Forums → WEPR → Animal Slaughter
| 588 | 143602 |
I my self am a proud veg and im a guy i dont see any thing wrong with that, however my peers constantly put me down for it. I question others about it and some say that animals are kiled to keep the population under control, then shouldnt we do that to humans? are there any other vegetarians on armor? if you are a caravor responding to this please try not to be insultive i get enough from my freinds and family
- 588 Replies
It is their responsibility to keep the population of the "rey" animals at a manageable level, or else they would become overpopulated and would be forced to move into suburban areas to compete for food.This is already happening.
It is not our responsibility to keep the animal population from becomeing over populated. The animals in if their right habitat should control their own population. Thsi is so because there should be around the same amount of preditors and prey. Sometimes there is not enough prey so some of the preditors die do to starvation. So then the prey grows it's population because of the less preditors but then the preditors grow their population back wil the plentiful amount of food. This is a continuous cycle so then the population of animals does not grow unevenly.
But because humans have destroyed the animals population the animals have to back off until there is no more room forest room to live in, so then they have to live in our cities because we have done it to ourselves. The population of animals is not overpopulated. they population of aniamls is decreasing because we are hunting them so much and making lots of species extinct or close to extiction. We are growing to much!
It is not our responsibility to keep the animal population from becomeing over populated. The animals in if their right habitat should control their own population.
Most animals cannot control their own populations and the effects of it's growth on their environment or other animal species. That's why it's actually sometimes necessary to shoot animals to keep the population stable.
Now the question is, do we have to do that? No, we're not bound to keep nature as it is, we could just as well let the populations develop on their own, even if that means that some populations will vanish.
But for us it is important to keep our environment predictbale for a sustainable development. Also, whether we like it or not, we're having an influence on animal populations, be it actively or passively. So it's a kinda self-assigned job to keep order.
Thsi is so because there should be around the same amount of preditors and prey.
True, the equilibrium (predator/prey in biomass is around 1/10 I think) seems to be a reasonable thing, and as you said it can adapt to changes of the other population. There can be whole networks of such trophic inetractions. But with our intervention, even if it is passive (deforestation, building of settlements, division of territories by roads), we influence those interactions and can throw them out of balance. So I think it's not so wrong to try to correct some of our effects.
Also growing and altering the genetics of animals so then they are bigger and can produce more milk or have more meat on them is horrible. It is not the way of life to alter genetics of other animals for our benefit. That is the most cruel thing you could do to animals. Alter there genetics and make them suffer for it.
I think you have to kill animals or the disese would spread and become awful and people would die. Plus God made it for you to be able to eat them.
humans are eatable too. should we now eat us self?
I am an animal lover but it is something that has to happen for the good of people.
if you love animals, would you slaughter and eat a cute bunny after you raised it up?
It is their responsibility to keep the population of the "rey" animals at a manageable level, or else they would become overpopulated and would be forced to move into suburban areas to compete for food. This is already happening.
animals/nature will handle that. unlike the human animals would never overpopulate and even if they do, nature will solve the problem.
animals/nature will handle that. unlike the human animals would never overpopulate and even if they do, nature will solve the problem.
Populations are held to a certain level by one or more factors. If one of these factors isn't around anymore (and this has in some cases been the humans fault), the population will explode; in the best case, reach a new equilibrium or fall back, in the worst, use up all ressources and get endangered.
So yes, population can outgrow their environment, and no, nature won't handle it in all cases, especially not if it happens quickly.
Now, what of invasive species, introduced in a new habitat and spreading explosively due to a lack of predators? Do you think in those cases (most often our fault), we should still do nothing? Such invasive species (can be plant or animals) have been known to be quite aggressive and driving back indigenous species. Should we just watch as an environment gets overrun?
-
I have a question not related to the above. What do you guys think of stray dogs? Should we leave them or try to catch em, and shoot if we can't?
The reason I ask this is because in our forests, stray dogs have become the biggest predators of deer and the like.
Now, what of invasive species, introduced in a new habitat and spreading explosively due to a lack of predators? Do you think in those cases (most often our fault), we should still do nothing? Such invasive species (can be plant or animals) have been known to be quite aggressive and driving back indigenous species. Should we just watch as an environment gets overrun?
well, till they get back to normal we could help them even if we must kill some of them before they could hurt other animalsor humans or themself.
but what would happen if the humans would wipe out humanity? nature can regenerate after some years, but what would happen with the animals?
Deer and other game hunters do a messy job that many people good not do. It is their responsibility to keep the population of the "rey" animals at a manageable level, or else they would become overpopulated and would be forced to move into suburban areas to compete for food.
Well... not really. The main reason deer populations are so big in the first place is because local governments (specifically the fish and game department) creates policies designed to increase their populations. People like to hunt and eat deer, and will pay money to do so. It brings money and jobs to the state.
So, Fish and Game does things like hunt/trap predators of deer, encourage landowners to create winter nesting areas for deer, and limit hunting permits. They also encourage people to hunt bucks, not does, since bucks do almost nothing to determine future population size. One buck can impregnate as many deer as needed, but does can only give birth to so many deer a year.
If hunters were really hunting to keep population sizes in check, they would only does and fawns.
unlike the human animals would never overpopulate and even if they do,
What are you talking about? Animals "overpopulate" all the time. I mean, what does "over"opulate even mean? How do you determine the proper levels of population?
I am an animal lover but it is something that has to happen for the good of people.
It doesn't "have" to happen. I have plenty of vegan friends. They are perfectly healthy. Eating meat is hardly necessary. I see nothing wrong with people eating meat simply because they enjoy how it tastes.
Also growing and altering the genetics of animals so then they are bigger and can produce more milk or have more meat on them is horrible. It is not the way of life to alter genetics of other animals for our benefit. That is the most cruel thing you could do to animals. Alter there genetics and make them suffer for it.
Suffer what? Growing bigger? Living longer?
We have been doing this ever since we found out how. We have done it with every animal we could get our hands on, and the thing is they are now doing amazingly well.
Do you know how many cows there are on Earth? How about just in America? Now guess how many wild cows there are. With human influence, they have become far more widespread, far healthier, and in many cases even have their quality of life raised from what they would have if they where wild.
if you love animals, would you slaughter and eat a cute bunny after you raised it up?
It tastes good and allows more to live?
I have plenty of friends in FFA and 4h that do similar things, except usually with more profitable animals like cows and pigs, and they don't have any problem eating meat.
animals/nature will handle that. unlike the human animals would never overpopulate and even if they do, nature will solve the problem.
Of course they will. And do you know how they solve it? By starving the animals to death. I quite prefer giving them a less painful death and getting some meat out of it.
but what would happen if the humans would wipe out humanity? nature can regenerate after some years, but what would happen with the animals?
Then everything would die. It is difficult to kill a human, extremely difficult to kill a nation, and near impossible to kill the species. An event that could do so would literally kill absolutely everything else, make the land unlivable, and end basically everything. Who the hell cares about the animals after the world ends?
I hope aniaml slaughter decreases it is very curel to animals.
How so?
Do you know how many cows there are on Earth? How about just in America? Now guess how many wild cows there are. With human influence, they have become far more widespread, far healthier, and in many cases even have their quality of life raised from what they would have if they where wild.
Ooooh, I wanted to point this out myself. Because they are useful to us, cows and other similar animals are numerous when compared to, say, elephants, tigers etc. (This is an incomplete argument, granted, and might not be applicable to every animal, but it has basis in truth.)
This entire debate hinges on whether or not animals can feel the 'cruelties' visited upon them. And not just feel, but create long lasting impressions of this pain and associate other elements with it.
As for my two cents, I disagree with wanton destruction of endangered or those threatened with it. For instance, I disagree with hunting animals solely for their fur, considering the many alternatives we have today. I completely agree with hunting as well as breeding animals for food.
i love hunting and as long as it is kept under a centan amount of hunting i think it is a great thing to do.i can see why people do not like to hunt with all the blood and stuff but really it is only animal slaughter if there they are cornered, illegally hunting , or they kill a lot of them all at once
Then everything would die. It is difficult to kill a human, extremely difficult to kill a nation, and near impossible to kill the species. An event that could do so would literally kill absolutely everything else, make the land unlivable, and end basically everything. Who the hell cares about the animals after the world ends?
nature would then regenerate, but would evolution start new? new species, new animals?
In what way would the world end?
A big meteroite that made the dinasouers extinct but did not destroy earth.
Or will the sun explode and destroy every planet in our solar system untimatly destroying everything in our solar system.
I completely agree with hunting as well as breeding animals for food.
No matter how it is done? Or would you still insist on certain standarts of animal keeping?
Anyway we're not the only ones doing so. Hunting is part of life since always, and there are also animals breeding others for food (like ants and lice, though I don't know whether the ants also eat lice from time to time).
The only dimension we've added to the matter is that 'wanton destruction' you mentioned. So should we actually copy our guidelines for ethical treatment of animals from the animal kingdom?
nature would then regenerate, but would evolution start new?
Evolution doesn't suddenly stop. As long as there are populations of living beings around, they will evolve.
In what way would the world end?
What does this have to do with the topic?
What does this have to do with the topic?
Because another person said this:
Who the hell cares about the animals after the world ends?
So I was trying to find out in what way it would end becasue then animals wouldn't be alive!
You must be logged in to post a reply!