Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanae 
That's very close to what I'm saying. Thank you, hydrohoki. Just to expand upon it a little, I'm saying that death serves a good purpose and that the good for the overall planet outweighs the harm to the individual life lost. In fact, we're all anti-breeding here, so compare it to birth. Birth serves a good purpose in many circumstances, but in overpopulated species, birth does more harm than good.
Wild species don't often have overpopulation problems. Obviously, it's not because they use birth control, it's because the death rate exceeds the birth rate. Nature's way is for many, many living things to die without living out their natural life spans. It's the way nature checks a population. Humans seem to think that the proper way to check a population is to limit the numbers of things that are born instead. My argument here is that while the human way is necessary for many of the species we've tinkered with, we shouldn't think our way is ultimately superior to nature's way. If you believe in natural selection at all, the human way is directly contrary to the betterment of a species. |
I don't want to get into a conversation about the betterment of any species, suffice to say, If I am understanding this paragraph of yours, death of one individual is good because it is the natural way that an overpopulation is checked? The overpopulation is a direct result of our interferance, that to me doesn't then assume we have the right to go out as a predator and pick out of that abundance. Overpopulation aside, meat farming in itself is far from a NATURAL thing.
See I don't see where you are coming from, and this idea of superiority, I don't subscribe to.
Quote:
|
This brings up another thing I don't quite understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of the people on this forum, including some of the vegans believe in human euthanasia. Both humane euthanasia and the occasional humane slaughter of an animal for food is usually the killing of an otherwise healthy animal. Both are a form of checking the populations of those animals (assuming that you're not supporting the meat industry with the choice of the animal you kill for food). Why is it better to kill the animal and then dispose of it (I would say waste its death) than it is to kill the animal and then eat it (I would say honor its death)?
|
HUMAN euthanasia? I don't believe I have ever given ANY beliefs either way on this forum or on any forum for that matter. But what you are suggesting, when are we so in need of food that we must slaghter a healthy animal to sustain our life? We are not, checking populations! Why is consuming an animals dead carcass not wasteful? What is so wasteful about burying and honoring an animal into the earth so that they may become food for the earth itself?
If I honor something , I generally don't eat it. But you know, I am funny like that.