From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:49:05 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Again, you seem to be treating the "herd" as though it's a 
rl> thinking/feeling person while ignoring the thoughts and feelings 
rl> of individual members.  Is it tough for you to comprehend that 
rl> "herds" have no thoughts and feelings whatsoever, apart from 
rl> those of their individual members?  

Tim Rigg writes:
rl> Why do you have this fixation with personification?  I am saying that
rl> the herd is worthy of consideration, as is the ecosystem as a whole.
rl> I respect the individual members of the species but they are not as
rl> important as the whole.

From article <aqvxjtm@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> It seems to me that these AR types are fixated on personification
jve> simply because it serves their purpose.  It's the only way they can
jve> justify the irrational notion of wanting to do away with hunting,
jve> since if people step back and look at the big picture, even a 2-yr-old
jve> child could figure out the tremendous good that hunters do for animals
jve> and the environment.  Which begs the question, if we assume that they
jve> aren't just a bunch of misguided souls that watched Bambi or Bugs
jve> Bunny too many times and started to Believe, then what indeed is their
jve> motivation in trying to stop hunting?  Do they own stock in the meat
jve> industry?  Or, if they truly want that phased out as well, do they own
jve> stock in the veggie-farming industry?  I can't figure it out...

If you have any questions about AR philosophical positions, why 
don't you ask someone like Robert Black or Ted Altar or myself, 
instead of posting comments aimed at another individual who shares 
your particular set of (mis)understandings?  

I can't speak for other AR advocates, but I hunted and fished for 
many years before I came to the conclusion that there were some 
incredible rational inconsistencies in the pro-hunting arguments 
that I had previously espoused.  Bambi and Bugs Bunny movies had 
no influence on me whatsoever, nor do I have any pecuniary 
interest in any industry that might be affected one way or the 
other by the AR movement.  

Speaking of inconsistencies, I'm still waiting for you to explain
the following:

1) why you think it would be morally ok for super-intelligent aliens
   to hunt humans for sport, but not morally ok for humans to hunt
   humans.

2) why you think it might be ok to use a bright young chimp in a 
   medical experiment, but not ok to use a severely retarded man.

3) why you consider nine-month old human fetuses to be "not yet alive"
   and "not genetically human", yet staunchly defend the alledged 
   rights of brain-dead comatose men and women.  

jve> All I know is that it sure as hell isn't to help animals, or cut 
jve> down on their suffering in the wild, or allow *more* of them to 
jve> live lives that are "meaningful in some way to them" (to use a 
jve> Russell-like phrase for it).  

Are you truly qualified to speak for your opponents?  Or, are you 
hoping to conjure up an AR straw-man from the depths of your 
imagination and embue this fictitious image with silly arguments 
that you can easily overcome?  

rl>  Or perhaps you're saying that your actions are good for the "herd",
rl>  in the same way that a mechanic might say that oil is good for a 
rl>  car engine or a painter might say that coatings are good for 
rl>  steel fixtures.  If that's the case, your motives on behalf of 
rl>  the herd aren't altruistic at all, but purely selfish.  After 
rl>  all, car engines and steel fixtures don't really give a damn 
rl>  whether they fall apart or no.  

tr> Selfish is not the right word.  I care whether the herd and ecosystem
tr> will be around and healthy for the future.  Perhaps the ecosystem
tr> doesn't care if we totally destroy it and replace it with pavement.

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

You've stated previously that you consider unendangered whales to 
be "just food".   Please explain why you think a person who hunts
and kills whales is "selflessly" helping the environment.  Would you
be in favor of a total ban on deer hunting in places where the
environment is clearly not threatened?

rl>  Vis-a-vis niches in the ecosystem, nature is everchanging.  Why do you 
rl>  think you're qualified to decide that one particular man-made 
rl>  configuration is preferable to another?

tr> My goal is to keep things as close to natural as possible.  My
tr> definition of "natural" is the state that would exist without any
tr> pressures from man. Given the enormous influences of humans, this is
tr> very hard to obtain.  For example, we could kick everyone out of
tr> Wisconsin, stop all logging, maybe reintroduce a few more wolves and
tr> let things work out for themselves.  However, I don't think such a
tr> plan has much hope.  As an alternative, hunting is a viable suppliment
tr> to other natural predation.

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

If environmental protection justifies killing of deer and whales,
why would such an argument not serve to justify the hunting of humans?

I'm looking forward to your explanation of the way that your
alledged enviromental concerns fit in with your acceptance of
whale killing, ie "they're just food".

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