Archive for the ‘Animal Rights’ Category

The rights and wrongs of hunting!

January 10, 2017

The Great Spirit Was A Hunter, And Will Always Be A Hunter. Hunting For Ideas, Is Not Just A Metaphor, Not Just Our Fate, But The Only Way To Have A Superior Mind.

Once, well above timber-line, with the sun low on the horizon, an antelope came my way, running passed me. I was running the other way, and the quadruped rushed, close enough to touch. As I turned the corner, a couple of seconds later, full of wonder, I found myself face to face with an enormous wolf charging my way. We looked at each other, not even three meters away… I will always remember that moment. The intelligence obvious in the yellow eyes of the wolf brought to my mind the look of a primate, not just a canid. It was a late evening in late spring, when days are very long. I could read the majestic creature’s quasi-human surprise:’What is a human doing here at this time of the day?’

Hunting had made his kind smart over the eons. He could have dispatched me to another world in seconds, but he knew what humans were. We recognized each others’ supreme intelligence, an identity of spirits. Two hunters on top of the world. He went his way, I went mine, both owners of the universe, and having recognized the other as such.

The essay reproduced below was penned by a baby philosopher, and tends to philosophy by enumeration, an honorable method, reminiscent of FOX News’ approach to debate. With a silly (anti-hunting) bias not so well hidden. However I agree with it in some ways, with what the author wrote, about the so-called “confirmation bias”. Let me explain by considering the conclusion of the author:
“If your interlocutor objects to hunting, try to discover the basis for their objection. And I believe you should keep nature out of it.

Finally, try to argue with someone who takes a fundamentally different view. Confirmation bias – the unintentional act of confirming the beliefs we already have – is hard to overcome. The only antidote I know of is rational discourse with people whose confirmation bias runs contrary to my own.”

I agree with the method proposed to deal with “confirmation bias” (= “intellectual fascism”, “group think”). However, the sentence “I believe you should keep nature out of it”, is downright silly. The author is part of nature, should he keep himself “out of it”? Whatever “out” is?

I am both for and against hunting. It all depends upon who is hunting what, when, how, why? Hunting with stones, or arrows is one thing, wolves hunting their prey, another. To want wolves living somewhere free, but wolves who are not hunting, but devouring protein pills, would be akin to wanting the biosphere, albeit, without biology.

Let’s not forget civilization was founded by the genus Homo, fundamentally a hunting species, the greatest hunting genus of all times. Hunting is especially the genius of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. When Homo Erectus got to Georgia, two million years ago, it survived the cold winters, because it was dressed in animal furs.

Fundamentally, hunting is about domination, and especially total domination of the better ideas. Predators tend to be smarter than prey (they tend to have bigger brains, overall: there has been a brain arm race between predator and prey, at least on land… with few exceptions, like crocodiles). Hence the mood fundamental to hunting (I am smarter than you, so I completely dominate and own you) is also the mood most conducive to civilization.

Hunting has been so central to the evolution of our genus that to be rabidly against it, is to be rabidly against humanity, and even worse against the idea that there are better ideas which can own and dominate.

The central idea is that nature needs hunting and nature is about hunting. Even human nature is about hunting and contemplating hunting means contemplating nature.

Overall, one has to dominate the debate. The crux we presently face, is the preservation of the biosphere. Genuine hunters want this, so that they can hunt. Actually many species were saved by hunters who had established preserves for them. So genuine preservationists want to preserve the biosphere. So they should cooperate.

Hunting teaches a meta-morality about the animal conditions which pre-Neolithic people understood very well: hunting was part of the digestion of the Great Spirit, so to speak. Hunting was a process consubstantial with the universe itself. This viewpoint, no doubt held for millions of years, is entirely correct.

By contrast, denying that hunting is central to the universe is in not just unreal, it violates the very idea of having a spirit. Wanting to protect the universe from hunting is to try to build a god that would be like a dog, something mastered, with no supremacy of its own, but for blind love.

Maybe we should grow up instead, and join the Great Spirit, in its full spirit? If we want the better spirit, we cannot just be prisoners of love. What we need, instead, to save the biosphere, is the greatest spirit. We won’t save the spirit if our only guide is to spare the pain. Quite the opposite.

Learning from Dogs

The philosophy of hunting in terms of it being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Anyone who comes here for more than a couple of visits will know that both Jean and I are opposed to hunting completely. Period!

That’s not surprising as there have been a number of posts over the years describing how we feed the wild deer. Here’s three more photographs that haven’t previously been shared with you.

p1140238oooo

p1160189oooo

p1150179But, of course, the opinions of Jean and me are not, and should not be, the rule for the wider population of this part of Oregon.

All I would ask is that there is a proper, mature discussion as to the pros and cons of hunting wild animals in this, the twenty-first century.

All of which leads me to a recent essay posted on The Conversation site and republished here within the terms of that site.

ooOOoo

Is hunting moral?…

View original post 1,373 more words

Advertisements

Essence Of MORALITY: SUSTAINABILITY, Not Just Avoiding Suffering.

September 12, 2016

What is morality? The answer is not in “religions” established in the last few centuries, by self-obsessed elites, such as Islam. Verily, there is just one religion, the religion of man: Ecce Homo.

Past religions could not be sure that man was a religion, so they invented god(s). The idea is that, to distinguish right from wrong, one needs absolute truth, and that absolute truth was called god(s).

However, we now know for sure that there is an absolute, an absolute creator, and an absolute morality, from that long (quantum) computation called evolution.

Right And Wrong Draws Another Line, Across Knowledge Bases. That the All Too Christian Solzhenitsyn Naturally Forgets

Right And Wrong Draws Another Line, Across Knowledge Bases. That the All Too Christian Solzhenitsyn Naturally Forgets

Heart Without Knowledge Is Only Ruin Of Morality

The fact that we, ourselves, are an absolute, is why hysterical “animal rights” advocates have not much standing: animals are not equivalent to us. They are no absolute. That is why Gary Francione, a professor of law at Rutgers and East Anglia Universities is fundamentally wrong.  

https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a-pet-is-fundamentally-unethical

Says he: “A morally just world would have no pets, no aquaria, no zoos. No fields of sheep, no barns of cows. That’s true animal rights.” No poetry, no heart for other species, no alter sentiencism, either. That’s the perfect recipe for the total disappearance of the entire animal kingdom. Animals can survive only if us, masters of the Earth, and soon the Sol-Centaurus system, are interested by them.

True stupidity gives me counterexamples from which reason can bounce. Francione knows nothing. More than once in the mountains I met a solitary sheep, grazing. What did the sheep do? It had a good look at me, and then came to me, so I could rescue it from its predicament. Was the sheep suffering? No. Was the sheep feeling friendly? Yes. Is that a crime? No.

Law professor Francione confuses “what hurts a sentient being” with “immoral“. Pushing his logic further would mean all life of ALL sentient beings should be stopped, as life means hurt, for a sentient being, at one point, or another. (This is my old objection to Fundamentalist Buddhism; at least Buddhism, following Hinduism, is logical, and calls for Nirvana, the extinction of all cycles of life. The extinct Celtic religion was just the same.)

Thus, pushed a bit further, we should not have children: surely they cry as they are born, and that’s just the beginning. Hence we should let humanity disappear.

Leaving animals free to hurt each other.

This is a problem: if we are around, we may hurt animals, if we are not around, animals will eat each others.

Thus the author writes of ethics, while not knowing that the fundamental sense of “moral” is not “avoiding hurt”, but avoiding the behaviors which are unsustainable for our species.

Morality is species dependent. In some species, the newborns eat each other.  Newborn eating is moral in those species.

Thus, there is even worse. The real nature of the group of species known as hominids is that these were carnivorous bipedal apes who rose to dominance, precisely because animal protein and fat is so nourishing. It is moral for hominids to eat flesh, and especially so for the highly carnivorous Homo Erectus and Sapiens.

Many are the species which eat animals, few are those who do not. All primates, even cute, innocent looking Lemurians and Golden Tamarins, grab animals and eat them, whenever they can. Even grazing animals eat meat. The meat of snails, insects, and whatever crawls in the grass end in the stomachs of innocent looking grazers. This is why PM Thatcher made the cows cannibalistic, and, to save money, did not “render” the meat very long, thus causing “mad cow disease”.

In a just punishment, Thatcher herself became a mad cow, and croaked from it.

Meat made humanity, by enabling big brains and their extravagant energy consumption. Indeed, the meat habit came first. By millions of years. Those, like professor Francione, who cry each time we eat an animal raw (it happens when I run), want to deprive us of the very essence of our humanity. Being bipedal made our ancestors in the most efficient savannah dwellers: man is the animal with the fastest, furthest ground transportation capability, especially when it’s noon, and very hot. This (apparently weird and useless) characteristic is explained by an asset: the ability to catch up with any potential prey, especially when it’s very hot in the tropics, and Homo can see very well by mid-day.

Not just this.  Our hominid ancestors accelerated their evolution, by carrying weapons in their arms. Forgetting this and pushing a morality which even sheep would find better for what they eat (grass) will leave those who adopt it, and those that they pretend to defend, defenseless. One may as well advocate pacifism when facing deliberate evil. This sort of nonsense is what enabled the Twentieth Century’s greatest horrors, such as Nazism. And, indeed, the Nazis were fanatically for animal rights. Why? Because pushed to the extreme, animal rights contradict human rights. Thus, promoting the former exaggeratedly, enables  to violate the latter.

Patrice Ayme