Animal killing

[Gustav Sweden]

To continue the good trend we are currently seeing in the MBN, I hereby introduce yet another topic of discussion - Animal hunting and animal killing. Is this wrong or right if it comes to making things we don't need to survive, like fur clothes or perfume. Is it OK if its done for medical purposes? For sport (like English fox hunting)? To keep the population of a specie under a certain level (like Swedish beer and elk/moose hunting)? Discuss, please.

[Reek]

ANIMALS JUST WANT TO LIVE.
FFS, LET THEM LIVE.

Hunting should be banned.
And the meat industry should try to avoid cruelty to animals.
(for example the way they shove pipes down the throats of geese and shovel food in them to make them all nice and plump)
We need to kill animals because it's part of our diet, but it's not to much too ask not make the animals suffer before we kill it.

[ChaosFish]

I think you will find this very interesting.

[Reek]

That's great!

[CS2x]

They can be killed for food and medical purposes, and it must be in a way which reduces the pain to a minimal level. We have no right to inflict pointless pain upon other creatures, and it makes us worse people if we enjoy/are fine with animals being hurt. Killing animals for sport or pleasure is wrong.

I'm undecided about killing them for fur. I mean, the stone age human beings killed animals and used their hides for clothing, and that's fine. But the way animals are killed today and the way clothes are mass-produced means the issue is more difficult to sort out imho.

[Jasiek]

Aaaah, the farmers lobby will destroy it, and the green parties will condemn the Idea as unhealty (like their trying to do with hydroponic, or genetically modified food), and of course the religious masses will condemn the Idea as "playing in God", and becouse of those jerks, fueled by the lobbists most of the people will be uncertain of the Idea of meat production, so they won't buy it, and the production will be on a minor scale(if at all), I just hope nothing like this happens, but all those people proven to me again and again that they are capable of destroing everything good that science gives us, either make it a weapon, or destroy the project cause it will cause financial trouble for some of the wealthier companies who don't give a damn about common good.

[Atresica]

I'm pro-population control.
There is simply no use in letting a population get out of hand in areas where there is no way to introduce natural regulators (such as wolves, lynxes or other light-growing hunters).
To hunt for fun seems to be utterly distasteful. I'm sure there are better ways to feel like a man than to go and kill off things (except if they're digital )
I also think that keeping animals just for their pelts is rather useless as well since we only keep them for their pelts and for nothing else. It seems a waste of energy and these animals are known to be very destructive once they get away (which is why I think radical animal activists are among the stupidest human beings in the world, considering how often 'freed' predators have decimated a population of rare animals in no time).

Medical purpose is a different story, it's no way different than killing an animal for food. I am however against the practise of vivesection because it hardly ever is justified.

Finally, I prefere to buy freerange stuff since I don't think an animal should suffer needlessly for economical purposes. That and the meat tastes so much nicer

[elmuerte]

nature will take care of itself.

[SpaceGuitarist]

At last, this obvious topic has emerged...

well I'd like you all to take special attention to my favorite animal, simply because it's so cute.

Anyway does anyone knows an australian animal called numbat? well search it, its a specie in extinction, only exists in zoo's in Aus and if anyone can contribute on the preservation of it, we'd all be glad!

Cheers.

[Bot13]

Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarKid

At last, this obvious topic has emerged...

well I'd like you all to take special attention to my favorite animal, simply because it's so cute.

Anyway does anyone knows an australian animal called numbat? well search it, its a specie in extinction, only exists in zoo's in Aus and if anyone can contribute on the preservation of it, we'd all be glad!

Cheers.

Let's wait for the "Numbats are TeH FLUFFY" posts

[Purple Sheep]

Animal testing for medical purposes is fine, but for cosmetics I don't think so. If the suffering of animals causes human lives to be saved then that's great. But the suffering should be minimised as much as possible - which I believe it is, at least in this country.

And free-range all the way - battery farming is unnecessarily cruel and bad for the environment as well.

During the time when British Parliament was discussing whether to ban fox hunting, the main thing I was thinking was not "Yay they might get rid of a cruel sport" but more like "Surely they should be thinking about more important things, like human poverty and increasing aid/debt relief/etc.?".

[elmuerte]

Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarKid

Anyway does anyone knows an australian animal called numbat? well search it, its a specie in extinction, only exists in zoo's in Aus and if anyone can contribute on the preservation of it, we'd all be glad!

Why? Species get extinct, start to live with it. When one species is gone a new one could take its place. If you try to "preserve" a species you will decrease the chance of survival of an other species.
For some reason people think it's their job to "fix" nature. How on earth would you know when you're right and when you're wrong. There are enough examples where they've been wrong. Introducing animals in places where they shouldn't have been, or cross breeding gone bad.

[ChaosFish]

Originally Posted by Bot13

Let's wait for the "Numbats are TeH FLUFFY" posts

Sounds like something I would say

[Lightwing]

Originally Posted by El_Muerte

Why? Species get extinct, start to live with it. When one species is gone a new one could take its place. If you try to "preserve" a species you will decrease the chance of survival of an other species.
For some reason people think it's their job to "fix" nature. How on earth would you know when you're right and when you're wrong. There are enough examples where they've been wrong. Introducing animals in places where they shouldn't have been, or cross breeding gone bad.

It's our job to fix it if we broke it.

[elmuerte]

Nature will take of it; it is way more powerful that humans will ever be.
other animals also break things, and whatever they broke will be fixed (over time).

Start a nuclear war and destroy the whole planet if you want to, cockroaches will be one of the few organism that will survive, the others well.. are gone. But new organism will emerge.

The only thing humans will have to do is make sure they don't destroy their own chance for survival, and apperentl it's difficult enough for them already.

[Lightwing]

Sorry, but I think it's only fair that when you break something, it's your responsibility to fix it.

And yeh, nature is strong as ever, and no global warming or deforestation will ever destroy it. But then, nature is basically an "inanimate" object. And yes, in due time, new species will emerge after a fallout.

But the thing is, the topic isn't addressing us killing nature. It's addressing us killing other beings. We're talking about uneccessary murder. We're talking about skinning animals alive, shooting them for sport (without the purpose of eating them or controlling populations), and various other torture before slaughter.

Screw exctinction of species. The subject at hand is individual murder, and nothing, not even nature can compensate for that.

[ChaosFish]

I think we need to make a clear border between human culture and nature.
El is talking about mother nature and about how humans are not all that strong, while Lightwing is talking about human culture and how we should fix what we broke.
I think they both right. It's just 2 different perspectives.

[elmuerte]

controlling populations: bullshit, not needed.
shooting for sport: it's ok (but only when shooting humans for sport is also allowed, humans are animals too).
skinning animals alive: must be way more difficult than first killing them and then skin them.
fur clothes is like leather shoes, if you breed the animal and not kill wild animals, then it's ok

[Purple Sheep]

Controlling populations is often needed if a species is causing damage to something. For example, I read today that rabbits are destroying Hadrian's Wall.

[LBAWinOwns]

Discussing this thing is hard for me cause i know so little about it.

However, i think its a kinda good system now, when some bad kind of hunting is illegal and the good one legal , well, wont be surprised if im totally wrong.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by El_Muerte

Why? Species get extinct, start to live with it. When one species is gone a new one could take its place. If you try to "preserve" a species you will decrease the chance of survival of an other species.
For some reason people think it's their job to "fix" nature. How on earth would you know when you're right and when you're wrong. There are enough examples where they've been wrong. Introducing animals in places where they shouldn't have been, or cross breeding gone bad.

Exactly. Part of it, cos sometimes it is OUR job to fix the nature if something WE done went wrong. Lemme tell you a little story (i made ) about the numbats:



They were fine in Australia
Until humans came
They were peaceful
They were lame

Humans brought foxes, dogs and wild cats
What could be the destiny, of the poor numbats?

Slowly yet cruel, the numbats were decimated
The new animals had 'em exterminated

Are you saying they deserved?
That they shall not be preserved??

[ChaosFish]

You should own a discovery channel show Kiddo

[Bot13]

Sounds like a rap to me ^^

[ChaosFish]

He can call the Show "Discoverap".

[Panda]

Killing for medicine? Yes. I think we should, maybe for subjective reasons, but also because I think our survival is important, even if at the expense of other creatures.

For pleasure/wanton reasons? No. I think these people should be punished, with jail terms. Animal cruelty for pleasure is something I am really against. What is the point? If hurting a defenceless animal which is smaller than you is the only way to feel "big", then action needs to be taken.

For fur/perfume? Same as above. Fur I think is in bad taste anyway, and as for perfume, well, we can live without it. It's not NECESSARY. Nor is the pain/distress caused to animals.