You asserted generalizations. Specifics are not only necessary but crucial considering that they greatly modify the meaning. Regardless, let’s let that one slide.
I’ll agree that my view is idealistic. I happen to be an idealist in many aspects. Despite that fact, I did not suggest to rid ourselves of agriculture and pastoralism. Almost 100% of people would place a higher value on an arbitrary monetary system (e.g., a drop in crop yield) than the environment? I’d like a cite for that one, please. Finally, would you care to elaborate on the misguided nature of my persepective?
Perhaps you should endeavor to undertake the survey. You are the one claiming that nearly all of them agree with you. I would consider that an acceptable citation were the survey statistically sound.
Oh, perhaps you mean it isn’t profitable, rather than practical, eh?
The opposite is true. Bands and tribes are far more stable than industrialized states.
What do you mean by giving humans more leeway than deer?
Although I disagree with the term “humane” when applied toward other animals, I don’t really disagree with you. It is advantageous to us to benefit from the flesh of the animal. It is advantageous to the population of deer that the weak be eliminated through natural selection. Different environment pressures (e.g., lack of food supply versus predators) will result in different adaptations. I simply disagreed with your moral attributions.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am sure there are others who feel similarly. I don’t suggest tearing it all down. I just feel that people have made a choice to live in a particular fashion and they must live with the consequences. I don’t believe that killing animals for living on land that is no more your property than theirs constitutes proper motivation for hunting.
Well! We’re starting to get somewhere.
You were taking my quote out of context. The analogy isn’t between hunting as a whole and paving the earth. You stated that we are simply using our faculties. It is within our power to guns for hunting just as it is to pave the earth. My point is that possessing the faculities does not dictate prudence.
It is the “conventional methods” with which I disagree. I agree on having input from biologists, although I disagree with the societal factors as I indicated before. Your concept of conventional methods is an issue which concerns me. Consider using the following four items to hunt a deer: nuke, rifle, bow and arrow, and knife. Wielding a knife in deer hunting would require so much skill that I doubt any endeavors would be fruitful. Using a nuke would be radically excessive. I think we can agree on those two counts. When using a rifle one can pick off a dear at a several hundred feet. How does the animal get to use it’s senses to defend itself? How does natural selection play a role? If one were to use a bow and arrow those factors become present, thus the species becomes better adapted. Killing the animal is not the issue at hand. Precisely how the animal is killed is.
