• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -25 months ago

    We shouldn’t cull humans for the obvious ethical reasons

    nor should we cull other species, for the obvious ethical reasons. If your solution to a problem is “kill until it’s not a problem anymore”, guess what, that’s not good enough

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

      I don’t think it’s that simple.

      Deer behave differently in the presence of predators. They migrate less, the reproduce more manageably. Overpopulation of deer results in overgrazing where they can effectively kill entire species of plants or desertify areas. We’ve engineered an environment without their natural predators.

      Culling and hunting them is different than if we caught and release neutered them.

      I’m not a hunter, and I’d be fine if we just introduced wild predators like wolves (I saw a study that this was actually healthy to their population).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -15 months ago

        Exactly, it’s not simple, hence the need for better, more ethical solutions. I don’t know the best solution, I’m not an expert on deer or ecosystems, but I think we can do better than killing till the problem goes away

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          So you’re okay with their suggestion of introducing wolves to help control the deer population? (which for the record, I’m not denying is genuinely a promising strategy to help with the problem)

          But if you are, then how is that not also “unnecessary killing”? The end result is essentially the same thing, dead deer that become food for another specie.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -15 months ago

        Unnecessary killing is wrong? Killing is something to avoid? Taking anothers life should be a last resort and if it is absolutely necessary, we should always be trying to stop it or find ways to make it unnecessary? Live and let live? Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you?

        idk those are pretty obvious to me, if they’re not obvious to you then idk what to tell you

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          35 months ago

          I think we just have different values when it comes to wildlife, and animals. “Live and let live” “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” as social contracts work for human interactions, but animals lack the capacity to understand those concepts and can’t hold up their end of the contract. A cat won’t live and let live, a cat will kill every bird it can get it’s hands on. Nature is a brutal unstable equilibrium, and human actions have made it more unstable. But as thinking animals we have the ability to reduce the harm we have caused. We need to reduce suffering where we can, and maintain the welfare not just of individual animals but of their populations and environments.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -15 months ago

            I don’t think others not being able to hold up their end of the contract is a good reason to drop the contract. There are plenty of humans unable to hold up that contract either due to mental illness or just being dealt a shitty hand in life, but they still deserve to be treated with compassion. In fact, lacking the ability to understand the contract should ellicit more compassion, not less