From MSNBC, we find out that a pair of bald eagles is about to be sacrificed in the name of superstition:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has taken the unusual step of issuing a permit allowing a Native American tribe to kill two bald eagles for religious purposes.
The agency’s decision comes after the Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming filed a federal lawsuit last year contending the refusal to issue such permits violates tribal members’ religious freedom.
Although thousands of Native Americans apply for eagle feathers and carcasses from a federal repository, permits allowing the killing of bald eagles are exceedingly rare, according to both tribal and legal experts on the matter.
“I’ve not heard of a take permit for a bald eagle,” Steve Moore, lawyer with the Native American Rights Fund in Boulder, Colo., said Tuesday.
“I see it and NARF would see it as a legitimate expression of sovereignty by the tribe, and respect for that sovereignty by the Fish and Wildlife Service,” he added.
Apparently, eagle feathers and bits aren’t enough for these people, they need freshly killed birds:
Nelson P. White Sr., then a member of the Northern Arapaho Business Council, said after the hearing that the birds Native Americans receive from a federal depository were rotten, or otherwise unfit for use in religious ceremonies.
“That’s unacceptable,” White said after the court hearing. “How would a non-Indian feel if they had to get their Bible from a repository?”
Would that really bother a Christian? After all, many of them do get their Bibles from a repository; as I remember, there’s stacks of them in the Church and often one in front of each pew.
It’s immoral to kill animals for religious purposes, be they eagles, goats, or chickens.
Indeed, but as long as there are states that still accept killing children (i.e. by refusing medical treatment) for religious reasons, the killing of animals, even animals so rare as bald eagles, will probably not be much of a priority.
People are up in arms about the killing of 2 Bald Eagles for religious purposes, why aren’t these same people doing the same thing to protect the wolves, 521 of whom have been slaughtered and more to come, just to satisfy the misinformed (being polite there meant ignorant) ranchers who blame the wolves for the slaughter of their cattle,when domestic dogs and coyotes are more than likely the culprits as wolves represent less than a 1/4 of 1% culpability
Bald eagles are arguably in more trouble than wolves. Nevertheless, the meaningless slaughter of wolves is certainly also on my agenda. In Canada, our sinister prime minister Stephen Harper is ordering/authorising the slaughter of wolves, supposedly to protect the Caribou. What a joker!
Because that’s a completely different scenario.
About 12-15 years ago I watched a pathetic motor launch filled with native Americans in modern garb with modern weapons heading out on Puget Sound to kill a whale for reasons of tradition. I felt ill.
Yeah, this is an ongoing source of tension between environmentalists and native tribes who feel they have an ancestral right to hunt whales in those waters.
I recall one or two nasty incidents in which younger tribe members took it on themselves to initiate a hunt without the approval of tribal elders, which made nobody happy.
But is it really the religious element that makes this problematic? Would we be OK with English aristocrats hunting foxes for sport and tradition, so long as they don’t say a prayer over the corpse?
Fox-hunting, and all the attendant ritual, is just a quasi-religion.
Religious reasons are never, ever the right ones. I’m reminded of one time a friend of my son’s came to visit. In the morning my wife asked her if she’d like a bacon sandwich. Her reply was that she couldn’t because she was Jewish. I accept that there are lots of reasons, good or not so good, not to eat a bacon sandwich. That just isn’t one of them.
…which links in somewhat with JC’s other recent post about Melvyn Bragg. (I never realised what an idiot he could be after all these years). In the video on the link Bragg said that ancient rituals among Australian aboriginals might well have helped them survive – as if they didn’t have the rituals they might not be around today. Has he even thought about what he said? Doesn’t look like it.
Even the reasons of tradition were totally undercut by the hunters all using twentieth century technology to kill an animal needlessly. They looked about as traditional as Dick Cheney and his cronies going out shooting (and about as healthy too!).
They’re cherry-picking tradition. Even removing the whale kill from the picture, where was the honour, the need? It’s like those who sit in Sunday best clothing and rip verses from old texts in a manner completely devoid of context.
On that point, and since there is presumably no requirement that the eagles be killed by traditional means, I would suggest in order to ensure the bird does not suffer that they be shot with a minigun or similar weaponry. The hunting permit holders can have all the bits they can collect.
Is it also immoral to kill them for luxury foods or goods?
Well, that didn’t take long….
b&
Has anyone seen my coat?
The fur one? I think I saw it hanging from the antler rack in the room with the bearskin rug.
Care for some more pâté? It’s fantastic — can’t get enough of it, myself.
Cheers,
b&
I think it’s self-evident that slaying animals for unnecessary food or goods is immoral. I’ve yet to hear a rational argument that would convince me otherwise.
OK, but of course the number of people who are vegetarian demonstrates that slaying any animals for food is unnecessary. (In the spirit of transparency, I am indeed vegetarian.)
I’m just not clear why Jerry is singling out religion here. While I’m often charmed by our genial host’s extensively documented culinary forays, it seems rather inconsistent to post photos of huge plates of meat and then complain that animals are being killed for religion.
If Jerry is going to take a moral stand on the issue of religious animal sacrifice, I just want to know what the actual reasoning is.
I think it’s more justifiable to eat meat for sustenance than to propitiate an angry god. And yes, I probably should be a vegetarian. You see no difference between consuming an animal and killing it (and not eating it) for some religious ritual? Sorry, but I do.
Still, I should stop eating meat. . .
Thank you, and I applaud your candor. Even if we are sometimes hypocritical in our actions we can at least make an intellectual admission that some of our actions cannot be justified.
I believe eating less meat and using less animal products is a worthwhile endeavor and a positive step to changing our cultural norms. Our voiceless cousins deserve nothing less.
Sure, but “more justifiable” isn’t the same thing as “moral”. You seemed to be making an absolute statement, and I was curious as to what the underlying principle was. If we’re introducing shades of grey, then that seems like a more defensible ethical position.
Given that neither are necessary, and both have the same outcome for the animal, I’m not sure it really does make a moral difference. Yes, one is less wasteful, but if an arsonist burned down my house, I wouldn’t feel more kindly toward them if they used the fire to make s’mores.
And thanks for the candid response, Jerry. My intent really isn’t to single anyone out, as none of us always do what we feel we should, or are always consistent in our ideal morality, and I am by no means immune to that very human failing.
Why?
The moral calculus is far more complex than the vegans would have us believe.
If everybody suddenly stopped eating meat, what would happen to all those cows, chickens, and pigs? Would they get distributed amongst the population as pets?
Is it somehow morally worng for other carnivorous species to eat meat? Is the lion committing some sort of crime when she kills a wildebeest for her cubs? What about the grackle with a taste for fence lizards?
If that’s all okay, what’s worng with a hairless ape giving a cow a life of luxury followed by a quick and painless death (assuming, of course, USDA regulations are adhered to) in order to feed some of the ape’s cousins?
Like it or not, killing is an inescapable part of life. The only way to stop killing other organisms is to kill yourself.
All who pretend otherwise, or that not killing is somehow morally superior, are hypocrites fooling themselves.
Now, causing needless suffering, on the other hand….
Cheers,
b&
Do you really think that such would happen “suddenly”?
Cats play with their live prey — is it OK for us to do that as well? Some species practice forced copulation — does that make rape OK? These kind of arguments are nothing but the naturalistic fallacy.
So you don’t agree with Jerry’s argument about killing the eagles?
You might try actually reading my entire post, such as the last line.
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll re-answer your questions, if you start by posting an honest inventory of all the vertebrates whose deaths in the past few days you’ve directly benefitted from. No need for specifics — of course, that’d be impossible. And you don’t have to be exhaustive, either. Just give us some generalities.
But fair warning: if you reply and sidestep such a catalogue, I’ll provide one for you. And you won’t at all enjoy it.
Like it or not, you are a killer. Deal with it. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Cheers,
b&
Ben, of course I cause animal deaths every day. I also use products that are produced under less-than-desirable labour circumstances. But that latter fact doesn’t mean that slavery is OK, and the former fact doesn’t mean I should go hunt blue whales and gorillas with impunity.
Heck, I’ll go one further — I have no doubt that my existence, including some conscious choices I make, indirectly causes the deaths of other human beings. So is murder on the table then?
Nope.
But laying a guilt trip on somebody for riding the bus to work because the diesel it’s running off of was obtained as a result of using flying death robots to kill children in their sleep sure as shit stinks should be.
And the fact that you’re happy chowing down on your rice cakes, despite all the field mice, snakes, birds, and what-not who got mercilessly slaughtered en masse so that the rice could be planted, tended, and harvested (and their flesh is left to rot!) should also rule out your guilt trips on those who, just like you, depend on the deaths of cute animals for food.
See? I told you you wouldn’t like it.
Cheers,
b&
Golly, Ben, I have to admit in my quarter-century of being a vegetarian I have never read such a cogent, carefully argued takedown!
I also depend on poorly compensated labour for my material goods, so I suppose that I shouldn’t lay a guilt trip on those who engage in slavery, right?
The buses I ride in burn fuel and pollute, so I can’t complain about those who drive Hummers, right?
Seriously, the options are not “be perfect” or “shut up”, in practically any moral issue.
In any case, the original question was what principle one can use to both oppose the killing of two eagles, yet support the killing of millions of food animals each year. What’s your position?
Ben, there are good rational reasons to eat less meat. Raising cattle is an inefficient use of land. The acreage of natural ecosystems destroyed per calorie produced is somewhat smaller for plant crops than for cows. That is why I try not to eat much meat.
I do agree with you that death is part of life, and killing domesticated cows has no moral ramifications that I can see (in fact, if I could press a button that would kill all “slow elk” in the US at once right now, I might press it).
Getting back to the eagles, I think it is fine to kill cockroaches and Norway rats in my house. Many of my friends have spent lots of time and energy killing cowbirds in places where they impact endangered native songbirds, and I applaud them. On the other hand, I think it is criminal to kill one of the last ivory-billed woodpeckers or blue whales. Eagles are closer to the latter end of the spectrum. I guess I judge these according to the ecological and conservation impact of the actions. Phylogenetic distinctiveness also plays a role in the weighting.
Enlighten me.
You eat a rice cake that required the death of some unknown and now-unidentifiable number of birds, and you’re okay with that.
I’m going to eat a chicken leg for dinner, and that really, really upsets you.
Probably within a hundred miles of my current location, there’s a bobcat stalking and / or eating a jackrabbit. I don’t think you object.
In a couple hours, I’m going to feed some ground rabbit to Baihu, and I’ll bet that turns your stomach.
Elsewhere in the region, a cougar is strangling to death a deer by biting its neck and pulling the skin tight. It’s going to eat most of the deer. You’re cool with that.
On Saturday, I’m going to be eating some corned beef brisket. The cow was (theoretically) killed near-instantly with a bolt to the head. This infuriates you.
In each of those three pairs of examples, explain to me precisely the moral superiority of the one over the other.
As far as my position on the question of blood sport of an endangered species to placate imaginary friends…well, I’ve just answered your question, haven’t I?
Cheers,
b&
Lou, I agree that Americans (in particular) eat more meat than is wise — for their personal health as well as the health of the environment. (Americans also drive too much, which is bad for both personal and environmental health.)
I personally eat meat, but not a lot. But I see no reason to feel guilty about the meat I do eat, and I refuse to let the vegans take the moral high ground on the matter when they most emphatically do not occupy it.
They do have plenty of hypocrisy, though. I’ll grant them that.
Cheers,
b&
Ben, there is no such thing as “the vegans”. Vegans are not a monolithic political party, any more than “the atheists” are. By definition, the only thing vegans have in common is their disinclination to eat animal products. Their reasons for that choice, and their reactions to your different choice, may be as diverse as any random group of citizens. So it seems to me you’re straw-manning the issue somewhat by pigeonholing everyone who declines to eat meat as a raving fanatic who’s infuriated by your corned-beef dinner.
That may be a fair cop. In my defense, the voices I’ve heard of those who attack people for being responsible for animal deaths for food in ways they don’t approve of have been consistent enough that I’ve gotten the impression that vocal anti-meat veganism is, at least in practice, as monolithic as the Newage crystal wooers.
And, to be sure, I have no problem with people who do things to try to avoid causing the deaths of animals. I do have a problem with people who think their diets are morally superior to mine, and I especially have a problem with those people being vocal about that hypocrisy.
It’s no different than with religion, of course. If you want to think that your invisible friends love you, knock yourself out. Tell me that your invisible friends love you, and I might laugh. Insult me by telling me that your belief in invisible friends makes you a better person, and I’ll likely return the favor. And if you insist that I must do what your invisible friends tell you they want me to do, then we’ve got a problem.
b&
I personally eat meat, but not a lot.
If there’s nothing wrong with it, why the disclaimer?
Seriously, there’s a lot of defensiveness in this thread from carnivores. I’m one myself, but I’m not in the least defensive about it. I like meat, and I care more about people than animals, so I don’t mind that animals die so that I might eat their flesh. But I’m wondering why so many other meat-eaters are so squishy about it. Do you like meat or don’t you? It ain’t a trick fuckin’ question you know.
Sorry, Ben, but I don’t understand your position at all. You do agree that eating less meat is more environment friendly, and hence by extension that a vegan lifestyle causes much less harm to the environment. Yet, somehow, veganism is not a morally superior choice? Forgive me, but in the world I live in, harming the environment less does entitle one to claim a moral high ground.
Also, breeding cows in captivity (not in luxury as you put it) and then killing them on purpose is somehow equivalent to the incident deaths of mice during farming?
I think the American lingo for this is “Deal with it. Vegans are entitled to their moral high ground.”
PS: I am not a vegan. However, I have been a vegetarian for at least 10 years, and I have no qualms conceding than a vegan lifestyle, in as much as it impacts the environment less than a vegetarian or meat-eating one, is a morally superior choice.
Because excessive meat consumption is unhealthy
So is not eating meat at all, of course.
b&
Absolutely!
I also agree that driving less is more environmentally friendly, and hence by extension an immediate ban on all internal combustion engines is called for.
And having fewer children is better for the environment, so everybody on the planet should be sterilized — hysterectomies for all women and girls, and castration for all men and boys.
And generally reducing the population would also help the environment, which is why I unconditionally approve of universal suicide. Would you be so kind as to demonstrate your preferred technique?
b&
“what’s wrong with a hairless ape giving a cow a life of luxury followed by a quick and painless death…”
You are joking, right? You think the lives of cattle, dairy cows and chicken are a “life of luxury?” You think their deaths are “quick and painless?”
Really?
I’ll agree that there are certainly outfits that are violating regulations and the law. But for animals in properly-run farms / ranches / whatever, they absolutely live lives of luxury compared to their wild brethren.
Domestic animals are fed, sheltered, protected from predators, and even given medical treatment.
Wild animals face starvation, have to find their own shelter from the elements, are always being preyed upon by predators, and die when they get sick.
And which would you prefer? Having a cougar eat your intestines while you’re still alive and kicking, or a literal unexpected bolt from the blue?
b&
I’ve tried several times to stop eating meat and failed. So now I go meatless three days a week. I figure, half a loaf…
And what if eating is my religion?
I just invented a religion that endorses murder. Sucks to be you, all other humans!
My religion insists on the sacrifice of Republican presidential candidates – where do I apply for the permit?
Leave those sad old men alone. MY religion needs virgins; many, many virgins. Or hot school teachers who are too pretty to go to prison.
Sadly, they’re not an endangered species….
b&
True. But with enough permits, you could make them one.
Oh boy. Yep, killing in the name of superstition (I can understand killing in the name of being fed or staying warm).
On the other hand, try opposing this.
Our country is superstitious.
I don’t think the government even allows the smoking of pot or ingestion of “magic” mushrooms as parts of religious rituals, or butchering of chickens to read the entrails. But killing eagles is OK? Of course kosher/halal slaughter is legitimate – from what I understand it is a barbaric method . The law is an ass, as Dickens said, but this kind of disorder is appalling. But religion rules.
If people are going to insist on living by ancient religious rules and mores, then they should be disallowed from sharing in the benefits of 21st century technology. When hunting whales for tribal, age-old rituals, “rights”, then no outboards, no guns, no polar fleece, mitten warmers, helicopter rescues allowed.
Etcetera. If you want to live by the rules of a millennial old culture,religion then you can’t inflict them on the current one..
They do allow Peyote for various Native American rituals, I think. But ultimately, I don’t think it should… its really not any better of an excuse to get high than anyone else wanting to have that same quasi-spiritual existence.
This is a long standing point of contention that has bugged me since I was a child (sixty years ago). I was into Indian lore and as a kid my dad and I made indian clothes and feathered head pieces out of turkey feathers. I have the greatest respect for the original inhabitants and their culture. Unfortunately, they like later immigrants need help in protecting wildlife and understanding conservation.
The old days of unlimited game and fish are long gone. I fear unscrupulous American indians will over hunt endangered species including eagles unless some restrictions are put upon them. Where eagles are plentiful, a limited number of kills might be allowed. That regulation might prove impossible to enforce because eagle feathers are rare and have a high value in the open market. And, because the feathers will be used for religious purposes should have no bearing upon the collection feathers. Should eskimos be allowed to kill unlimited polar bears, whales, and salmon because it is part of their religion? Should Mormons be allowed to have as many wives as they wish, should human sacrifice be allowed once again as in the old testament, of course, for religious reasons.
I feel like the American Indians living in peace with the environment is both a myth and an unhelpful one. The American Indians (particularly the South Americans) did a lot to manipulate their environment, and it wasn’t always successful, and sometimes it was disastrous.
But the real problem is that those Indian reservations in America are of really weird sovereignty. It may not be legally possible to enforce US law on them entirely, because they’re not technically part of the US. But I am no legal expert.
In my view it’s wrong to kill an animal for any reason other to use as a recourse, food, clothing, and a few other reasons. If they eat the bird, and the take is sustainable then it’s fine. If they’re just praying over it and then chucking it in the bin, it’s a shameful waste of life.
I wouldn’t recommend eating eagle; they’re too high up on the food chain.
Originally, when American Indians depleted the resources of an area, they migrated to another place but usually returned to the original hunting grounds when it had replenished itself. Those natural migrational habits no longer apply and Indians need help, just like the rest of us, in conserving their resources. Religion is not a magic word that supersedes the law and wise conservation.
I see no more reason to hold the Native Americans to some different hunting standards because of their religious blood lusts than I am willing to excuse practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine for driving animals extinct to make nonsense soup that doesn’t do jack. Superstitions cannot be allowed to drive conservation policy, and the Native Americans should learn to realize that they can make feathers from birds that aren’t endangered.
I think as atheists and religious sceptics , it is rather easy for us to take a hard-line stance to say that the killing of any animal for religious purposes, be they goat, sheep or bald eagle is morally wrong. However, I think the issue is a bit more complex, given the history of Native Americans, who have had their cultural and traditional practices torn away from them rather sharply.
So, is this situation a group of people merely killing animals for religious purposes or are they doing it as a means of preserving cultural history and tradition. While it is indeed sad that an endangered species should be killed for this purpose, society has to decide which it values more; preservation of an endangered animal or giving a marginalized group of human beings an opportunity to engage in cultural practices that will otherwise be lost to them. We should bear in mind that culture and tradition, however silly and detrimental we perceive them to be, are significant to our identities as humans.
In this particular situation, I think an even handed compromise has been reached. The Native American group has not been given free rein to slaughter numerous birds, but rather they have been issued permits, which regulate the killing. It is unfortunate, but I think this method will allow for smoother cultural transition.
There are two words that cause my ears to prick and my baloney detection kit to be automatically activated. “Faith” would be the first, but “tradition’ runs a close second.
As a friend of mine once said in response to such relativism, “My culture is Western colonial imperialism — are you going to take that away from me?”
It isn’t a matter of cultural relativism but of moral justification for the act in question – in this case, hunting. The justification depends upon whether you believe that the lives of two eagles are worth the cultural identity and the promotion of leisure activity of a group of humans. It is not comparable to harm done to other humans, but on the other hand one may wonder if such an activity is far too frivolous a thing to kill over.
What utter bloody nonsense. How beyond contemptible.
Are there any Brits here who have been hunt saboteurs or similar, and if so what is your take on this?
To me bloodsports and religious sacrifice are equally bad, but I wonder if the difference in social status between amerindians and fox hunters might alter people’s views?
I think this is definitely a case where the ideas implied by “stabilised/healthy societies -> less religion” need to be applied.
If you want to get Native cultures away from traditions that require killing endangered species, “don’t allow them hunting permits” does not address the root cause – it’s just more of white people telling brown people what to do. Native communities suffer from extremely high rates of alcoholism, domestic and child abuse, substandard living conditions [seriously, like third world conditions on some reservations; it’s appalling], etc.
Helping Native communities be safe and health will produce people who can build/repair their culture and move it away from traditions that are immoral/unsustainable.
Wow. I see the intolerance in these posts, and I’ve got to tell you, I’m not impressed. I live on a reservation, and eagles are not sacrificed as you probably picture in some kind of weird voodoo ceremony. It is preferable to get birds who have died so that the feathers may be used for honorings and ceremony, than to kill a bird. Eagles are kept frozen by the government for just this purpose.
Just because atheists are not treated well by the rest of the public does not mean it is fair or just to pass on the same intolerance to peoples who do believe in something. I find this aspect of New Atheism to be in Dr. Dawkins’ words “contemptible” and arrogant, and certainly does not help your cause.
There is clearly a conflict between religious values (must kill bird) and conservationist values (must not kill bird).
I haven’t read all the comments above, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize those who hold the conservationist values as paramount as “intolerant”.
I think the intolerance being described has to do with the tone of some of the arguments being presented. For instance, Dawkins wrote; “What utter bloody nonsense. How beyond contemptible.”
I don’t believe such statements are helpful nor do they move the dialogue forward in any meaningful way. That is what Diane meant by intolerance.
Seyram, thank you for being so omniscient and telling us what Diane meant. And are you going after Dawkins because of what he wrote, or because you just don’t like him?
This is reading off the charts on my smarmy-meter. “I don’t believe such statements are helpful nor do they move the dialogue forward in any meaningful way,” applies to you as well.
FWIW, I agree with Seyram: Dawkins could do a better job at messaging. (And before you rudely speculate as to my motives as well, you might click through to my link.)
It is preferable to get birds who have died so that the feathers may be used for honorings and ceremony, than to kill a bird. Eagles are kept frozen by the government for just this purpose.
.
Clearly you belong to a different tribe than the people discussed in the article, who insist that the arrangement you describe is inadequate for them. This dilutes the relevance of your comment.
Diane: I agree. Conservationists do go overboard and free-thinkers become arrogant. But keeping the traditions of the past is also important. What would Thanksgiving be without a turkey, etc., etc. Killing a couple of eagles is sad, but so many die anyway, and they are not in danger of extinction. What I find disgusting are the millions small animals runover each year by cars, many injured and left to die on roadsides. Is there some conservationist, animal lover, or free-thinker somewhere, anywhere trying to discover how to engineer roads to reduce roadkills? Stop worrying about two eagles and do something.
“[K]eeping the traditions of the past is also important.”
Yes, you’re right. I shed a tear every day for the loss of slavery and wife-beating, which were traditional to my tribe for countless thousands of years.
Please calm yourself. Holding on to tradition doesn’t mean to holding on to all traditions without regard for the harm they cause.
Exactly, George. That’s my point. (And the point of many others here.)
Today’s outrage:
I have to wonder if fresh killing is a necessary part of the ritual, as it suggests fresh meat for human consumption. Native American customs weren’t known for being wasteful, but eating the flesh of an animal was supposed to impart some of the best qualities of that animal.
After Native Americans (they weren’t Native Americans yet) arrived, 73% of large herbivore species went extinct in North America within 1,000 to 2000 years. Maybe they learned their lesson after that, but I doubt it. Most animals will eat their food source until it becomes scarce, then their population declines. People, including native people, are different in that they just switch food sources and keep going. I think we developed a myth about native peoples living in harmony with nature and Europeans were nasty killers. Europeans were just more efficient with technology.
Indeed, humans are uniquely dangerous to other animals precisely because we can eat anything, so wiping out a food species doesn’t affect us much.
I’ve long argued that if any human society can claim to have lived “in harmony with nature” then it is modern western industrial civilisation. Most pre-modern cultures were incredibly environmentally destructive.
Same problem in Australia. Indiginous people “traditionally” hunting dugongs and sea turtles using aluminium motor boats.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/inquiry-launched-after-dugongs-butchered-alive/3879014
In the video you can see their attitude of birthright and that everyone else’s laws can’t apply to them. (No evidenced regard for sustainability either.) Like Japanese whaling, it seems to have nothing to do with religion.
If we just send all the Indian children to boarding schools, they could be re-educated and forget those superstitious beliefs. Oh wait, didn’t we try that already? How did that work out? I hate to brake the news to you, but it was DDT and wonders of modern science and technology that brought the bald eagle to extinction, not Indian hunting rituals. Native Americans have been hunting eagles for centuries until the White Man Came Along to Save Them From Backwardness and Superstition. Just so you’re not mistaken, those wild Indians were also not responsible for almost wiping out the American Bison, driving out hundreds of native American birds with European cats and birds, or for bringing small pox and a bunch of other deadly diseases to the new world. Since it’s wrong to use religion to hunt animals, what about the reverse situation? Should we be angry at Hindus for keeping all those sacred cows alive and treating them like royalty?
errr.. what part of comment 18: 73% of large herbivores” in a couple of millenia [and equal or greater proportion of large carnivores, and at least a few birds] don’t you get??
Once again, no human group has ever conserved its fellow creatures!
I’m fairly certain that if you asked the remaining eagles WHO is most responsible for their species demise, they might not be able to give you a reasoned answer. But if you ask them as individuals, “Would you prefer to LIVE?” you’d probably get a ‘yes.’
I haven’t read comment #18 until you pointed it out, but I don’t think it has anything to do with it. I am not saying Native Americans have always lived in harmony in nature. It’s pretty well established that they wiped out the native populations of horses, mastodons, and probably hundreds of other species when they arrived in the Americas 10,000 t0 30,000 years ago. I was pointing out that it wasn’t Indian hunting that brought the bald eagle (or the bison) to near extinction. Are you seriously insisting that it was the Indians who drove down the population of eagles? I thought I was just pointing out an obvious oversight! It was DDT and systematic killing by white ranchers to protect their chickens! Do a little research on it, for crying out load.
There are a lot of mean, nasty things done in the name of religion, but there are meaner, nastier things done in the name of modern science, capitalism, and colonial exploitation. There are lots of nice things done in the name of science, and some religious beliefs, like cow veneration and ritual hunting, can be quite adaptative and ecological. There is a somewhat controversial school of thought in anthropology known as ‘cultural materialism’ popularized by the late anthropologist Marvin Harris, that claims just that. I would recommend checking out one of his books, but since most of you here don’t read books, check out the blog: http://cultural-materialism.blogspot.com/
By the way, bald eagles are not endangered anymore. They have recovered and are thriving quite well. In some parts of Alaska, they are as prolific as pigeons. If the eagle wasn’t the national bird, they would have lifted the ban on hunting them years ago.
This is a response to Ben Goren’s silly claims.
“Is it somehow morally wrong for other carnivorous species to eat meat? Is the lion committing some sort of crime when she kills a wildebeest for her cubs? What about the grackle with a taste for fence lizards?”
No. No. And no. Has anyone on this thread made these arguments or have you constructed a straw man?
“If that’s all okay, what’s wrong with a hairless ape giving a cow a life of luxury followed by a quick and painless death (assuming, of course, USDA regulations are adhered to) in order to feed some of the ape’s cousins?”
Life of luxury? A painless death? Are you making this up? Why don’t you visit several factory farms and reconsider your claim? Are gratuitous PETA videos just convincing computer animation?
I have seen hogs slaughtered with a bullet to the brain (on a family farm) and I can assure you that the hogs’ immediate behavior could be described with many adjectives, but “painless” is not one of them.
“Like it or not, killing is an inescapable part of life.”
Has anyone here claimed otherwise?
“Now, causing needless suffering, on the other hand….”
Factory farming IS the poster child for needless suffering. Dismembering living crabs, boiling live lobsters, does this cause needless suffering?
“I’ll re-answer your questions, if you start by posting an honest inventory of all the vertebrates whose deaths in the past few days you’ve directly benefitted from.”
Are you seriously suggesting that since we benefit from animal deaths that we shouldn’t try to minimize those deaths and the attendant suffering?
“But laying a guilt trip on somebody”
Which commenter is laying a guilt trip on you? You appear to be arguing with some imaginary commenter who has yet to appear on this thread.
“And the fact that you’re happy chowing down on your rice cakes, despite all the field mice, snakes, birds, and what-not who got mercilessly slaughtered en masse so that the rice could be planted, tended, and harvested (and their flesh is left to rot!) should also rule out your guilt trips on those who, just like you, depend on the deaths of cute animals for food.”
Ignore the fact that far more grain, ten times perhaps, needs to be fed to cattle for you to consume its flesh. So perhaps ten times the number of field mice, snakes, and birds are mercilessly slaughtered in addition to the cow who ends up on your plate.
I can’t respond better than Tulse, the options are not “be perfect” or “shut up.”
“You eat a rice cake that required the death of some unknown and now-unidentifiable number of birds, and you’re okay with that.”
Whatever that unidentifiable number is for a rice cake, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the deaths required to put the same caloric intake of beef on your plate. I’m not okay with that.
“I’m going to eat a chicken leg for dinner, and that really, really upsets you.”
No, it doesn’t upset me, but what does upset me is the needless suffering endured by the bird on your plate, needless suffering that you previously alluded to.
“Elsewhere in the region, a cougar is strangling to death a deer by biting its neck and pulling the skin tight. It’s going to eat most of the deer. You’re cool with that.
On Saturday, I’m going to be eating some corned beef brisket. The cow was (theoretically) killed near-instantly with a bolt to the head. This infuriates you.”
No, we don’t object to carnivores stalking and eating prey. To survive, they must stalk and eat prey. We, on the other hand, demonstrably do not need to eat animals to thrive.
So why do you persist in repeating this fallacious argument? What cougars do or do not do is not the issue. A biological IS is not a moral OUGHT. Didn’t Dawkins point this out thirty years ago?
“As far as my position on the question of blood sport of an endangered species”
It appears to me that you’re being inconsistent here. Hey, extinction is natural right? Mass extinction may be rare, but natural nevertheless. So if we apply your earlier naturalistic fallacy, I don’t see why you should be opposed to killing endangered species, as long as it’s done (theoretically) with a bolt to the head.
“I refuse to let the vegans take the moral high ground on the matter when they most emphatically do not occupy it.”
No. You’re mistaken. If more people were vegan, there would be less needless suffering.
“In my defense, the voices I’ve heard of those who attack people for being responsible for animal deaths for food in ways they don’t approve of have been consistent enough that I’ve gotten the impression that vocal anti-meat veganism is, at least in practice, as monolithic as the Newage crystal wooers.”
You’re not arguing with those people here. You’re pretending to argue with those people. You’re actually arguing with WEIT readers, maybe you should address the arguments being made on this blog, uh website.
“I do have a problem with people who think their diets are morally superior to mine, and I especially have a problem with those people being vocal about that hypocrisy.”
If minimizing suffering is morally superior to causing unnecessary suffering, veganism is indeed morally superior to meat-eating. So you do have a problem, but it’s the inability to think rationally about the causes and magnitude of animal suffering.
Cheers
p’wned!
Let’s skip to the end of your post and see.
Oops. There you go. You do have a problem with the suffering that the lion inflicts upon the wildebeest, that the grackle inflicts upon the fence lizards. They cause suffering, after all. The proper response, then would be to get rid of all the predators, right? Oops! More suffering!
Thank you for being a poster child of vegan hypocritical holier-than-thou moral “superiority.”
I’ll leave with one last comment on one of your “points”:
This is 100% pure luddite self / human loathing.
Because the only possible conclusion is that, if there were fewer people, there would be even less suffering. But, as should be obvious, zero people means more suffering.
Humans are reducing animal suffering, yes by farming and eating animals. Because the animals we farm and eat are (barring violations of law and regulation) well cared for and humanely killed, in stark contrast with what would happen to them in the wild.
You don’t give a flying fuck about reducing suffering. You just hate people and want all of us to go away.
Sorry. Sucks to be you.
b&
Ben, you are the proverbial pyromaniac in a field of straw. I don’t think anyone here has a problem accepting that animal suffering exists. We just don’t see any reason to increase suffering unnecessarily.
Why do you insist on attacking arguments no one here is making? Repeatedly, over and over, ad naseum.
“Humans are reducing animal suffering, yes by farming and eating animals. Because the animals we farm and eat are (barring violations of law and regulation) well cared for and humanely killed”
Sure, and no one on our highways are speeding (barring violations of law and regulation).
“You don’t give a flying fuck about reducing suffering. You just hate people and want all of us to go away.”
I’m the world’s leading expert on what I think and I haven’t mistaken your bile and vitriol for a coherent argument.
Cheers
It does seem that if humans ate less animal, fewer animals would be born in order to feed us, and therefore fewer would die, however that death comes about. Fewer lives, less suffering. Fewer deaths, less suffering. As a one-time vegetarian, when I have preference for beef, sometimes rationalizing that killing one cow feeds many, many more people than killing one chicken or one fish, and that limited suffering goes for captivity and illegal cruelty, which surely happens, too. In the end, though, the animals I eat wouldn’t have been bred and born, were we not eating them.
Apologies for not proofreading and correcting…
After killing them and taking over their country I think if they want to kill them eagles, it’s their right to. religious or cultural purposes, i don’t give a shit. Actually, I believe that if they want to take a shit on your doorsteps and then burn your house down, it is their right to do so. As for the eagles, fuck them.
The old “two wrongs make a right” argument.
I don’t think he’s made any argument. He’s just trolling.
I find it hard to justify killing a protected species on any grounds. The answer should be no. If they claim it impinges on their religious freedom, so what? Religion is not a get out of jail free card. Well, it sort of is, but it shouldn’t be.
As to the carnivore/vegan discussion, the issue is not that black and white. We’re all drawing a line somewhere that we’re not comfortable crossing. And all those lifestyle choices have unintended back-end effects. My own solution, as a moderate carnivore, is to at least become a localvore, buying meat and poultry and vegetables from the farmer’s market, and avoiding all those factory farming techniques. I have actually met the farmers who are selling me food, and can assess their level of humane treatment of their livestock and their processing methods. They actually encourage you to come out to the farm to see for yourself, something I haven’t done yet.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Those of you wishing to minimize animal suffering, as you falsely claim to do, need to be following Dave’s example.
Cheers,
b&
I won’t claim to live that on a daily basis, but I do make an effort. Every little bit makes a difference. Thank you, Ben.
And why exactly is what Daveau doing so clearly morally better than what the vegans are doing?
Sorry Ben, but as Glenn pointed out above, your arguments on this thread have just amounted to bald assertions about what other people believe (or what you think they believe) in face of repeated arguments from said people showing that you didn’t really have any idea what they are talking about.
All this blather and I counted one serious discussion of tribal sovereignty and one comment saying a reasonable accommodation had been made. kudos to those two people.
In other words, they go against the grain of the careers their
parents had. You must definitely be planning to make it special and memorable by keeping a
good theme, ordering the best food and choosing the best games.
Theme Format: It is almost like standard format of the pub quiz.