RE: Hunting

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 14:04:56 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: Experiences with Atkins diet"

    Greg wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 May 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
    >
    >> ### From an economic point of view, hunting is obviously superior to
    >> sterilization - it is cheaper, provides its practitioners with
    >> pleasant experiences, and tasty meats. It is also much more humane
    >> than the alternatives, since death of these non-sentient creatures
    >> at the hands of hunters is quick and relatively painless, in
    >> contrast to the death by starvation or sickness, maximized by the
    >> other methods. If the proponents of feeding (which IMO is indeed a
    >> very, very unwise idea) and sterilization were willing to pay for
    >> them out of their own pockets, and remunerate hunters for loss of a
    >> hobby, all of it would be still acceptable, unfortunately, both the
    >> hunters and anti-hunters usually prefer to approach the issue as an
    >> ideological exercise, with feelings of moral outrage, arrogance,
    >> self-righteousness, and hostility, quite unbecoming of civilized
    >> humans.
    >
    > Hunting is a rather expensive hobby, actually, from what I have
    > heard. Where hunters are hunting, also, land cannot be used by
    > tourists observing wildlife or just hiking and camping out. That is
    > an economic loss in the recreational use of land.

    ### Hunting is much cheaper than sterilization - from the taxpayer's point
    of view, hunting has a negative price, that is, hunters are actually willing
    to pay extra to be able to hunt. If there is a conflict between two
    incompatible uses of land, the rational solution is to offer the uses for
    auction, allowing either hunters or hikers to buy certain land use rights
    for some period of time (of course, the superior solution is to sell
    state-owned land outright, but this is a different story), so that the use
    with the greatest economic and human value (as measured by auction income)
    becomes dominant.

    --------------------------------

    >
    > Also, whereas natural predators (not being heavily armed) pick off the
    > weak and inferior, trophy-hunting hunters pick off the largest and
    > healthiest specimens, a reverse culling that is obviously detrimental
    > to the herds.

    ### What kind of evidence would you like to offer in support of this claim?

    ----------------------------------

    >
    > Sterilization, if offered by volunteer veterinarians, is extremely low
    > cost. Sterilizing agents can even be introduced into food, which is so
    > cheap and effective it has to be done very carefully to avoid
    > eliminating a population altogether. It is also painless since it
    > prevents the problem (animals that will starve) rather than dealing
    > with it after-the-fact (shooting the said animals after they have
    > been born).

    ### Tell me more. How low cost is it? Is it cheaper than the negative price
    of hunting? Will its proponents be willing to outbid (with their own money)
    the hunters? Are you talking about hormonal methods? What is their impact on
    the psychology of the deer?

    Also, death of a sterilized animal of old age, disease, or predation, is
    still more shocking than having its brains shot out, even if starvation were
    not a problem.

    ----------------------------------

    >
    > I don't feel any need to remunerate hunters for loss of "hobby", any
    > more than I would feel the need to remunerate child molestors for
    > depriving them of the ability to molest children.

    ### Ah, here is the true belief at last. Hunting is evil. Hunters are evil.
    They are scum, to be wiped off the earth if possible.

    You understand that this is the archetypal in-group vs. out-group trick that
    manipulators of all kinds use to attack their enemies. You don't feel the
    need to treat others like human beings (i.e. no need for Rawlsian
    reciprocity, no moral symmetry, no empathy) once you manage to put them into
    the same group as child molesters. No limits now, all year hunting season on
    hunters.

    -------------------------------

     What recreational
    > hunters do, killing animals without needing to, is extremely
    > unethical and inhumane, and has no place in a civilized society,
    > which you obviously equate with a recreational hunting society. The
    > suggestion that blowing bloody holes in wild animals can be a
    > "pleasant experience" makes my stomach turn. I am sure, though, that
    > subjectively this is true. Mass murderers of humans also probably
    > experience their romps as "pleasant experiences". If the hunter folks
    > are just after excitement, let them risk their own lives in the
    > woods, not take those of helpless others. If they want to practice
    > targeting, let them choose some inanimate targets. Try paintballing.
    > Hey, hunt other hunters, I would be OK with that. Just get a life...

    ### Now, not being a hunter and never having been one, I don't really know
    if it is pleasant or not. However, this is irrelevant to my ethical
    reasoning, and I come to support hunters because I see it as my ethical
    duty.

    You see, the form of ethical reasoning that you are using, the ethics of
    repugnance ("makes my stomach turn"), the type of thinking exhibited by Leon
    Kass, and by Jeremy Rifkin, is a way of answering questions which has no
    place in the civilized society. If unopposed, it promises bad outcomes to
    all those against whom it is directed, even you, once you find yourself in
    the "repugners" crosshairs.

    In the long term, very strict limits on our freedom to force our likes and
    dislikes on others are indispensable for the civilized society. Giving free
    rein to one's emotions cannot be accepted, and only a material analysis of
    events may form the basis for value-independent decisions. Let me explain:
    Blowing holes in animals does not cause significant suffering (compared to
    their usual experiences), and this is a finding of fact. The corresponding
    decision must be then value-independent, since no fundamental, universal
    societal values are involved - no sentient death and no excessive suffering
    is at stake. If a legal decision is to be value-independent, yet mindful of
    the non-universal values embodied in the wishes of individual members of the
    society, there are a few procedures shown to yield good results in these
    circumstances. One of them is based on private property, and only
    circumscribed in the case of animals by the need to limit suffering.
    Therefore, trapping animals in devices which do not kill instantly may by
    forbidden for universal moral reasons, but killing (nearly) painlessly may
    not be forbidden. Those who wish to kill may do so on their property with
    their own animals. Those who wish to save animals may offer financial
    incentives to stop killing (and of course then they have to deal with the
    suffering of animals their actions cause).

    In the long run, you too will be better off if you restrain your feeling of
    repugnance, and allow morally symmetric interactions to take place without
    the violence against hunters you advocate.

    ---------------------------------

    >
    > The most deleterious effect on wildlife in the US, IMO, is urban
    > sprawl and other human encroachments on wild areas. This is how we
    > lose the big predators, which can lead to the overly big herds, etc.
    > - disruption of traditional ecosystem balances. The problem is caused
    > by humans, so humans should solve it - not by blaming animals,
    > shooting them when they are "in excess" (humans getting to define
    > excess, conveniently enough), etc. If humans try to densely occupy
    > every square inch of this earth, the ecological consequences will be
    > upon us shortly enough, along with the massive aesthetic losses.
    >
    ### I do not see how a rational person could assign "blame" to animals, or
    see their killing as punishment. Deer are shot not out of spite, but as a
    pragmatic action, similar to spraying for mosquitoes, removing weeds, and
    clearing stones from a road. Obviously, humans caused the ecological
    imbalance, and hunting is the economically optimal way of solving the
    problem. Only humans can define "excess" here - deer do not have the
    sentient rights which would allow them to participate in such reasoning.

    If humans decide to halt population growth, consensually, and based on sound
    ethical principles (not some green-ish sentimentalism), well have all the
    beauty we need. And enough deer to shoot, too.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 02 2003 - 11:13:52 MDT