From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:51:07 GMT

In <Brwz6E.36G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca>, by robinson@ac.dal.ca:
>jr> But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
>jr> is orders of magnitude better than starvation, or death by natural 
>jr> predation.  

>It seems blindingly obvious to me that death by starvation or natural
>predators is not the only alternative outcome for a healthy stag
>that's just been shot by the hunter's bow.  

	Which would you prefer for yourself, Russ?  Remember that a
quick and painless (or with little pain) death is strongly preferable
to one filled with pain and suffering.  If you disagree with this, then
I hope you can watch a cancer patient die over a period of five years.  I
don't wish this upon the patient, of course, but if it happend I'd like you
to observe and then apply what you saw to death in general.  I know you
don't think death can be avoided forever.  For myself, I'd rather die
from a hunter's bow than of the cancer that took my father.  I'd much
rather die from the bow than like the poor fellow who died in the accident
I saw on my 14th birthday.  Poor guy died while I was checking vitals, but
he lived for several minutes and was aware of it all.  I know because he
kept trying to talk to me, telling me to stop.  The blood-soaked mucus
he dribbled out made it all the more pitiful.  Ever been hungry, Russ?  I
mean a week without food.  I have (of my own choice).  Given what I
learned, I'd rather the bow than starvation.  Give us your ethics, Russ,
and let's see how they work in the real world I live in.

>Is it better for the healthy stag in the aforementioned scenario to be
>killed by humans at age three than killed by wolves at age 14?  To 
>answer such a question, we'd have to consider all the experiences
>that the stag might have in the interim eleven years.   

	As if it makes any difference, Russ.  Once you're dead, you're
dead.  That's it.  Dead.  Say it with me: "DEAD."  That the stag never
had the opportunity to belch methane with his great-grandson means as
little to me as my being able to emit (note non-gross usage) methane
with my own.  Once you're dead, it makes little difference what the
future might have held.  In fact, it makes no difference.  If you
can possibly tell what the future holds, perhaps you can tell me what
difference it makes in the aforementioned scenario if the stag is
killed by humans at age three, wolves at age 14, or cancer at age 5?
Yes, cancer in wild animals happens, just as it does with us.  I'd
say the human killers would be preferable, but then again I dislike
pain and suffering, no matter how "natural" it is.  Pontificate, Russ.
You do it so well...

>A few months ago I came across a woman, with tears in her eyes who
>was ambling down the sidewalk in slow motion.  When I asked her if I 
>could be of service, she explained that her dog friend had been 
>suffering from cancer and that she had decided to have the animal 
>euthanized after the vet explained that his pain was no longer 
>controllable.  Just a few minutes previously, she had left the
>vet's office, clutching her dead friend's leash and collar tightly
>in her hand.

	I had my ferret euthanized, due to a tumor in her stomach.  I
was full of sorrow, but I know I did the right thing and felt much
better only a few minutes later.  Grieve I did, but not at having
ordered her execution.  That, I felt, was humane.

>I'm sure that most of us would agree that her decision was an 
>ethical one, in view of the fact that it was based on her 
>understanding of the facts and her selfless concern for the dog
>individual's well-being.  If human hunters were to kill an animal 
>that's presently starving or diseased, I'm sure that the two 
>situations would be analogous, but it doesn't make sense 
>for someone to argue that human hunting is a good thing because 
>it might spare a healthy animal from the possibility of some future 
>deprivation.  

	You're missing it again, Russ -- we _know_ the available
food supply, and _know_ the deer population, and we _know_ how
much they eat.  It isn't difficult to determine how many can live
off the land, and thus how many should be killed or removed so that
the majority can live heathily.  A starvation die-off doesn't spare
_any_ healthy animal from deprivation.  Which is worse, 1000 killed
or 50,000 sick, an entire herd weak, and 900 dead from starvation?
(I pulled the numbers for example only, I've no figures to go by
at this terminal, and they aren't incredibly relevant at this point).
As you can see, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one."

>It seems to me that one of the facts of life is that life is, indeed,
>enjoyable despite its terminal hardships.   Surely it wouldn't make
>sense for us to kill a young man in his late teens just because his
>family medical history and lifestyle suggests that he might someday
>succomb to heart disease and cancer.

	On the other hand, I'd prefer a lethal injection, headshot
with a .50, or even motorcycle accident to death by cancer.  If it
was a case of myself living sickly and another (x>100,000) being
sick because I continued to live, I'd probably kill myself to
help them.  No, there's nothing noble about this.  Trust me, I
really dislike pain and suffering, and I'm being selfish in this.

>I would agree that not all animal social structures are the same, but
>this doesn't excuse us from thinking about the social consequences 
>of our dealings with animals, vis-a-vis animals themselves.

	No, but the comparisons should be relevant.  It makes little
sense to compare our two bulls and 500 cows to Mormons (used because
they used to practice polygamy, not as any sort of slam on Mormons or
bulls in general).

>My girlfriend was commenting just the other day that the two dogs 
>that share our household are far more sociable than the human 
>inhabitants.  When someone goes away on a trip, they're the first 
>to grieve, and they're the first to jump for joy when the 
>individual returns home.  Do you think one of these dogs might be 
>deprived in some way if one of his companions (human or dog) were 
>killed in some unexpected way?  

	He might, and it might not matter.  I had a dog who didn't
even recognize me when I returned home after a three-month vacation,
so your example is countered.  But we were talking about death...

>I think you've misrepresented the position of your opponents.  Most
>AR advocates that I know support the concept of euthanasia, but not
>the concept of murder.  There's a difference between putting an animal
>out of his misery, and justifying sport killing because the victim 
>might otherwise, at some undefined point in the future, be subjected
>to pain.

	On the other hand, what if this pain could be guarenteed?  Let's
say your dog gets AIDS, for the sake of example.  There's no cure.  Do you
let him die of pnuemonia, or do you kill him humanely first?

[ rape comparison deleted -- we went over that last fall ]

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals