>>677712Science may produce meat, and people may stop killing animals for food, but it will never lead to a "more peaceful and careful humanity in the future." Human nature never changes. One has to merely look at all of human history to see this and the fact that people just continue to use the latest technology to inflict pain and terror on others. Nothing in nature will ever be as cruel as what one human being does to another.
I agree with you that all life is precious, but you shouldn't fall for the logical fallacy that killing something equates to cruelty. Motives and intent play a large role, which is the reason I wrote the lengthy post about ethical hunting. Life (and especially death) are by their very nature are painful and difficult. Yes, humans have to take responsibility for wildlife conservation, but since we remove apex predators, we have to step in. True conservation doesn't mean no killing, it means ethical killing to properly manage a given population.
If you read numerous accounts from the 1800s, people saw waterfowl migrations so thick that it darkened the sky. While I would love to see that, I also know it would make modern air travel extremely dangerous, and people would die. By the way, did you know that the reason we have strict hunting and harvesting laws, is that ethical hunters pushed for them? Hunting organizations like Ducks Unlimited were the first true conservation organizations. Using money that came out of hunters own pockets, they purchased hundreds of thousands of acres to protect wetlands, which benefit all of us. Ethical hunters put both their character and money where their mouth is.
Cruelty would be to leave the deer population on the East Coast of the US unculled and allow them to starve to death, die in a disease outbreak, or be hit by motor vehicles. We removed the other predators, it is our duty to remain predators. Reality is tough, and showing mercy does not necessarily mean not killing things is cruel.
