From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:33:45 GMT

Tim Rigg writes:

>In article <BrvEC1.4wL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>   Again, you seem to be treating the "herd" as though it's a 
>   thinking/feeling person while ignoring the thoughts and feelings 
>   of individual members.  Is it tough for you to comprehend that 
>   "herds" have no thoughts and feelings whatsoever, apart from 
>   those of their individual members?  
>
>Why do you have this fixation with personification?  I am saying that
>the herd is worthy of consideration, as is the ecosystem as a whole.
>I respect the individual members of the species but they are not as
>important as the whole.

It seems to me that these AR types are fixated on personification
simply because it serves their purpose.  It's the only way they can
justify the irrational notion of wanting to do away with hunting,
since if people step back and look at the big picture, even a 2-yr-old
child could figure out the tremendous good that hunters do for animals
and the environment.  Which begs the question, if we assume that they
aren't just a bunch of misguided souls that watched Bambi or Bugs
Bunny too many times and started to Believe, then what indeed is their
motivation in trying to stop hunting?  Do they own stock in the meat
industry?  Or, if they truly want that phased out as well, do they own
stock in the veggie-farming industry?  I can't figure it out.  All I
know is that it sure as hell isn't to help animals, or cut down on
their suffering in the wild, or allow *more* of them to live lives that
are "meaningful in some way to them" (to use a Russell-like phrase for
it).


>   Or perhaps you're saying that your actions are good for the "herd",
>   in the same way that a mechanic might say that oil is good for a 
>   car engine or a painter might say that coatings are good for 
>   steel fixtures.  If that's the case, your motives on behalf of 
>   the herd aren't altruistic at all, but purely selfish.  After 
>   all, car engines and steel fixtures don't really give a damn 
>   whether they fall apart or no.  
>
>Selfish is not the right word.  I care whether the herd and ecosystem
>will be around and healthy for the future.  Perhaps the ecosystem
>doesn't care if we totally destroy it and replace it with pavement.

"Selfless" is, I believe, the correct term. ;-)  Helping the
environment to me is just like giving blood.  It helps others.  The
only thing remotely "selfish" about either is the nasty side-effect of
that nice warm feeling it gives you.


[stuff deleted]
>   Vis-a-vis niches in the ecosystem, nature is everchanging.  Why do you 
>   think you're qualified to decide that one particular man-made 
>   configuration is preferable to another?
>
>My goal is to keep things as close to natural as possible.  My
>definition of "natural" is the state that would exist without any
>pressures from man. Given the enormous influences of humans, this is
>very hard to obtain.  For example, we could kick everyone out of
>Wisconsin, stop all logging, maybe reintroduce a few more wolves and
>let things work out for themselves.  However, I don't think such a
>plan has much hope.  As an alternative, hunting is a viable suppliment
>to other natural predation.

As ever, our friends across the fence don't seem to understand that
the problem already exists.  Modern sport hunters don't just go out
and randomly wipe out a species or destroy any ecosystems.  Perhaps
that occured in the past, but hey, so did American Slavery, and we've
brightened up a little and moved on since both.  Hunters are not the
ones clearing forests and bulldozing swamps (sorry, bad example since
Icky Things live there ;-).  Mankind is.  Hunters are not the
*problem*, we are merely a good part of the *solution*.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--