On Jun 4, 9:45 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <483b0ee8$0$25027$607ed...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Tony Harding <ToH...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Our food animals
As opposed to food food?
> are mostly animals that in nature depend on being
> preyed upon for the health of the species. That is, without predators,
> their herds would become unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die."
Then let natural predators maintain the balance "in nature" .. 90% of
N. American native predator species have been eliminated since H.
Sapiens arrived.
> So,
> there is no ethics problem with humans taking the role of the predators.
"Humans taking the role of the predators" is no result of any human
genotype.
> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be bad for that cow, but it is
> a good thing for Cowkind.
There is no "cowkind." Cows are domesticated hybrids. Killing
genetically modified/captive cows/artificially inseminated does
nothing for the cow's gene pool, much less the predator-role-playing
humans, trying to ingest it after trying to partially reenact an ice
age ritual.
> So, as long as we are humane in *how* we do
> our predation, we are in the clear ethically. It is quite doable to
> raise and slaughter animals in a way that does not inflict suffering on
> them.
Let the US gov know about your "doable to raise and slaughter animals"
plan - WITHOUT government subsidies, high ecological impact &
widespread diseases (gout, hemorrhoids, cancer, acne, gallstones, etc)
resulting from the compromised diet.
Still foraging while hunting for a reason to hunt,
Chris
|
