Morning Read: Should we kill the killers?
The New York Times website has published a provocative essay on its website this morning, asking whether it would be moral for humans to eliminate carnivores from the planet as a way to reduce the amount of suffering.
Normally, I wouldn’t highlight an article like this one. It’s not a “local” story and it is, to put it bluntly, a fantastically goofy and wrong-headed idea.
But as hunting season gets underway — I met a bear hunter coming out of the woods last night — it struck me as such a stark and fascinating example of how alien the natural world has become to many urban, academic Americans.
Here’s a brief excerpt of Jeff McMahan’s essay:
Suppose that we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones. Or suppose that we could intervene genetically, so that currently carnivorous species would gradually evolve into herbivorous ones, thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy.
If we could bring about the end of predation by one or the other of these means at little cost to ourselves, ought we to do it?
McMahan, a professor of philosophy at Rutgers, reaches this conclusion:
It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation.
The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species.
I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.
It seems plain that McMahan — and many in the animal rights movement — would prefer to impose their own moral and aesthetic code upon the wild.
They see wild spaces as something that should be managed and shaped by humans, in much the way that we would manage a cornfield or a stocked fishing pond.
In a recent essay in the Adirondack Explorer (no link available), North Country animal rights activist Jessica Ryle — founder of Adirondack Animal Rights — sounded a similar note.
She suggested that it would be more humane to control whitetail deer populations using sterilization, rather than allow them to be hunted by humans.
“One [method of sterilization],” Ryle wrote, “is immunocontraception, which triggers the animal’s immune response to prevent pregnancy. Immunocontraceptive drugs or vaccines can be delivered by bait, darts and plastic bullets.”
Hunters often speak of their respect and veneration of the natural world as it exists, as a place where suffering and death go hand-in-hand with the beauty and mystery of an ecosystem larger and far more ancient than ourselves.
For my part, I prefer the hunter’s vision to that of McMahan and Ryle. Your comments welcome below.
“[Jessica Ryle] suggested that it would be more humane to control whitetail deer populations using sterilization, rather than allow them to be hunted by humans.”
I don’t get it. The smartest people in the room won’t allow clean energy to be produced because it kills a sand turtle, but they want to kill all the deer to fulfill their grand strategy of the earth!??
I say, “put a lock on the door of the room where all the smartest people in the room hang out”
Wouldn’t the best way of controlling the deer population involve reintroducing wolves and other predators? Wolves work all year-round, 24/7 for free.
Not so free when the wolf figures out my lambs and sheep and calves are lot easier to hunt down than deer Knuck.
Ideas like these people have illustrate just what happens when people get too far from the land. They may claim to be “nature lovers” or whatever, but they lack a common sense appreciation for facts. Death is part of life. Why is the plant any more of less due a life than the herbivore that eats it? For one thing to live, another must die. Simple fact whether it’s a fish, a deer or chicken or corn or wheat. Simply walking across a field damages or kills various species. Their ideas are ludicrous.
The amazing part is that there is a very vocal, well funded following for people espousing these ideas, the same people that would quite happy to wipe out all human existence and signs of human life on the planet- except their own of course.
So, was there any suggestion of including aquatic predators in this scheme? And how far down the food chain do we go? Should we kill all the frogs who eat insects? This is not a ‘smartest people’ suggestion. It is a ‘been eating too many foo-foo berries suggestion. The hubris of thinking that Mother Nature can’t take care of herself without us ‘brilliant’ humans. IMO The dumbest idea I’ve heard in a loooong time.
Yes. When I read it, I thought, ‘This is so dumb it’s interesting.’ Kind of like watching a movie that’s so epically bad that it’s kind of thought-provoking…
I love the way McMahan suggests that any criticism he receives will be sort of a knee-jerk reaction to heretical outside-the-box thinking.
–Brian, NCPR
Let’s expand upon the idea further. Maybe immunocontraceptive drugs placed in the water supply would solve a few of the country’s current problems.
If you don’t like predators, take it up with God.
And speaking about getting rid of predators, would this include getting rid of humans who are currently the number one predator on the planet. We kill everything, including ourselves.
You just can’t fix stupid.
Bret, get a couple of llamas.
Nicely put Brian. I almost wonder if the essay was intentionally written to illustrate the absurdity of attempting to eliminate pain and suffering. If not, wow…
Both approaches strike me as being utterly unnatural.
How exactly is hunting an overpopulated species because we eliminated the predators that would normally keep them in check in any way shape or form more “natural” than sterilizing them? There is suffering in nature, so therefore causing suffering is more natural? Is that the logic being used?
In both cases the affect is the same, the population is reduced. And in both cases the reason for needing it is the same, because we altered the real natural state of things.
I’m not sure mockery is warranted here.
Oh, gaaahd. The dreaded NYT Opinionator blog. The last bastion of cliche academic leftism.
It is kind of bizarre that anyone that knew anything about ecology, the environment or biology would go down that sort of crazy road.
But I can’t imagine anyone in the environmental movement would espouse this sort of hubris. I do think this points out the huge huge difference between the animal rights movement and the environmental movement.
Think of what he is saying though, no coyotes, no foxes no eagles, no hawks no wolves no frogs no Wallaye’s no Northern Pike, no spiders no chimps, no lions, no alligators and on and on and on.
What a boring rotten planet that would be besides of course being a dead one in that you can’t remove the natural ecology and survive as a living planet.
If McMahan, a professor of philosophy at Rutgers, were to listen carefully, he would hear the painful screams of fruits and vegetables as they are ripped from the Earth and the limbs of trees, and torn to shreds by by his teeth.
One word for both views – arrogance. To paraphrase James, “Mother Nature can’t handle this one alone, eh?”
Right on, Mervel. Though do we have to keep spiders?
Does anyone remember when PETA said that the town of Fishkill should change its name because it was cruel?
It was a joke, of course, but most people didn’t get it.
Um, getting rid of all carnivores would be incredibly stupid. I have no problem with nature and natural predators and I would be elated if natural predators were reintroduced into the area.
Things get messed up when humans interfere with nature. And when humans interfere more with nature to try to fix things, things get even more messed up.
That being said, humans do not need to eat animal flesh (whether bought at the supermarket or killed in the woods) to survive. Period.
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/513571.html
And McMahan sounds like a crackpot. He does not speak for the animal rights movement. No one I’ve ever met within it has even heard of the guy. So way to attack that straw-man Brian. You’re so cool.
Jessica, it’s true that humans don’t need to eat animal flesh to survive. It is also true that we don’t need polluting and animal maiming cars, the internet and any number of modern “necessities” to survive. Heck, we probably can survive on artificially synthesized nutrients that don’t result in the death or displacement of any animals.
You are welcome to lead the life you want to live. Please leave the rest of us to do the same, and don’t attempt to force your faith-based world views on others.
This human needs meat. Maybe you don’t Jess, but that’s your choice.
Knuck, got a llama. She hates sheep. She’d probably side with the wolves as long as they left her alone. That’s not an answer to the realities anyway. We have more than enough predators to control deer.
http://media.www.cardinalpointsonline.com/opinions/letter-vegan-diet-helps-animals-health-environment-1.2237414?pagereq=2
Bottom line: Get another argument.
Neither “natural” nor “traditional” is synonymous with “ethical.” If you feel the need to defend hunting, be my guest, but at least do it in a coherent way.
Great article of the benefits of a vegan diet. It’s the only way to go. I have had to goad one of my vegan friends to give up his leather boots. I keep telling him that it’s really hypocritical.
Just saw again the movie Soylent Green. Maybe we should start eating dead people to keep the professor happy? Waste not, want not. Then we could house living people in cemeteries instead of wasting the land on dead people.
Re-release “Soylent Green” with the tag line “Recycle, Reuse”
Random Guy, please present us with your coherent argument as to why hunting and eating meat is inherently unethical. Don’t forget to include your faith-based assumptions on which your argument will rest.
I’d like to know how you defend driving, which results in the maiming and death of hundreds of millions, if not billions of animals a year. The same holds true for agriculture, even if it doesn’t involve raising animals – any farmer can tell you gut wrenching tales of animals he or she has maimed during harvesting or mowing a field. Young fawns are particularly vulnerable and common victims. Organic agriculture likely results in more death per unit of food because it requires more area to produce the same quantity as conventional agriculture.
You are only going to achieve the moral and ethical purity you are seeking by living in some extraterrestrial bubble. You are welcome to do whatever you want, but forcing one’s faith-based world view on others is the height of obnoxiousness and arrogance.
Lets take it to print Solidago. I don’t debate this Shitaki mushrooms on internet comment sections. It’s a waste of intellectual energy which nobody reads.
And you’ve already read my arguments for veganism and against hunting. I posted links to them.
God. To quote Michael Corleone, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”
I can’t let some of your rhetoric stand.
You’ve used the phrase “faith-baised” a couple of times now. Please explain exactly what you mean. My logic is as follows:
1. The consumption of animal products is unnecessary.
2. The production of animal products causes suffering.
3. The consumption of animal products should be stopped.
Where did I go wrong, Socrates?
Next up, your assertion that Jessica and I are “forcing” our world view on you. If I was holding a Glock to your face whilst shoving tempeh down your throat, your description would be accurate. But that’s not the case. Jessica and I have written a few letters to a couple newspapers.
I mean, just get real. If I was writing a letter in support of some local political candidate or against the Iraq War, would I be “forcing” my world view on you? Obviously not. People do it all the time do it and–for the most part!–no one complains. It’s only that Jessica and I fall outside of mainstream opinion that we’re accused of preachifying.
Random guy,
You believe that killing can only be justified by absolute necessity, and any suffering is unnatural and intolerable. Those beliefs aren’t based in reality.
Telling people that what they are doing is immoral and implying that you are on a higher moral plane isn’t “preachifying”?
I judge actions, not people. I try to use a common sense, non-violent ethic that I think most people share but have yet to apply to their diet.
And obviously I’m not on a higher moral plane. Straw-man much?
Done with this conversation….
Hunting is ethical in that an ecosystem needs predators and predation. It is very unnatural and unethical to try to control an ecosystem through unnatural methods. The results are invasive species, unintended consequences in the ecosystem and a denigration of the way that an ecosystem has evolved. Have we learned nothing from our tinkering with the natural world over the past thousands of years?
Human beings and our closest non-human relatives the Chimpanzee both have evolved to hunt and to take protein efficiently through meat. Those canine teeth humans have are not designed to chew grasses like a deer or a buffalo they are designed to rip flesh.
Certainly processed meat and the meat packing industry and the factory farm industry is often very unethical. But that life and that industry is almost the inverse of hunting, of finding and killing your own meat and taking an animal for your own consumption. It removes us from the prey, it removes us from the animal itself.
I don’t buy meat that I can’t touch and see alive; locally raised meat is better and it tastes better.
Anyway that was not even on topic sorry.
I wasn’t planning on jumping back into the conversation, but I feel there is a need after Marvel’s last comment.
Human canine teeth are nothing like the canine teeth of actual carnivores. When was the last time a human caught prey with its claws and ripped into the raw flesh with its teeth?
Humans also have much longer intestinal tracts than actual carnivores. Short intestinal tracts are needed so that the rotting flesh can get through the body quickly before causing illness.
Humans are absolutely not natural carnivores. We are omnivores, but we do not need to consume animal products to survive. None of you do. That is fact, based on science, not faith.
And another thing, Brian. Where did you get the idea that animal rights activists “would prefer to impose their own moral and aesthetic code upon the wild”? We are the ones who wish humans would just leave the wild alone. We believe that all animals have individual rights, so why would we support the purposeful extinction of other species?
Next time you want to write about animal rights issues, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll help you get the facts straight.
Humans evovled to hunt and eat meat that is why our earliest ancestors largely got much of their protein from meat. It is the reason that Chimpanzees hunt today.
I do agree that we don’t have to eat meat to be healthy. I certainly respect a vegan diet and would also advocate for treating all animals with respect and reverence. Which is why I feel that hunting is the most human and moral thing we can do when humans have done the inhumane act of killing other predators in the food chain. It is a much more natural and thus I believe moral act than trying to control deer populations artificially thus denying the natural process of birth, life and death, thus denying doe’s natural right and need they have of raising and protecting their fawns.
Animal rights advocates from what I can tell are often at cross purposes with environmentalism, the ecosystem is not about animal rights, “rights” of any sort are a modern invention of human beings.
Omnivores did evolve to eat meat and plant life, if you can get the black bears and skunks to pass on meat I will also. It is not immoral to eat meat; black bears and chimpanzee’s are not “immoral” because of their diet. None of my comments have to do with faith, why did you bring that up?
Right there is the crux of the issue- black bears and chimps are not immoral but man is. Man is always immoral unless we think and behave exactly as the animal rights activists tell us to. Only they are moral and ethical enough to decide.
No God complex in play there.
Given that their aims are different, I’d concede that the environmentalist and the vegan are sometimes at cross purposes. But given that 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock (a greater share than transport!), I’d argue that the average vegan does more, perhaps unintentionally, to counter the effects of global warming than the most active environmentalist could ever hope to do.
The meat-eating environmentalist is one who talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
…And I’m out. For real this time!
No Animal Rights activist argues for the removal of predatory species. Animal Rights espouses the philosophy that any human intervention with nature or non-human species should be solely for the benefit of such and not carried out with human animal interests as paramount. When humans intervene, concerned only with our agenda, is when the problems occur. Racoon rabies was introduced to NYS by hunters who imported raccoons from Florida because the hunters thought that Florida raccoons were more of a challenge to kill. Because of this, now NYS requires cats, dogs and ferrets to vaccinated against rabies because of the increased threat. Possums, officially known as the Virginia Opossum are not indigenous to NYS. They were brought here by hunters solely as something different to kill. The species is not well designed for upstate winters and suffer terribly from frostbite and are subject to freezing to death. Animal Rights argues that any actions taken toward those that we SHARE this planet should consider the interests of them and not just ourselves.
Mervel and Bret you are right that black bears and chimps are not “moral” or “immoral” and they don’t pretend to be. Humans, however, keep saying we are “moral” beings and it is often used as a reason to keep using other animals they way we do — God said we could use animals, or we do not owe other animals any rights because “we” are moral beings and they are not. By the way, early humans got most of their protein from plants. Almost all preditors, especially land-based preditors, don’t kill an animal every time they hunt. Large cats in the wild, for instance, make a kill once a week if they are lucky or skilled. Most of the protein on this planet is derived from plant sources. Chimps’ main diet is NOT meat, and black bears are by and large scavengers when eating meat and when gathering their own food, eat berries, leaves, and other plant-sourced food. Polar bears are the exception, of course, and the brown bears eat fish when in season and scavenge for meat and gather their own plant-sourced foods the rest of the time.
It depends on which early humans. If you look at North America we see large scale hunting, if you look at Inuit communities you see large scale hunting. It depends on the ecosystem and what was available.
My comments were mainly directed at the unnatural schemes dreamed up in the original post by Brian.
As far as morality goes well I don’t think we as a society can say what is moral or not anymore as we don’t have any agreement on basic morality, we can argue about it of course but that is as far as it goes. We can say what is natural or unnatural and we can say what helps or hurts our species. I happen to believe that a healthy environment is the best thing for human beings and our future.
Mervel,
You say we can’t agree on basic morality. I disagree.
Imagine I were to put the following poll in the field:
“Is it right or wrong to slit a labrador retriever’s throat?”
What do you imagine the results would be? Be honest. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred will say it’s wrong.
You’re smart enough to know where I’m going at this point. What’s the difference between a dog and a pig? Not much. If anything, the pig is probably smarter. Yet we’re socialized to treat one as a family member and another as raw material.