Karma

[LoreD]

Predators like lions, tigers, wolves, etc., don't hunt for fun. Humans that are "trophy hunters" are a special kind of sick animal.

He deserved all the karma the universe can give him.

 

[LoreD]

I'm not an expert on the issue, but is difficult to believe they would destroy the ecosystem, unless it is an ecosystem already made dysfunctional by human intervention. Herbivore population is limited by food supply. In my country they would probably come in hand to clean the woods and prevent fires.

Usually, when wolves are removed, and deer overpopulate; the area becomes a wasteland. I watched a documentary where they said that a lack of predators caused destructive behavior changes in herbivore populations. When predators are present; deer, elk, etc., move out of areas quickly. When predators are not present; they eat everything until there is nothing left.

Overgrazing by deer is changing the face of U.S. forests​

| EarthSky

earthsky.org

Scientists in the U.S. Northeast published two studies examining the impact of deer overpopulation on natural ecosystems in early March 2014. Biologists at Cornell University investigated disruptions by large numbers of deer to natural growth in developing forests. University of Pittsburgh researchers showed how large deer populations are causing an increase in garlic mustard, an exotic invasive plant, in forest understory flora. In both instances, the root problem is overgrazing by deer of native plants that open up more growing space for invasive exotic plants that deer find unpalatable.

These studies were conducted in in Ithaca, New York and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But the problem of deer proliferation is widespread across the U.S. and Canada. Their numbers have increased dramatically for several reasons. Since the arrival of European settlers more than 300 years ago, the deers’ natural predators, wolves, have been exterminated. And, as human populations have increased, deer forest habitat has shrunken drastically, mostly giving way to suburban lawns, gardens and farms that can also provide a deer’s food sources. Compared to historical population estimates prior to European settlement, deer populations today have increased, depending on location, by four to 10 times.

Under normal conditions, when cleared land is left to revert to forest, there’s a natural progression of vegetation: grasses are gradually replaced by herbaceous plants and shrubs, followed by native tree species such as cottonwood, locust and sumac. Deer, however, have a strong preference for consuming native plants over exotic invasive plants. As a result, most native plants are unable to recover from the pressure of overgrazing by deer. This allows exotic invasives such as thorny thickets of buckthorn, viburnum and multiflora rose bushes, largely shunned by deer, to become dominant in the landscape. Where deer had free rein, the plots showed patches of bare soil and fewer plant species, especially a lack of woody plants

 

[g0rph]

Predators like lions, tigers, wolves, etc., don't hunt for fun. Humans that are "trophy hunters" are a special kind of sick animal.

He deserved all the karma the universe can give him.

Whilst I think it is "karma" (as a descriptive, rather than real thing), I can't bring myself to really celebrate the death of anyone...if only for the people he leaves mourning.

Whilst I can be an insufferable **** myself sometimes, I do like to think I occasionally try to raise myself above that type of thinking when I have time to really take it in.

Don't get me wrong, there is a kind of tonic in seeing this kind of news and I regularly look into /r/thebullwins, but ultimately none of us are perfect and death is, in the end, final.

 

[fakei]

Under normal conditions, when cleared land is left to revert to forest, there’s a natural progression of vegetation: grasses are gradually replaced by herbaceous plants and shrubs, followed by native tree species such as cottonwood, locust and sumac. Deer, however, have a strong preference for consuming native plants over exotic invasive plants.

That's what I meant by:

I'm not an expert on the issue, but is difficult to believe they would destroy the ecosystem, unless it is an ecosystem already made dysfunctional by human intervention. Herbivore population is limited by food supply. In my country they would probably come in hand to clean the woods and prevent fires.

And it does seem to be the case, since exotic plants and destroyed forest being recovered are not caused by the deers.

The title of course is misleading and shows our tendency to blame animals for what is really human responsibility.

 

[fakei]

Also notice that the killing of wolves in Sweden like the culling of badgers in the UK are two examples that the deaths caused by the meat industry are not confined to the animals being consumed.

 

[fakei]

BTW just two caveats regarding the above.

1- First, not being an expert, the arguments regarding the effects on the ecosystem are more an indirect question than actually a statement.

2- We are talking about the removal of one species of predators in ecosystems where there are tons of them, it's difficult to imagine that a wider removal, whether it would destroy or not the ecosystem, would not have dramatic consequences.

Regarding the moral issue raised of the hunter killing the predator to save the prey, whatever the perspective taken, it would be wrong, because, if we take things at face value, unlike humans animals have no choice and predators do population control better than humans. On the other hand, in order to attribute moral responsibility to animals we would have to introduce inevitably a concept like incarnation or reincarnation, by which the soul of the animal is responsible for its current situation. In this context it would be equally wrong to kill the predator. The reason being that besides not achieving anything, since he would return with the same inclination and the only way he would change would be by personal experiences that would eventually develop his conscience, the person doing it would eventually end up like the guy jumping into the sea to rescue someone and ending up drowned along with the other, he would reap the bad consequence of killing and, if continuing, following the logic thought-word-action-habit-character-destiny, he would reap a terrible destiny, at some point no longer incarnating as a human with less self control, ability to reason and choose.

 

[Tom L.]

I agree that predatory animals do not have a choice in the matter. Although it's possible for us humans to create foods that are at least partially vegan for our pets such as cats and dogs, wild predators invariably will die if they fail to hunt (or at least scavenge dead herbivores). But as a rule, many herbivores die so that a smaller number of predators live. I see no contradiction if an animal advocate preferentially cares for herbivores.

And I'm definitely not trying to argue that those who hunt lions, coyotes, etc are motivated by any genuine concern for the antelopes, deer, moose, etc that these predators would have killed and eaten. They wanted to hunt and eat the grazers themselves, and were just protecting "their" game. I think this view may have changed, and that those who enjoy hunting may also appreciate having predatory species in the wild. But herbivorous animals lose, either way.

However... I am arguing that the reason herbivores tend to overpopulate, overgraze/overbrowse, and then have a population crash in the absence of hunting or predation is because of previous predation pressure. Consider: elephants and rhinoceroses generally have a very low birth rate. But this has worked for them- because they have few, if any, natural predators. (With the more-recent hunting by- and competition from- humans, their populations have been dangerously reduced).

But if deer or mice suddenly started reproducing as infrequently as elephants or rhinos, they would be extinct in no time at all, even if humans had also stopped killing them (except maybe in areas where their predators had been killed off by humans). I know this can be considered a which-came-first:-the chicken-or-the-egg kind of argument. But I have often seen statements to the effect that predators serve some sort of purpose in controlling their prey species' populations- and I'm not seeing that. I would rather see herbivore populations controlled by reducing their birth rate (as @gorph mentioned above), and this has been done in a few areas (but for now, I don't see this as economically feasible to any great degree).

 

[fakei]

. But I have often seen statements to the effect that predators serve some sort of purpose in controlling their prey species' populations- and I'm not seeing that. .

Only in a small forest there is probably a huge number of species of predators.

Also, the animal kingdom is not divided between herbivores and carnivores alone, inbetween there is huge number of species which are omnivorous including mice and rats and others.

Although it's possible for us humans to create foods that are at least partially vegan for our pets such as cats and dogs, wild predators invariably will die if they fail to hunt (or at least scavenge dead herbivores)

The production of that food and packages also kills animals by poisoning and destroying the environment, and humans don't need to have pets.

That's part of the problem, most humans living in apartments know about cats and dogs and little more.

There is a tendency to look romantically at the animal kingdom, but it doesn't work that way. Even herbivores can be brutal to each other, just like humans, there is rivalry among males and jealousy among females, and fights among males can have terrible consequences.

If we are to ascribe any moral responsibility to animals, and even in some cases if not all to humans, we have to introduce the concept of incarnated soul and with it the notion of an orderly universe in which things happen for a reason and there is a divine providence supervising things. And in that case everything that happens including being incarnated as an herbivore that will be eaten by a lion is ultimately the soul's responsibility.

And maybe we may conclude, like Socrates, that no one chooses evil deliberately, but through ignorance, and so evil is ignorance.

And animal behaviour confirms it. If one looks at males fighting and females being ostracized by others when they are no longer subject to survival rules but instead with plenty of food being provided for everyone one may ask why. Of course they follow emotions and instincts and are not able to use reason and access the situation, something that also happens to humans! That's why we keep seeing all the stupid slaughters of animals and humans and destruction of the environment which are nothing but the product of ignorance.

 

[fakei]

We fail to realize we are in the same situation of Alice in Wonderland, when she tells the cat she doesn't wan't to be among crazy people and he replies she can't avoid it because everyone there is crazy including her, otherwise she wouldn't be there. In the same way we are all evil here, because we are ignorant, and even when we try to do good we end up doing evil because of our ignorance.