I spent the weekend in the mountains and it brought to mind the conversations that took place before we began watching the grizzly man video. It seemed to me that most people in the class felt the killing of animals was wrong in principal and some arguments were raised to support that. However I see some problems with the arguments. My first major problem was that no one seemed to think they were responsible in anyway for the death of wild animals since they were not personally killing the animals. The point I want to make is that by supporting a society that constantly is building and expanding you are in a way supporting the death of wild animals. Anytime more land is cleared in order to build homes, malls, schools, etc the animals that inhabited that land are forced into concentrated areas. The result of this is an animal population on land that cannot support them all which causes them to die of starvation. In order to help ease this problem hunting is necessary. I'd rather shoot a deer for example so it dies quick and use it for food instead of it starving to death in the woods. This forcing on deer and other wild animals into concentrated areas is also the reason so many deer are hit by cars. If it wasn't for hunting the number of people hitting deer would drastically raise.
Another point I would like to talk about involves an argument raised about livestock. The argument was raised that we only obtain 10% of the nutrients from vegetables and grains eaten by livestock when we eat the livestock. This was looked at as a 90% loss, I look at it as a 10% gain. In order to get the full 100% of nutrients that food could no longer be given to the livestock. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc are domestic animals and would not survive in the wild. So either we would have to accept the dieing off of all livestock which would contradict the whole argument of not killing animals or continue to feed them but not use them as a food source. This would cause a 100% loss of those nutrients instead of 90%. With the amount of people that need to be feed in this world I look at 10% as being better than nothing.
I guess the main point I'm trying to raise is before you can say people need to stop killing and eating animals you need to look at the effects that would cause.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with a lot of what you said here. It's almost as if our class periods discuss why it is so wrong to kill animals, yet all of us impact both animals and the environment everyday without realizing the consequences. The way I see it, torturing animals (even in the process of preparing them for food) is wrong. Killing animals is a completely different story- I believe that we are all part of the food chain- humans included. Maybe the things above us on the food chain are disease, homicide, natural disasters, etc. If we are to attain food, animals or plants have to be killed. Just because one has a pulse doesn't mean it's any more wrong or inhumane than cutting down a tree.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be wrong with opposing the building of malls that encroach upon areas where wildlife live AND opposing hunting?
ReplyDeletePerhaps more moderately, since an abrupt change in behavior could prove disastrous, we could ask, what would be wrong with simply promoting LESS mall construction and hunting?
That is very true. I do feel that some of the arguments posed have had a bias in regards to the cons of killing animals, as opposed to a more balanced stance. As someone who would like to see meat consumption reduced for the sake of nature, I feel that other alternatives could be used that would gain support from supporters and non-supporters of animal welfare efforts. We need to take more of a personal responsibility for our direct and indirect efforts that are depleting our domestic and wildlife populations. Even if we did not slaughter the cow that we are eating for brekfast, we still contributed to its death by raising the demand for beef. Even though individual actions does not appear to make a difference, the impact and influence you can have on something can allow you to soar to great heights with whatever mission you take on. We have to stop pointing the blame and realize that we are as responsible as the next person.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that often times we as humans live against animals rather than with them. I wish there was some happy medium where we could all live moderately and be self-sustained so not to hurt animals in any way other than killing for food. Is that what you are suggesting or are you suggesting that people should hunt for sport as well? And do you believe that we should use the buildings that have already been built rather than build new ones that may be 'greener' that the ones we have already?
ReplyDeleteFor awhile now I have been a struggling vegetarian. My love for meat combined with my lack of self control often lead to a very loose interpretation of vegetarianism. However, it’s not the actual killing of the animals that I find so disturbing to alter my diet. I don’t have a problem with us partaking in the natural food chain, but it’s the way we partake in it that I have a problem with. It’s the way the meat industry treats the animals that are going to be slaughtered. Caging baby cows so that they cannot move in order to produce a more tender meat is something that I cannot simply overlook. When I visited a free range farm and was served chicken, I truly had no problem eating it because I knew that the chicken was treated humanely for the time it was alive.
ReplyDelete