From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 08:25:44 MDT
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Just curious, how many millions of acres of coca would you imagine would be
> planted in the US?
>
> I'd day, not enough to force even a single deer out of business.
I don't see how, since these coca fields would be in addition (I
suppose) to the ag fields. Plus if all drugs were legalized, there'd be
the marijuana fields, etc. Where would all these acres/hectares come from?
> ### You suggest sterilization not as a policy, but merely as an exercise in
> imagination and rhetoric, never to be the basis of your voting or lobbying?
> Somehow I can hardly believe it.
Yep. In response to the hunters' claim that their hunting (which they
have always done anyway) is the only "rational wildlife management" that
can prevent overpopulation & starvation of wild animals. The existence of
an alternative (which some have implemented, not me, and not officially
that I know of) disproves their point.
> >> ### What kind of evidence would you like to offer in support of this
> >> claim?
> >
> > What evidence would you expect? I have a cousin who is a hunter and
> > I've never heard him exclaim, "Wow, I caught a really scrawny, young,
> > lame one today! Me big hunter!"
>
> ### Hearsay!
So you are telling me all hunters deliberately try to catch the most
inferior animals?
> ### If enough people are really concerned about the welfare of deer and
> truly want to help them by sterilization, you will be able to gather enough
> funds. Of course, it's easier to ask the local congressman to do pay for it
> with other people's money, but I think I might be digressing here.
People don't know what they want. Hunters know they want to hunt, and the
political system is designed to match their intentions. Animal lovers are
too disorganized, politically naive or unconnected, have no political
system (machine) in place. What people *want*, and how many of them want
it, is of only partial relevance to what happens. People don't want smog
in their cities, either, but there it is.
> ### Me an agitator for the Endloesung of Earth's living problems? That
> couldn't be true!
There are the super villains - Gnostic types dedicated to the
extermination of everything in order to end all suffering - all human
life, animal life, and even inanimate matter. :)
> ### If you were to say that hunters actually are *not* like child molesters,
> I could retract my assessment of your beliefs.
I don't have to retract something I didn't say :) I said *remunerating*
hunters for not being able to hunt would be like remunerating child
molesters for not being able to molest children. I suspect hunters would
be rather above being bribed anyway - they want to hunt - no amount of
money would satisfy them to give up hunting. And there is an analogy to
that for child molesters, too. And to my position - I would not accept any
payment from hunters to compensate for their devastation, because that
would be utterly irrelevant.
> ### As in: "We just voted that you can't hunt, here or everywhere. It makes
> us quite happy to vote, you know."
>
> I noted before that your ethics is incommensurate with mine, but I think the
> difference lies not in the superficialities of money but in the value of
> freedom - this is the bedrock of my ethics, but not yours. It leads to
> happiness, too.
IMHO freedom is a means to an end, not an end. Freedom not exercised well,
thoughtfully, beneficially, with other goals in mind, is just a blank
check of power. It can be abused, lost, sold to the highest bidder.
> ### Blowing a hole in the brain isn't painful. Being shot in the chest with
> a large caliber hunting rifle for a human is hardly painful at all in the
> beginning (there are descriptions of survivors), so animals couldn't feel
> much pain, either. Much less than the pain of being eaten alive by a
> wildcat.
Any pain caused by humans is pain the humans are responsible for, and if
unnecessary, it is their fault, and its meaning and significance is
well known to humans, and cannot be blamed on instinctive nature
(such as wildcats). I would remind you that not all hunted animals are
killed with a single shot to the head (pace hunters' intentions), or
killed in a single instant. It's my understanding that many hunters
actually enjoy trailing the wounded animal. Also, it is illogical to argue
that any wild animal not shot by a hunter would immediately then otherwise
be eaten alive by a wildcat. There is such a thing as living a longer
life, having more enjoyable experiences, that are not insignificant to the
animal and should not be insignificant to us.
> ### You can have fun doing the rational thing, too.
>
> Only Puritans though anything that feels good must be bad.
Oh no, I am sure feeding and sterilizing wild animals is quite fun. And I
bet it also makes a person feel good inside, proud of themselves and
their compassionate relationship with the animals.
> ### But deer are fungible automatons, not irreplaceable individuals or
> sentimentally important works of art.
Here is the proof of the incommensurability of our philosophies. This
statement is the exact opposite of what I believe.
> ### The developers have only as much money as their clients are willing to
> pay. If clients become rich enough to dream about unspoiled nature, they
> will build it, too. It's all a question of demand and supply. If human
> happiness demands the last inch to be built up, or every inch to be turned
> into a forest, the market will provide. Really.
"The market will provide" has almost a religious ring to it. The market
will not provide me or anyone else Tasmanian wolves or woolly mammoths, no
matter how much I would be willing to pay for them (and believe me, there
are people in this world who would and could pay vast fortunes for
them).
Some stupid mistakes are irrevocable. And wiser folks cannot always be
everywhere and rich enough to buy off fools.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 06 2003 - 08:36:30 MDT