From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:00:05 GMT

In <BrxvJG.9vn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>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?  

	No, I don't have any of these wonderful devices you talk of.
Do _you_ happen to have them, and can so see all those pleasant days
you talk about?  Comparing possibilities is always futile, since
the future cannot be prediced with any degree of certainty.  We can,
however, predict many days of suffering for each animal based on
data such as food supply, population, and weather.  Thus, it is quite
reasonable to kill a hundred to keep a thousand alive and healthy.

>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?

	We would be if, and this is important, the prospects of future
disease were caused by population _and_ the reduction in population
from our killing was less than the number of deaths from the
disease.  In this case, I'll call hunger a disease.

>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?  

	I think it would have avoided a lot of suffering on his part.
At the time, he probably would have wished he'd already died.  His
death was not something I could have predicted, but if this was a
common way of death and was related directly to, say, population,
then perhaps a look should be taken to humane population reduction.
In the case of animals, this is hunting.  In humans it might be
another method entirely.

>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.

	I'm curious, Russ -- _why_ did you go without food for over a
week while working construction?  I find it very hard to believe they
could not have affected your work ability, assumming you were involved
in some hard labor at the time.

>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.

>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?  

	We both are, Russ -- I'm claiming the future if the individual
animal makes no difference because it cannot be predicted, and upon
death cannot be missed.  You seem to be saying that I should assume
all animals will lead healthy, happy, productive lives frolicking.
Since we know such is not the case, we have to resort to what we can
predict and base our actions on that.  When we know a certain number
of animals will starve, imposing a death sentence on a select few so
that the remainder survive is hardly arrogant, but perhaps selfish.
I would like to keep the species around.  You don't?

>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?

	I don't think I'd give a whit, once I'm dead, if my death
was ethical or not.  As to deprivation, I'd be deprived of nothing.
To be deprived of something you have to assume that something was
better than what you have.  Since I cannot know of my future, it
could easily be filled with pain or pleasure.  Thus, I cannot say
if I was deprived of anything, or certainly of anything I wanted.

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

	I've answered it before, but the answer would be "yes" if that
ferret's life threatened the lives of the other three I care for
in some manner, say through eating more than I can produce.  In many
other situations this would not be true.

>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.   

	Like I said, they aren't incredibly relevant at this point.
10,000 dead would be worth the continued existence of 50,000 through
the winter.  It's good to see you've come this far with us.

<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