Common sense to stop meat consumption also has not worked sufficiently until now. Any ideas for a better strategy? Or just plunge forward into an inhabitable planet, discarding any responsibility, mistreating animals as we go?
There’s no arguing a moron who keeps pretending it’s black and white. I’ll prove to you just how asinine your view is: my brother is a hunter. They cull roe deer to keep the population in check, since humans have been the apex predator in these parts for thousands of years.
If they didn’t cull them, the population would destroy the entire ecological system, which would lead to all the deer dying, eventually. Not to mention increased deer accidents on roads, killing more people.
So while you like to pretend that death is horrible and to be avoided at all costs if you can, but then end up advocating practices which would lead to suffering and death, just indirectly.
Ie if you’re put into a trolley problem, you’re the type to just stand there without pulling the lever which would save several life at the cost of one, because “murdering is wrong and I’d bw actively killing the other person myself”. Meaning that you put your own ideas and the sense of personality you have above the lives of others. Not just better as ideas, but you’d actually stand there watching the trolley roll over people you could’ve saved, but chose not to, so that you can just blame others.
And you talk of empathy, rofl. Maybe start by trying to understand your own thoughts/views.
Oh and eating the resulting meat from the culling is fucking delicious AND moral.
What would you do with sheep amd cows btw? They require people. Sheep have to be shorn. If you don’t shear your sheep, that’s tantamount to animal abuse. So we end up getting wool, but you don’t think it’s moral to use that. Why?
So if you think we can’t keep sheep or cows anymore, and they can’t be released into the wild because they are domesticated species. So then stop letting them breed at all, meaning that in a generation, they’d be completely gone.
So you end up advocating for genocide of entire species with this black and white view you have.
You know all the produce you eat is protected from pests and other animals? Your avocado isn’t “cruelty-free” dude, and eating avocados when they’re not even grown on the same continent, have them flown to you? But that’s moral again, because you don’t have to personally think about death you’re indirectly causing.
Well Mr. Knowitall, let me help you in you nuanced world view that you’re so well known for. Hunting isn’t the main source of meat consumption worldwide, cattle is. Together with humans, this adds up to about 95-97% of all terrestrial mammal biomass, depending on what research result you care to follow. Your brother is making life more miserable for the remaining percentage who have a tough time holding on as it is. Keeping the population in check is just an excuse that hunters use to justify their love for killing off animals. Often it takes a second or third shot for the final kill, letting the animal suffer in the mean time.
Also, predation isn’t the main driver for a population size, the amount of available food is. Although natural predators do help in keeping the ecosystem healthy, which indirectly leads to more stable populations. People can’t do that really, we’re only suitable for extermination, as we’ve proven time and time again. You speak of thousands of years as if that means anything in nature, where ecosystems have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Besides, human population density is only something of the last two centuries.
No need to remind me of my shortcomings, I’m well aware of them. But you do know that meat consumption requires more plants and associated animal harm than a vegan diet, right?
When we stop breeding farm animals now they will be gone in about 20 years time, or sooner when bloodthirsty types like yourself will have a go at them. Their place will then be taken by wild animals, in more abundant nature because way less area is required for our plant-based food production.
Anyway, eating meat is a choice, which does not benefit the animals being eaten. It is only for human pleasure. And for humans it’s not even necessary to eat meat, as we’re omnivores. You can still have tasty meals without meat, believe me.
But hey, I’m done with this discussion, you’ll probably never agree to any point I make. Take care, perhaps you have some vegetarians or vegans nearby that you might talk to, so you can start to live more sustainably, together with the rest of the 8 billion we number.
PS: calling me a moron does prove my point of you lacking empathy. Please do better than that.
worldwide, cattle is. Together with humans, this adds up to about 95
So?
We’re not talking about what is the most consumed meat. Why would you being that up? Oh right, because you think there aren’t people who avoid industrially farmed meat, but aren’t actually vegan?
Your brother is making life more miserable for the remaining percentage who have a tough time holding on as
Lol whatever you’re smoking, I’d like some. You’re saying that my brother hunting deer is making your life more challenging? Honestly, are you on crack? Or did you just get so flustered by the answer?
Keeping the population in check is just an excuse that hunters use to justify their love for killing off animals.
I call you a moron, because you write things like that. You’re just plain wrong, and the worst part is that you know it, yet you keep trying to pretend like you don’t.
Often it takes a second or third shot for the final kill, letting the animal suffer in the mean time.
Shot many deer, have you? Rofl. First off, we started shooting when we were 12, and my brother never stopped. Going on 4-5 decades now for him. They always kill with the first shot, because it’s genuinely not that hard to hit the chest of a deer from 50-150 meters. Much easier than the target size on the test, for that exact purpose.
Because you don’t get a second shot at a deer, silly. Once the first one goes off, you won’t even have time to reload before they’re scattered off.
wyaah it’s jus an excuse wyaaaaah
Like I said, if no-one manages the deer, they will destroy the whole ecology.
Important habitats for many bird species ‘are in imminent danger of collapse,’ one expert warn
See what happens when you don’t manage them? And that’s in the US where you’ve got room for days. We’re talking about towns in Europe. So it’s not like it’s Yellowstone and you can just release wolves into the system, because they haven’t been around these parts for thousands of years. One vegan actually suggested that it’d somehow be better to actually do that. So he didn’t even care about killing the deer, he just wanted the deer to not be killed by people. Because we would choose being torn to bits by wolves while we’re still conscious instead of taking a bullet to the heart, right? Oh no, right, no-one would ever choose that, lol.
amount of available food is.
Yeah, because the amount of food available divided by population size equals what a single animal can potentially have. If it’s not enough, then you lower the number you’re dividing by, so that there’ll be more per animal. Because that’s how population control works.
They also feed the deer. It’s not just killing them. Otherwise it would be called “deer slaughter” and not “deer management”.
Deer you don’t have to get felling permits for, it’s so robust. But for elk/moose every hunting club gets a certain amount of felling permits based on the governments calculations for that year. So it’s a national animal managing effort, and it’s worked for us for thousands of years.
Thousands of years does matter, as ecologies can change vastly in a span of decades. For instance, if a place was a luscious wetland 100 years ago, it might not be now. And if you reintroduced beavers to a dessert, what do you think that would do? Fuck all because it’s not theie natural environment. Just like heavily populated towns in Europe are not a natural hunting habitat for a wolf.
Besides, human population density is only something of the last two centuries.
You’re thinking of North America, buddy. I’m talking central Europe. How would you manage the deer? Don’t kill them at all? Let the ecology be ruined for most of the species while there’s increased car crashes and farmers fields are producing jack shit because it’s all eaten by unmanaged wildlife.
But you do know that meat consumption requires more plants and associated animal harm than a vegan diet, right?
No. It doesn’t, unless you mean the type of meat consumption which is comprised of industrially farmed animals.
Me eating local vegetables grown here and getting my protein from hunted animals is way more sustainable and less harming than using global products like some B-vitamin supplements and avocados.
You can still have tasty meals without meat,
Who even implied you can’t? Who would think to put meat in everything? What are you even trying to say? It’s honestly so far from me that I can’t see it. Do you think that because I have meat in my diet, that I don’t have anything else? Your implications don’t even make sense unless you think I’m like an actual physical biological tiger who is managing to write on Lemmy. I’m not an obligate hyper carnivore. Humans are omnivores.
It is only for human pleasure.
See this is why people hate people like you. You’re not only wrong, you’re also preachy about being wrong.
Yoi won’t be able to admit that game meat is moral and that you can’t farm beans around the year when 9 months out of the year there’s minus temperatures outside.
So if I choose not to eat the deer, and instead by avocados and tropical fruits, I’m causing less harm? Never heard of a lil summat called “climate change”? Hmm? Pretty sure it’s causing quite a lot of dmg. But again, it’s so indirect that you don’t feel bad about it and that disconnect is enough for you. You just can’t see cause and effect I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Like I said, you can’t answer even simple questions with your ludicrous black-and-white ideology. You don’t even answer the second example about wool and sheep. So I assume you just realise that your ideology actually is straight up wrong or you’re admitting that you’re for actually genociding entire species. Yeah, run run, I know you’re unable to process any of this or question your views.
Common sense to stop meat consumption also has not worked sufficiently until now. Any ideas for a better strategy? Or just plunge forward into an inhabitable planet, discarding any responsibility, mistreating animals as we go?
Nice strawman.
What’s it like, living in a black and white world?
Literally no idea. You can’t see cause and effect, can you? No sense of empathy neither. Ah well, you’re not alone, unfortunately. For the moment.
Again, black and white.
There’s no arguing a moron who keeps pretending it’s black and white. I’ll prove to you just how asinine your view is: my brother is a hunter. They cull roe deer to keep the population in check, since humans have been the apex predator in these parts for thousands of years.
If they didn’t cull them, the population would destroy the entire ecological system, which would lead to all the deer dying, eventually. Not to mention increased deer accidents on roads, killing more people.
So while you like to pretend that death is horrible and to be avoided at all costs if you can, but then end up advocating practices which would lead to suffering and death, just indirectly.
Ie if you’re put into a trolley problem, you’re the type to just stand there without pulling the lever which would save several life at the cost of one, because “murdering is wrong and I’d bw actively killing the other person myself”. Meaning that you put your own ideas and the sense of personality you have above the lives of others. Not just better as ideas, but you’d actually stand there watching the trolley roll over people you could’ve saved, but chose not to, so that you can just blame others.
And you talk of empathy, rofl. Maybe start by trying to understand your own thoughts/views.
Oh and eating the resulting meat from the culling is fucking delicious AND moral.
What would you do with sheep amd cows btw? They require people. Sheep have to be shorn. If you don’t shear your sheep, that’s tantamount to animal abuse. So we end up getting wool, but you don’t think it’s moral to use that. Why?
So if you think we can’t keep sheep or cows anymore, and they can’t be released into the wild because they are domesticated species. So then stop letting them breed at all, meaning that in a generation, they’d be completely gone.
So you end up advocating for genocide of entire species with this black and white view you have.
You know all the produce you eat is protected from pests and other animals? Your avocado isn’t “cruelty-free” dude, and eating avocados when they’re not even grown on the same continent, have them flown to you? But that’s moral again, because you don’t have to personally think about death you’re indirectly causing.
So yeah
Well Mr. Knowitall, let me help you in you nuanced world view that you’re so well known for. Hunting isn’t the main source of meat consumption worldwide, cattle is. Together with humans, this adds up to about 95-97% of all terrestrial mammal biomass, depending on what research result you care to follow. Your brother is making life more miserable for the remaining percentage who have a tough time holding on as it is. Keeping the population in check is just an excuse that hunters use to justify their love for killing off animals. Often it takes a second or third shot for the final kill, letting the animal suffer in the mean time. Also, predation isn’t the main driver for a population size, the amount of available food is. Although natural predators do help in keeping the ecosystem healthy, which indirectly leads to more stable populations. People can’t do that really, we’re only suitable for extermination, as we’ve proven time and time again. You speak of thousands of years as if that means anything in nature, where ecosystems have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Besides, human population density is only something of the last two centuries.
No need to remind me of my shortcomings, I’m well aware of them. But you do know that meat consumption requires more plants and associated animal harm than a vegan diet, right?
When we stop breeding farm animals now they will be gone in about 20 years time, or sooner when bloodthirsty types like yourself will have a go at them. Their place will then be taken by wild animals, in more abundant nature because way less area is required for our plant-based food production.
Anyway, eating meat is a choice, which does not benefit the animals being eaten. It is only for human pleasure. And for humans it’s not even necessary to eat meat, as we’re omnivores. You can still have tasty meals without meat, believe me.
But hey, I’m done with this discussion, you’ll probably never agree to any point I make. Take care, perhaps you have some vegetarians or vegans nearby that you might talk to, so you can start to live more sustainably, together with the rest of the 8 billion we number.
PS: calling me a moron does prove my point of you lacking empathy. Please do better than that.
So?
We’re not talking about what is the most consumed meat. Why would you being that up? Oh right, because you think there aren’t people who avoid industrially farmed meat, but aren’t actually vegan?
Lol whatever you’re smoking, I’d like some. You’re saying that my brother hunting deer is making your life more challenging? Honestly, are you on crack? Or did you just get so flustered by the answer?
I call you a moron, because you write things like that. You’re just plain wrong, and the worst part is that you know it, yet you keep trying to pretend like you don’t.
Shot many deer, have you? Rofl. First off, we started shooting when we were 12, and my brother never stopped. Going on 4-5 decades now for him. They always kill with the first shot, because it’s genuinely not that hard to hit the chest of a deer from 50-150 meters. Much easier than the target size on the test, for that exact purpose.
Because you don’t get a second shot at a deer, silly. Once the first one goes off, you won’t even have time to reload before they’re scattered off.
Like I said, if no-one manages the deer, they will destroy the whole ecology.
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/surging-deer-populations-are-crisis-eastern-forests
See what happens when you don’t manage them? And that’s in the US where you’ve got room for days. We’re talking about towns in Europe. So it’s not like it’s Yellowstone and you can just release wolves into the system, because they haven’t been around these parts for thousands of years. One vegan actually suggested that it’d somehow be better to actually do that. So he didn’t even care about killing the deer, he just wanted the deer to not be killed by people. Because we would choose being torn to bits by wolves while we’re still conscious instead of taking a bullet to the heart, right? Oh no, right, no-one would ever choose that, lol.
Yeah, because the amount of food available divided by population size equals what a single animal can potentially have. If it’s not enough, then you lower the number you’re dividing by, so that there’ll be more per animal. Because that’s how population control works.
They also feed the deer. It’s not just killing them. Otherwise it would be called “deer slaughter” and not “deer management”.
Deer you don’t have to get felling permits for, it’s so robust. But for elk/moose every hunting club gets a certain amount of felling permits based on the governments calculations for that year. So it’s a national animal managing effort, and it’s worked for us for thousands of years.
Thousands of years does matter, as ecologies can change vastly in a span of decades. For instance, if a place was a luscious wetland 100 years ago, it might not be now. And if you reintroduced beavers to a dessert, what do you think that would do? Fuck all because it’s not theie natural environment. Just like heavily populated towns in Europe are not a natural hunting habitat for a wolf.
You’re thinking of North America, buddy. I’m talking central Europe. How would you manage the deer? Don’t kill them at all? Let the ecology be ruined for most of the species while there’s increased car crashes and farmers fields are producing jack shit because it’s all eaten by unmanaged wildlife.
No. It doesn’t, unless you mean the type of meat consumption which is comprised of industrially farmed animals.
Me eating local vegetables grown here and getting my protein from hunted animals is way more sustainable and less harming than using global products like some B-vitamin supplements and avocados.
Who even implied you can’t? Who would think to put meat in everything? What are you even trying to say? It’s honestly so far from me that I can’t see it. Do you think that because I have meat in my diet, that I don’t have anything else? Your implications don’t even make sense unless you think I’m like an actual physical biological tiger who is managing to write on Lemmy. I’m not an obligate hyper carnivore. Humans are omnivores.
See this is why people hate people like you. You’re not only wrong, you’re also preachy about being wrong.
Yoi won’t be able to admit that game meat is moral and that you can’t farm beans around the year when 9 months out of the year there’s minus temperatures outside.
So if I choose not to eat the deer, and instead by avocados and tropical fruits, I’m causing less harm? Never heard of a lil summat called “climate change”? Hmm? Pretty sure it’s causing quite a lot of dmg. But again, it’s so indirect that you don’t feel bad about it and that disconnect is enough for you. You just can’t see cause and effect I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Like I said, you can’t answer even simple questions with your ludicrous black-and-white ideology. You don’t even answer the second example about wool and sheep. So I assume you just realise that your ideology actually is straight up wrong or you’re admitting that you’re for actually genociding entire species. Yeah, run run, I know you’re unable to process any of this or question your views.