"Now, the available methods of contraception for animals are not always good.... But humans and animals have to limit our own population growth in order for the world to be minimally just. With the elk, there are things that have been tried: shooting them in cold blood; some kind of population control; introducing wolves to tear the elks limb from limb. People say that’s better because it’s nature. I don’t like that argument. For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
Said Martha Nussbaum, quoted in "Do Humans Owe Animals Equal Rights? Martha Nussbaum Thinks So" (NYT).
"Now... I don’t think that predatory animals are doing anything wrong. I
don’t think they should be deprived of their way of life. We also don’t
know what terrible imbalances will be created in the ecosystem if we
start protecting all the antelopes from getting killed. We do know that
with our companion animals we teach them substitute behaviors. People
who let their cats go outside try to stop them from eating little birds
and to teach them, well, they can scratch a tree. If they’re indoor
cats, they can have a scratching post. They want morally acceptable ways
of getting the satisfaction of their predatory instincts.
But wild carnivores aren’t going to stop being predators. That’s what
humans have done over the centuries...."
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
wow
so many predators in the world!
Martha is on it.
Bad, wolf! Bad!
no food for you!
eats beans, wolfie
Don't worry. Progressives are still killing as many babies as they can, and the Progressive cities are doing their part, in culling the herd.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011&version=NIV
Our Old Testament reading this past Sunday: 2nd Sunday of Advent.
Martha, Martha… Martha.
So it's the winery's characterization of the image as "absolutely innocent" that you find most interesting, not the state's characterization that it's "degrading," and not the state's attempt to ban the image on that basis?
Maybe the article gives some relevant content. But whats been provided is just idiocy spouted by any 7 year old.
Too many elk is corrected by starvation and/or disease. Man can help. In severe situations, buck only seasons thin the heard quickly and produces more impressive trophies.
The latest episode of Yellowstone that aired, gives us an environmentalist/vegan, getting the Beth treatment. Good stuff.
Animals aren’t human. So, no.
A college education is no guarantee against being a retard.
"don’t like that argument. For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
Speaking of not knowing how to shoot, like that was the question. She should have at least talked to a hunter, so she did not come across as totally ignorant. You do not go for a head shot, for many reasons. The way to take an elk is with a heart/lung shot, just behind the shoulder. Most humane way to take an elk or deer or even moose. Head shots are chancy at best, animals constantly move their heads watching for predators, and the bullet is likely to glance off the skull and leave a wounded animal suffering.
Eventually after Elon Musk perfects neualink and we can all talk to the animals, we will stop killing them. Future humans will look at us as barbarians. That said, we are not future humans and we require from an evolution biology fish and meat. In the mean time while we still have abbatoirs, hunting and fishing should be legal.
I still have a few servings of elk in the freezer courtesy of my brother in law. It's kind of hard to get a tag. I would not think there is a current overpopulation.
Has this women been out much? Animals in the wild tear each other up. It's a cruel food chain.
Human's hunt. Humans kill 700,000 cattle a week/month (something) at the slaughter house.
This generation of ideologues is laying the groundwork for a 21st Century that makes the many 20th Century genocides pale in comparison. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot will be regarded as mere toddlers by the year 2100.Slavery and empires of hundreds of years ago at least kept the underclasses alive.
We now have many oligarchs saying depopulation, many greenies comparing humans to animals, and many impressionable youth ready to self-sterilize (cut off their own bits) as human sacrifices.
Shall we build Mayan pyramids for looming routine blood sacrifices? Shall we have sacrificial altars and Gaian Priests in every town and every Starbucks? Shall we create Logan's Run-style self-extermination centers for everyone over 30?
I wouldn't bet against any of these.
"For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
And, with that statement, she self identifies as someone who "don't".
Retire the Lotka-Volterra equations. Rabbits and wolves will exist in peace.
iowan.
You cull the excess does and yearling bucks. After a few years the heard becomes manageable again. If you just hunt for trophy bucks more immature bucks will start herding and mating excess does. When you remove the excess does you remove the opportunity for bucks to mate. It isn't for a lack of natural predator's. It's because we've become, as hunters, very good at managing habitat.
"Do Humans Owe Animals Equal Rights? Martha Nussbaum Thinks So"
Martha Nussbaum is wrong.
"Rights" are part of a social contract: I agree not to harm other Humans in exchange for the expectation that I will also not be harmed. We set up social structures to enforce this. We have no kind of agreement with animals and owe them nothing.
The reason we don't just wipe them out, is because they are useful and valuable.
People say that’s better because it’s nature.
That's because people are stupid. Humans are part of nature, a product of natural selection. A bullet to the brain is every bit as natural as a wolf tearing them apart.
And if someone asked the elks' opinion, most would choose the bullet. But to some people, "natural" is about removing humans even where the humans help and leaving the animals to their fate. They'd probably rather the elk slowly starve to death due to over-population than be humanely culled.
What about insects?
But humans and animals have to limit our own population growth in order for the world to be minimally just.
Like a great man said, the problem with most liberals is not what they don't know but what they think they know that isn't so. Obviously someone not familiar with the likely trajectory of the human population.
It is all too typical of people like Martha Nussbaum, strong opinions on things they know nothing about. A shot to the brain is not recommended for elk, deer or moose. It would have taken her a minute or two on Google to educate herself on this. Instead, she assumes, with no evedence, that hunters suck at shooting.
"For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
Has Nussbaum ever watched an elk pursued and killed by wolves? Or stalked and shot by a hunter using a 'scoped rifle chambered for 300 Winchester Magnum? Somehow I doubt it. Bitter experience has proven the leftist who observes before concocting theories does not exist in Nature.
"iowan2 said...
In severe situations, buck only seasons thin the heard quickly and produces more impressive trophies."
Nope. You reduce deer counts better by killing does, not bucks. Does produce offspring, and a single buck can impregnate many does.
If this woman donated her head to Elon Musk, the holes in it could be sealed up and it could be transported to Mars where it would house a tremendous colony of space pioneers, while at the same time freeing up enough space here on earth for a new wildlife refuge.
Add this to the list of things so stupid only intellectuals can believe it
Nuts. Someone should’ve thought of controlling human population just before Nussbaum was conceived.
Rusty, You are 100% right. That's what I meant to say. Modern wildlife biology, want to control, by limiting male population, and limit does hunted. You are right, and what I meant to say. Reducing the number of females, mean the largest, strongest, fastest bucks are doing the breeding of limited Does. But the largest Bucks, are going to create more trophies. Fewer, but better.
Thanks for catching my error.
This is my ant farm. Look, they've built a lot of things, but now I'm going to shake it because I know these ants can do better.
I always have to give liberals credit, like terminators, they never stop. This sounds like another nudge in the direction they want, everyone eating bugs. But don’t bugs have rights too?
Now that we know where Martha stands on elks, can we assume she would grant the same rights to unborn humans?
I thought not.
Aside from her ignorance of hunting, Martha also foolishly suggests that people can and do teach their outdoor cats to not eat little birds and teach them to instead "scratch a tree." Has this woman never been around pets?
Elk are bulls and cows.
Democrats always on the look out for new voters.
Few animals die of old age. They get "ripped limb from limb". That is what nature does. We are going to treat elk in a special way? Why not rabbits? To apply human morality to nature leads to absurdities.
What is this obsession with human population control on the left? If you are promoting it, I suggest you kill yourself first to demonstrate your commitment to the concept.
Exactly. Bambi's little sister also tastes great and is less filling.
But humans and animals have to limit our own population growth in order for the world to be minimally just.
You first.
Oh you mean other humans need to limit population growth.
If you’ve already accepted the faulty premise of equality, then this is the next frontier, so to speak. For those with a biblical worldview, the notion of equality— except as children of God— is absurd. All of creation praises God by being fully what he is created to be. It is a wonderful diversity, in the truest sense of the word, which progs seek to flatten. Martha’s claim is absurd, as she demonstrates by asserting that Martha Knows Best what the animal kingdom needs.
Please show me someone who taught their cat not to catch a bird.
Althouse, are you trolling us? The asinine is strong in today's selections.
Nussbaum = 'nut tree.'
The nut didn't fall far from the tree.
But humans and animals have to limit our own population growth in order for the world to be minimally just.
solutions Start, with a single step.. Martha NEEDS to lead the way, by self Euthanizing herself.
As Martha has pointed out.. The World Would Be A BETTER Place; Without HER
"That's because people are stupid. Humans are part of nature, a product of natural selection. A bullet to the brain is every bit as natural as a wolf tearing them apart.
The problem with this idea is the vanishingly low probability of both scenarios. Does Tim Maguire think that the typical wolf-slain elk dies of exsanguination after one of its limbs is torn from its body? Or that the ethical elk hunter aims for the brain of his quarry?
Bull elks average around 600 pounds, with some exceeding a thousand. Cows are smaller by about twenty percent. This means that the typical elk is as heavy as the typical wolf pack, consequently, they are often more than a match for their potential predators. Decades of wildlife biology studies reveal that only 15% to 20% of wolf hunts result in a kill, which is also consistent with the success rates of many other predatory species, including lions and cheetahs. Current thinking favors this pattern holds true for other warm-blooded predators as well. Observations of prey/predator populations average out at around .98. That is to say, for every ton of elk there's 40 pounds of wolf. Unless there's an anomalous encumbrance affecting the elk population, such as the spike in meningeal worm infestation currently prevalent in at least six states, one ton of elk can only support 40 pounds of wolf, otherwise the wolves starve.
Wolves kill by using an asphyxiating grip on the elk's trachea, but only after the elk has been pursued to exhaustion. "Tearing apart" just doesn't happen until long after the elk has died.
Human elk hunters using rifles aim for the center of mass because bullets aren't guided missiles, rifle projectiles are subject to dispersion. It doesn't matter if you're Annie Oakley or Barnie Fife, bullets don't usually go where you aim.
Brains are hardly the target of choice if you're hoping for a certain kill. One must recall the case of Phineas Gage, the American railroad foreman known for having survived a traumatic brain injury caused by an iron rod that shot through his skull and obliterated the greater part of the left frontal lobe of his brain. Unless the brainstem is destroyed Ms. Nussbaum's "bullet to the brain" is unlikely to fell an elk for many hours, perhaps days, perhaps not at all. The elk's brainstem, a roughly cylindrical structure consisting of the thalamus, the pons, and the medulla oblongata, is about the size of your thumb -- not a statistically achievable target at 300 meters.
Herbivore's are also predators. Ask the Aspens in Yellowstone which were in danger from too many elk grazing on their shoots. If the elk are starving then overgrazing is the necessary result. It seems reintroducing wolves got all three species back in sync again.
If humanity ever decided to cull its ranks, Martha should be near the top of the list. Can’t have people like her weakening the herd.
BTW, since Yellowstone the TV series was mentioned upthread, I don't understand the plot line of the cowboys being in trouble for shooting "collared" wolves outside the national park. I thought wolf protection, collared or otherwise, ended at the park's borders.
"We have no kind of agreement with animals and owe them nothing."
Correct. As soon as an animal recognizes my rights, we'll talk.
But then, "arguments" about what humans owe animals are are really demands for power over other humans.
We are not apart from nature. We are just really smart animals.
All of the highways and factories and skyscrapers we build are just as natural as a beaver dam or a bird's nest.
... in order for the world to be minimally just.
Define "just." Then define "minimally just."
Philosophy today seems to involve saying things that are obvious, or politically correct, or faux daring and unorthodox. I can't take Martha Nussbaum or anything she says seriously, but I suppose if we knew more about Plato or Aristotle's private lives -- if they cultivated publicity, gave interviews about their private lives, and struck "fierce" poses on the covers of their works -- philosophy might never have been invented. The Xile's article about Nussbaum-Sunstein-Power was extremely cruel, but unforgettable.
"For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart."
This person is a fool, and only taken seriously by her fellow fools.
Evolution offers “justice” to no living creature.
"Too many elk is corrected by starvation and/or disease."
True of humankind, too.
For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
That sounds a little like she is assuming that hunters are stupid yahoos who can't possible know as much about taking down an elk as she claims to know about ethics. Some undoubtedly are, but she doesn't know how large a share of the hunting population they may be. I don't know that either, but if the movies are right, a lot of hunters pass such knowledge down from parent to child.
People who let their cats go outside try to stop them from eating little birds and to teach them, well, they can scratch a tree.
At first I thought "Go scratch a tree" was some kind of a brush-off. Then I thought she was seriously proposing scratching a tree or post as a way of satisfying a cat's predatory instincts. Now I think she's saying that a cat's predatory instincts can't be satisfied with something like that, and that's okay. Is it okay in Australia, where it's said that cats are killing off whole species? Clearly Nussbaum's thinking is not entirely aligned with that of other eco-progressives.
Animal Rights activists ultimately want to turn the entire earth into an animal farm, or more accurately, a petting zoo. Since the French Revolution it has been clear that in the name of proclaimed (human) "rights," the Leftist clerisy's political mission is to destroy the natural order (which embodies a balance of chaos and order). Chaos is the free random aspect of nature, the basis of natural evolution and the ever-changing aspect of our own minds.
"Too many elk is corrected by starvation and/or disease."
True of humankind, too.
Why do leftists keep writing these "feel good" essays that show how little they know about a topic? New York types know nothing about guns or hunting. Many have no idea about where meat comes from. I don't care if they don't know but why keep demonstrating your ignorance ?
iowan.
No problem.
What the enviro-weanies fail to recognize is that this isn't the same country it was prior to 1500. The minute the first plow turned over the prairie sod the world changed. Farming displaced a lot of species and it hasn't been until the last fifty years they things are getting closer to where they used to be There are more ungulates now in the US than there were before the Europeans came. Except Buffalo. Deer and elk have taken over that niche in a large part because of the success of farming and ranching. Habitat has been improved thanks to hunters and fishermen.
iowan.
No problem.
What the enviro-weanies fail to recognize is that this isn't the same country it was prior to 1500. The minute the first plow turned over the prairie sod the world changed. Farming displaced a lot of species and it hasn't been until the last fifty years they things are getting closer to where they used to be There are more ungulates now in the US than there were before the Europeans came. Except Buffalo. Deer and elk have taken over that niche in a large part because of the success of farming and ranching. Habitat has been improved thanks to hunters and fishermen.
This article is the definition of: Tell me you don't know what you are talking about without telling me you don't know what you are talking about.
"It also seems reasonable that animals should have legal recourse..."
We do apply certain restrictions to protect animals from pain or abuse, but recourse?
1. Is legal recourse for animals possible?
2. How long is Avenatti in prison?
BTW, since Yellowstone the TV series was mentioned upthread, I don't understand the plot line of the cowboys being in trouble for shooting "collared" wolves outside the national park. I thought wolf protection, collared or otherwise, ended at the park's borders.
If a species is listed as endangered, it doesn't matter where you kill it, you'll be in trouble. If however, it actually threatens you on your own property or in town, you probably can shoot it. The government makes an exception for itself, though.
Trump took the gray wolf of the endangered species list in 2020. A judge put them back on it this year.
Then I thought she was seriously proposing scratching a tree or post as a way of satisfying a cat's predatory instincts.
If that was Nussbaum's idea, she's even more ignorant about domestic felines than she is about wolves and elk. Most cat species, cheetahs being a notable exception, are continually regenerating the points of their claws. Scratching removes the outer cuticle of the individual claws, thereby exposing the fresh claw point underneath. Scratching is a behavioral compulsion quite apart from whatever Nussbaum thinks a "predatory instinct" may be. Animal behavior isn't compartmentalized into neat packages that can be satisfied, discouraged, or sublimated.
I shot a boar in the head once. Over a few long seconds, he did several backflips screaming like a small child being tortured to death. My aim was off a couple RCH's, my excuses include it was uphill, 150-yards, offhand with iron sights. The next time I heard that bone chilling sound was at the Hormel plant in Austin Mn, except it was all day long dozens at a time. Like Vincent Vega says.... Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
"For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — "
Know what you're talking about before you diss other people. Good grief.
If you begin a quest for animal rights, please start with the ant.
For the elk, a bullet to the brain — if the person knew how to shoot, which a lot of hunters don’t — would be a lot better than the wolf’s tearing them apart...."
"Too many elk is corrected by starvation and/or disease."
True of humankind, too.
Still betting on the " Population Bomb" I see. You could go back and read that to see how stupid he was. Mainly using static production. Assuming Man had maxed out Agriculture. As someone that has lived the explosion of yields, I, nor any "experts", predicted where we are at today. Even the the semi drought conditions of the last 3 years, saw whole field yields of 81 bpa are happening.
You might try "Saving the Planet Through Pesticides and Plastics."
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-through-Pesticides-Plastics-2000-08-01/dp/B01K0SNZJY
/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2CG6GEEULXNOU&
In short, the book has 100 pages of footnotes referencing research. It explains how "chemical farming is saving millions of acres of marginal ground from production, because of the chemistry we are using do such a great job of increasing yields.
Starvation and disease today are largely a result of Government greed, corruption, and incompetence.
Take your pick of the Covid responses. All three in play. I'll let you can pick the winner.
Apparently she missed yesterday’s post about declining human fertility.
Planned Parenthood, planned parent/hood, planned peoplehood... elect to select: abort, cannibalize, sequester excess [carbon] for "Net Zero."
In 1977 I attended a college seminar by a Harvard prof who provided anecdotal evidence that cows & pigs were to some extent sentient. Or at leadt could feel painful emotions when separated from their calves or piglets. THerefore, he concluded, we should not eat them. Instead we should eat protein from yeast, or maybe crickets. But not mammals or fish.
I asked the first question: Why is sentience, or some self-awareness, a reason not to eat something? The prof huffed & puffed and basically said, "Because we are sentient." Not a very strong reason then to avoid ribeye steak. Not a very strong reason now.
Theodore Toosevelt had a term for such, “Nature Fakers”
Howard said...
"I shot a boar in the head once"
You are a bore. Multiple times.
"I asked the first question: Why is sentience, or some self-awareness, a reason not to eat something? The prof huffed & puffed and basically said, 'Because we are sentient.' Not a very strong reason then to avoid ribeye steak. Not a very strong reason now."
If sentience counts for shit, what is your argument against humans eating other humans?
"True of humankind, too."
No.
I know it's been covered above, but a bullet to the brain if they knew how to shoot? Bizarre. How do people who would say something like that get their info? And why would they be in a position to shape public opinion on hunting or wildlife populations? It's Bizzaro world all the way down.
And to anyone who said I'm sure there are hunters who are that stupid, I've never met one. Even a novice is going to be told where to aim.
Who is Martha Nussbaum that I should care what she thinks
" I do feel that there has to be population control both on the part of humans and animals."
No!
“If a species is listed as endangered, it doesn't matter where you kill it, you'll be in trouble. If however, it actually threatens you on your own property or in town, you probably can shoot it. The government makes an exception for itself, though.”
Yeh. USFS lied that there weren’t any brown bear around. They had relocated some trouble bears into the neighboring Wilderness Area. Couple of them wandered into a nearby town. First one was taken about by a BJSF train. No quarter. But the second one was killed by a resident, when it attacked him. Was tried for it, but he claimed that he thought that it was an unprotected black bear (esp since the USFS had lied about there not being any brown bears - they had relocated both bears). Jury “believed” him, and acquitted. That won’t work anymore- since everyone knows that we have several dozen or so, in the county, moving back and forth along the ridge between wilderness areas.
.”Trump took the gray wolf of the endangered species list in 2020. A judge put them back on it this year”
Of course Biden’s Administration did that. They don’t have any wolves in DC. Or at least no canine type wolves. We do in MT. And the state was allowing the poor things to be hunted. Carefully hunted, with numbers tied to population growth. But hunted. Stupid… We have brown bear on the north ridge, and now wolves on the south one. With black bear, coyotes, and maybe a mountain lion or two, to keep them apart. Plus a lot of hunting guns.
Does Martha realize that hunters care more about the environment, and do more to actually protect it, than any of the leftist enviro groups?
"Bambi." Was. Not. A. Documentary.
Quaestor said...The problem with this idea is the vanishingly low probability of both scenarios.
Completely irrelevant. I have no idea what it was about my comment that caused you to respond to me, but if you're going to respond to me, at least pay attention to what I am (and am not) saying.
"Why did God create a world where one animal eats another?"
Oh wait, turns out that this is what evolves when a suitable planet is given enough time. I swear these people are theists, they just don't acknowledge it. The one thing that humans know, that animals don't, is that "everybody dies." In 100 years, it doesn't matter, and from the the instant after death, a hundred years goes by as quickly as a nanosecond.
Nussbaum???
There's name straight from central casting.
"If sentience counts for shit, what is your argument against humans eating other humans?"
Self-preservation. If I'm allowed to eat you, someone else is allowed to eat me.
"They don’t have any wolves in DC. "
They do have a lot of cougars, though.
I live in NW Montana in an rural area bounded by forests. There are few cats here that survive outdoors for any length of time. House cats are particularly vulnerable. A house cat put outside to scratch trees quickly falls prey to - wait for it - a predator. If I need to be outside early or late, I carry. One guess what that means.
When a lion kills and eats a gazelle, is that OK? After all both animals are second-class sentients.
Or has Nature made all conscious animals food criminals?
(Asking for a vegan)
"They don’t have any wolves in DC. "
They do have a lot of cougars, though
The egg-sucking weasel population is far greater.
the young government expert was explaining how they were going to use contraceptives to reduce the coyote population.
Grizzled old guy in the back said: "Son, you don't understand. They coyotes ain't fucking our sheep. they are eating them."
Robert Cook: I don't base my general, but not absolute, condemnation of human cannibalism on sentience. Why do you? Are the severely mentally retarded to be used for food in your world?
Perhaps I feel Soylent Green is just not to my taste. Perhaps I still am influenced by my childhood Roman Catholicism and its concept of a human soul. Perhaps I've seen too many ants and mosquitoes responding to stimuli, to accept that sentience separates humans from animals by anything other than positions on a sliding scale of mechanistic biological behaviors.
Stalin was sentient. We'd have been better off if he had been made into a meat pie as a child.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा