From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:54:49 GMT

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.  

In <Brwz6E.36G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It seems blindingly obvious to me that death by starvation or natural
rl> predators is not the only alternative outcome for a healthy stag
rl> that's just been shot by the hunter's bow.  

From article <viking.712036267@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Which would you prefer for yourself, Russ?  Remember that a quick 
ds> and painless (or with little pain) death is strongly preferable 
ds> to one filled with pain and suffering.  If you disagree with 
ds> this, then I hope you can watch a cancer patient die over a 
ds> period of five years.  

Is it reasonable to kill a healthy individual because he or she 
might die of starvation or disease at some point in the distant 
future?  Do you have a crystal ball that allows you to foresee 
every animal's last days on earth?  And do you have blinders 
that prevent you from seeing all the pleasant days that might 
lie in between?  

ds> I don't wish this upon the patient, of course, but if it happend 
ds> I'd like you to observe and then apply what you saw to death in 
ds> general.  I know you don't think death can be avoided forever.  
ds> For myself, I'd rather die from a hunter's bow than of the cancer 
ds> that took my father.  

You're not alone.  Cancer, stroke, and heart disease are commonplace
in our society.  Do you think we'd be acting ethically if we were to
kill healthy individuals because of the prospect of some future
disease?

ds> I'd much rather die from the bow than like the poor fellow who 
ds> died in the accident I saw on my 14th birthday.  Poor guy died 
ds> while I was checking vitals, but he lived for several minutes and 
ds> was aware of it all.  I know because he kept trying to talk to 
ds> me, telling me to stop.  The blood-soaked mucus he dribbled out 
ds> made it all the more pitiful.  Ever been hungry, Russ?  I mean a 
ds> week without food.  I have (of my own choice).  Given what I 
ds> learned, I'd rather the bow than starvation.  Give us your 
ds> ethics, Russ, and let's see how they work in the real world I 
ds> live in.  

Do you think the needs of the accident victim you described would 
have been better served if he had been killed previously by a 
hunter's bullet?  For those of us who can't predict who will and 
will not die in car accidents, would your judgment in this matter
serve any practical benefit?  

BTW, I've gone without food for stretches, in excess of a week, 
on several occasions.  The experiences weren't unpleasant at 
all, IMHO, nor did they interfere with my employment as a construction
worker.

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

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

Which of us is truly guilty of pontificating?  The one who 
pretends to have the wisdom to impose death sentences on healthy 
individuals when they suit his own selfish purposes?  Or the one 
who counsels against such arrogance?  

Since you cannot tell what the future might hold, you must surely
agree that death by predators or starvation is not the only avenue
that the future might hold for a three year old stag in the prime
of life.

If someone were to kill you, BTW, would they be depriving you in 
any way in view of the fact that dead is dead, as you say?  Would
your murder be ethically acceptable?

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

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

Would it have been equally humane to shoot a healthy ferret because
of the possibility of future disease?

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

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

Thank you for admitting that you invented your evidence.  It 
would have been tough for us to believe that the killing of 1000 
individuals would have prevented 50,000 individuals from becoming 
sick as a consequence of food deprivation.  I suppose, however, 
that we could, indeed, increase the future size of such a real 
herd by killing as many as 10,000 individuals.  The greater food 
supply per capita would make the females fatter and hence more 
fertile.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ