391
Amends (2018-05-23) (discuss.online)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/pbf@discuss.online
292 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

๐Ÿ”—

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

So what is your solution for when a species is getting over populated and destroying an ecosystem? Is it not more ethical to kill some and preserve the ecosystem for the rest of the wildlife in that area?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not enough or no natural predators usually.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And why did that happen?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    Could be any number of valid reasons that have nothing to do with eating meat. For example, human safety. Unless you're arguing for a dismantling of civilization due to its natural encroachment, I don't know where you're going with this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I didn't ask how these situations could have been prevented. That ship has sailed. I wish we hadn't caused it to be this way, but here we are. Now the two options are to kill them back down to sustainable numbers, or allow them to destroy the ecosystem thereby condemning themselves and a host of other animals as well.

    I'm not a hunter myself, and I personally probably don't have what it takes to kill an animal even in these circumstances, but I also can't provide a better solution. So I'm not going to shame people for hunting when it both provides food for them as well as brings balance to an ecosystem.

    I will, however, shame them if it is done purely for sport and against non problem animals. I hope those folks that go to Africa and hunt elephants and lions and shit get eaten. Slowly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    How about a third option:

    Reintroduce predators that were native to that ecosystem.

    If the rampant species has flourished for some time without predators, then they might be less agile in avoiding them, leading to better outcomes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's great for people that don't live near these places. Most aren't going to volunteer to have wolves or cougars or whatever reintroduced into their local forest and risk them to run wild through the neighborhood mauling children and pets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    run wild through the neighborhood

    Bears do this in many parts of North America and in general northern latitudes, and people live in harmony.

    You're appealing to fear, and the slippery slope here is eradication of all apex predators. That has done absolutely nothing for environmental conservation in the cases where it has happened.

    Apex predators can be reintroduced to habitats without direct impacts to humans. Of course there are indirect impacts, like livestock culling, but those pale in comparison to the moral ill of endangering entire species. Imagine if humans were hunted by a more sophisticated apex predators. We'd want to keep our place in the ecosystem.

    Typical anthropocentrism at work

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    slippery slope is literally fallacious reasoning

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    When does the reasoning stop?

    When does this notion that we must eradicate apex predators from environments to protect our welfare and wealth come to a close?

    While there is no limit to our empathy, there is also no limit to human ego and enslavement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I feel like you are assuming I'm against you. We agree that this is the correct thing to do. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't going to happen. We didn't get here by accident. People are garbage. Why would we suddenly behave any differently? People only care about what affects them in the moment.

    Imagine telling a random person they have two choices.

    Choice number one is business as usual, people hunt down the overpopulated animals, they get food out of the deal and the ecosystem is preserved.

    Choice number two is bringing in some wolves who will achieve the same end goal, except now people don't get the food and you gotta be extra careful being outside at night if you live anywhere near the tree line (and potentially anywhere in town depending on the size).

    This is also assuming that it works out as we hope and the wolves don't become overpopulated themselves due to easy hunting and living conditions because of all the oblivious prey that don't realize they are even on the menu.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent