from year to year being a mother fondly (for
lack of a less human word). If they do view it this way, then who are you to
say that they don't want to be a mother?
WRT to longevity, I am comfortable with my stance that they do want it. They
avoid danger, they eat, etc. They may not consider living a long and happy
life with a rocker on the porch and great-grand-fawns all around, but I think
that they want to live rather than die.
> they do them out of hard-wirded genetic programming.
Like humans?
> The notion of
> choice, in anything other than an avoidance or embrace of stimuli, seems to me
> little more than anthropomorphizing animals with a type of programming
> fundamentally (and inescapably) different from that of humans.
I disagree. I think that it is a difference of degree, not kind.
> > Chris (Who doesn't want to be predator or prey -- and believes that can
> > happen.)
>
> Perhaps, but not on this Earth. You're prey to infection by harmful
> bacteria that attack you not because they want to but because they are what
> they are. In addition, given the chance, most large predators would think
> nothing of making a meal of you, not because they want to but because they are
> predators.
All very true. I meant it as more of a philosophical placement, than an
exacting ecological role. I don't want to take what others have worked for and
I don't want my work destroyed. Probably most people would say that fits them
too, but I include more stuff in the concept of 'others' than most. Also, to
preempt any criticism, I understand that I do destroy, for a variety of reasons
-- most notably consumption, the work of other organisms. And in some ways
it is a shame.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
