NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/3432

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!umn.edu!doug.cae.wisc.edu!zazen!uwec.edu!nyeda
From: [e-mail] (David Nye)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Vegitarianism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:12:36 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 26

[reply to [e-mail]]

>>Thus, it can be moral for the lion to eat the gazelle because he is
>>ecologically important as a predator and an obligatory carnivore,
>>whereas humans are neither (our raising of animals for food is not
>>beneficial to the environment).

>Why is that? Why are our activities somehow hostile to "the
>environment", while the activities of the lion are not?

This is a matter of record.  I'm astonished that you would even attempt
to make a case against it (although after that last post, perhaps I
shouldn't be).  Whenever you bring a domestic animal to be raised for
food into a pristine environment, you change it, usually drastically.
For example, much of the Amazon rain forest is being burned off to grow
beef.  If you take all the lions *out* of their environment, you change
it, again drastically, as the former prey now multiply out of control
and start to outgraze their food supply, sometimes to the point of
permanently altering the flora, then begin to die in large numbers from
starvation and disease.  I'm not saying that it is impossible to raise a
herd of some domesticated animal without noticably damaging the
ecosystem (notice that I said "is not beneficial", not "is detrimental")
but I can't think of any ecologic benefit.

David Nye
[e-mail]