Alue42

commits

if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary

Have you taken an Ethics class? You don’t learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (boy, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism…just to name a few. You learn how philosophy comes in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it’s moral compass to better understand it’s viewpoint. The bear may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.

So the question remains: What power holds these species’ moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?

I truly have never heard that response!

What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?

So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.

I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it’s not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.

Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements “eat meat to survive” and “eat x exotic animal” have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don’t relate to the question at hand.

Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.

Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.

“let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can’t be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn’t declined, but it’s somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.

And this isn’t the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.

But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don’t provide an answer.

I just tried looking for you, and the most up to date I could find was for 2017. That’s disappointing, but slightly out of date is better than nothing.

The only reason it hasn’t caught on is because they are very difficult to catch (spear) and even more difficult to prepare (venom glands). They are unbelievably delicious, but even so, I’m not going to trust a chef a don’t know to be sure he didn’t pierce one of those glands while preparing it. I’ll trust myself or one of my friends that I no for 100% certain can do it right. So even though a handful of restaurants were offering it in the Keys and Miami, you’ll really see people catching it themselves and preparing it just to be sure.

He’s my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I’ve worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don’t want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.

Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.

I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.

Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it’s how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)

We have also invented ways to do it more sustainably, and even have handy wallet sized Sustainable Seafood Lists for each region of the US to make sure you make sustainable choices when eating at restaurants or purchasing at the market
Seafood Watch Guides

Fish can and do eat you

You are deliberately not answering the question.

“If every person that ate fish was out there…” exactly - they purchase fish caught commercially because either they don’t know how to catch their own fish or they don’t have access to catch their own fish (access either with time, money, or physically). Commercial fishing solves that by precisely doing it “at scale a lot more efficiently” as you pointed out and ships the fish to where people will purchase it.

I didn’t ask “what if everyone went out and did it themselves”

I asked your thoughts on people who DO fish for themselves, or those using traditional fishing practices.

OP didn’t specify commercial fishing. What about traditional fishing practices, or a singular fisher catching for himself/family?

Maybe for the way in which they are layering them, but I’m pretty sure the reasoning behind it is inspired by content that has been made into comics for quite some time, for example

https://ibb.co/Cn7pRgK
https://ibb.co/6s8Qhzc

“whoops, there’s too much milk left over, I’ll just add some cereal”

“Oh no, now my milk is finished, but I still have cereal left, I’ll just add some more milk”

“Well now I have extra milk again, time for more cereal”

I see where you’re going…

Where I grew up it was k-2: primary, 3-5: elementary, 6-8: middle, 9-12: high.

Where I moved after college had primary, intermediate, and high; elementary, intermediate, and high; elementary, junior high, and high; all combinations, but I didn’t know the grade levels.

I have not seen any that are begging for clothes as if they are completely out of clothes. More of a “we accept donation in the form of …” And then list of things, one of which is clothes. As in, if you are going to get rid of your clothes, bring them here and we can put them to good use. Textile recyclers have cropped up as a response to this and are helping tremendously, a lot of people just do not know about them as much yet. They even take items that people wouldn’t even think to take for donation, like of towels and wash cloths, under garments, etc. some municipalities (for example, the one I live in) require residents to compost and textile recycle with the city facility and those items are not allowed in the landfill.

Ok, great - in the meantime it would be great if people sought out sustainable fabrics, because banning unsustainable fabrics is going to take a long time.

Also, let’s say one or a handful of countries does that. There’s still Shein and all the other companies one can buy cheap clothes from overseas that won’t use sustainable products and will still be the cheapest option. It’s best to be mindful and put your dollar towards the companies that are choosing to do the right things without a regulation forcing them to.

It’s also about people thinking when they get tired of clothes thinking “oh, I’ll just donate it” or when they want to get something new so they want to get rid of something first. The fast fashion industry encourages changing up style and keeping up with trends, which increases donations. Well, those donations need to go somewhere, and people don’t think about where it ends up.

Being more thoughtful about maintaining one’s clothes, mending them, using sustainable fabrics, and going with classics that won’t go out of style instead of trends greatly eases the burden on the charities accepting the donation of the clothes. If the charities don’t accept the donation, the clothes will simply go to the landfill, which is a whole other issue.

That is why I am hoping that the appeal to the Supreme Court results in them saying “we have to respect the state’s decision” but my realistic brain knows that’s not going to be the case