694
Double A.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
694 points (92.5% liked)
Vegan
0 readers
1 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
When it is necessary. Humans have replaced the apex predators in a lot of places. If population control isn't done with deer, the population skyrockets, gets out of control, and destroys the ecology, taking several species and the environment with it, not to mention putting people at risk because of the increased risk of deer crashes.
So for instance in most of Europe, it just is necessary. I only specified "when it's necessary" to avoid having an argument about trophy-hunting, which is immoral and ridiculous rich people bullshit. Actual hunting isn't. There's no cruelty, and it has to be done. And when it is, I eat it. And the venison is delicious.
This is ridiculous. You don't seem to understand what hunting actually does. https://ecosystems.psu.edu/outreach/youth/sftrc/deer/issue-deer
But all that applies to humans, and much more so. The harm done by deer overpopulation is completely and utterly dwarfed by the habitat destruction, pollution and climate change that our overpopulation causes. Based on your argumentation, hunting humans for population control is necessary and ethical.
But of course nobody will apply the logic consistently because of how cruel it would be.
Why don't we implement more humane population control measures for deer, like spaying/neutering? It might have something to do with humans liking the taste of their dead bodies...
If you have to choose between killing a crying child or killing an adult deer, which would you think is the more moral choice?
Unfortunately, you're not using logic.
Why don't we spay entire wild populations of deer? :DD
See earlier sentence, it applies here as well:
Unfortunately, you're not using logic.
Thanks for the laughs though, young city dweller, but if you really value nature and animals, I suggest actually visiting it and reading about it.
What does that have to do with anything? Of course killing a human is worse, but that doesn't mean that killing a deer isn't cruel.
Well, we do this with hundreds of millions of pets and BILLIONS of livestock animals just to improve taste, and hunters already go around shooting them, surely there would be a practical way to tranquilize them and do a snip or something. This is an issue we're responsible for after all, as you said. But yeah, there's no profit and no tasty corpses to be gained so it's not an option, I get it.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to be a condescending prick by the way. Maybe basic decency and manners aren't valued in your culture, so I'll try not to judge your character based on that. Have a nice day anyways.
And hmm, might there be some sort of a difference in how practical it is to spay DOMESTICATED animals versus ONES IN THE WILD?
"Surely there would be a practical way to tranquilize them and do a snip or something"
You can't be serious :D
Tell me you've never been outside a city without telling me you've never been outside a city. You don't seem to have any idea how big the outdoors is. It would be as easy to spay every deer as it would be to empty a lake of fish. Of every single fish. And then put them back alive. And then not understand that you still need to leave a breeding population, or you're genociding said animal and removing it from the ecological niche it's in, meaning the environment will be unbalanced and die. Congratulations, you've destroyed nature because you wish to pretend that predation isn't something that is necessary.
It's not my fault that you have an inferiority complex. You can probably help that by actually informing yourself of things, so that doesn't trigger so easily.___
You wouldn't need to sterilize more deer for population control than with hunting, obviously. You'd need to sterilize less in total because they'd still compete for food and habitat, just have no offspring. How is that unfeasible? I never said that you'd have to sterilize every single one lol, just enough to impact the fertility of their population in regions where its necessary due to human influence.
So you're sterilising deer for literally nothing, as a sterilised deer still has to eat, deary.
https://wildscapedeermanagement.co.uk/pages/ecological-impact-of-deer-overpopulation
"How is that unfeasible"
Because the non-spayed deer will just procreate more. You're not doing population control at all with your approach, even if it was possible. I ask you, do you think you can take a fishing pole and fish a lake empty? No, ofc not, that is ridiculous. What your proposing is equally if not more ridiculous. You're thinking about nature as if it was a fenced area that you are in charge of. Very arrogant of you, tbh.
You're the type of person who gives veganism a bad name, imo. You're probably one of those people who think "Thanos was right", huh?