From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:41:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.031211.5561@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smithm@plugflow.ecn.purdue.edu 
(Matthew Jacob Smith) writes:
>Hey Asshole your the one casting opinions, by writing down your
>interpretation of my statement as a "more honest expression". It seems
>to me that you hit the nail on the head for what most of you ARA's
>fail to appreciate and what my statement means.

If you're saying that ARs fail to appreciate that there is incredible
suffering within the natural world, then you're probably wrong.  ARs do
realize this and they also realize that a certain amount of cruelty is
human-caused and preventable. 

> Your right "nature"
>has no mind or otherwise. What my statement means is that having no mind
>, there is no moral, or amoral, merciful or unmerciful, cruel, or nice
>things about natural life. These are human judgements, and recent ones at
>that < 10K yrs most probably < 200yrs. There is no decision about life or
>death in nature. It just happens. Sure there are factors that may give an
>individual plant or animal a statistically greater chance for surviving, but
>that's no gaurantee. Herbivours prey on plants, predators prey on other 
>animals, that's just the way it happens. There is nothing pretty about death
>no matter how it happens, but happen it will, and to everything. When an 
>animal dies it opens up more resources to the rest of kin and competitors.
>Argueing about the way in which that animal will die is a mute point, because
>die it will. It makes no difference if say that deer dies quickly by the 
>buulet from a gun, an arrow, predation, or by more "natural" means of
>starvation, disease, parasitism, or accident.

Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
are probably very important to you.

> To give deer (or other animals)
>human characteristics and compare how they react with how we react to 
>stimuli is a human device. Eg. deer flee from danger, it is a survival 
>response. They cannot "fear" that danger or death, because they cannot
>understand or even conceptualize death. most people have an overblown fear
>of death. They characterize it as evil and bad.

Actually it's more a case that most people have a strong desire to stay
around on this earth for a while longer.  You apparently do too;
otherwise you would have exercised your option to commit suicide. 

> They fail to realize that
>death is as natural a process as life itself. 

Does the fact that death is a natural process mean that it should happen
sooner rather than later?  Does being "natural" automatically equate to
being "good?"

>For everything there is a time
>to die. Instead of coming to grips with our own mortality, most of us try
>not to admit it to ourselves. We either don't think about it, pretend it
>won't happen, or seek man eternal quest for imortality, be that through
>science or religeon. The height of this is ARA's belief that animals shouldn't 
>die either so we shouldn't hunt them.

No.  An AR position would be more like this: if you cause or have some
control over the suffering and death of an animal (human or nonhuman),
then you have some associated ethical responsibility. 

[...]

>... most people on 
>T.P.A have made up their minds long ago. They either mostly agree with me
>or not and all of this bandwith results in no one changing their opinions
>only a constant flame war. Maybe we should make this Talk.animals.flame

This is sort of a cynical view.  I've found that there have been a number
of intelligent and thought-provoking discussions over the past six months,
with good points made by both sides.

>Well at least it provides a forum to air opinions, 

Yes and to that extent it serves some useful purpose ...  though it
would be nice to see an end to the stupid childish name-calling that is
too frequently directed against those having opposing views. 

[...]

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals