Connect with vegetarian and vegan friends from all over the world.
I keep going back and forth on this one, and I'm curious to hear your views. In my opinion, it's undeniably more humane than eating store bought meat (at least the animal doesn't suffer and gets a real life in the wild) but I can't decide whether or not I agree with it (in terms of other people doing it, not me). I would never do it personally. Of course, hunting for sport is needlessly barbaric. But hunting for food?
What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear your opinion :)
my opinion, which I state openly in various discussions when the subject of eating meat vs. killing it comes up...is that it is far less violent to not kill animals then to kill them, whether for food or not. that is kind of a no brainer that it is less violent to not kill than kill, but that should introduce the next point, which is that if it is less violent to not kill and more violent to kill then eating meat without killing the animal was not violent...at all.
the person who eats the meat performs no violence. the person who kills the animal, does perform violence, even if he or she does so for survival. some people have the argument that if it is for survival, then it is okay but if it not for survival, then it is not okay.
I say to that...poppy cock. There is not cosmic moral law that condemns you if you do something that is not out of necessity vs. doing something that is for necessity. The only cosmic law that applies in such cases is whether or not you have the intention to kill the animal and if you successfully kill the animal. So if you have not the intent to kill, then if it dies, then it is not your fault. But such a cosmic law cannot absolve you from the sin of killing just because you had to kill it to eat. You still killed, so you did indeed perform a violent act.
It may be that you could not avoid killing the animal, because you needed it for food. In that case, you could not avoid performing a violent act, but you are not absolved. You must suffer the crime having killed another form of life. No way around it.
The only way around it is if someone else who you do not know kills the animal and he or she does not do that for you with you knowing that he or she did that for you. In this case, you can eat the meat guilt free because you did not cause the death of the animal, directly.
Indirectly, yes, you did cause the death of the animal, by the law of supply and demand. But that indirect cause is not directly related to your intent to kill the animal, so no crime. There are many many things in this world that are related to some extent of cause and effect or supply and demand, but many of those things are not directly linked to the persons who may have unknowingly and indirectly influenced an outcome.
If you buy an orange in the store, and the owner of the story uses that money to buy a gun and kill people, you are not at fault.
>>>>"oh, but if I had not bought the orange, then he would not have killed anyone, just like if I didn't buy the hamburger, then the butcher would never have killed the cow."/p>
Now, does anyone see how those two scenarios follow the same train of thought? And most people would think that the orange scenario is absurd but the hamburger scenario is spot on. However the reasoning is the same in both cases, therefore, we have to understand that we are letting our sentiment get in the way of our logic.
Anyway, my bottom line is...do what you must to survive, but accept the consequences. Try to avoid killing if you can. And if you can't, then reconsider it again and try not to kill. For those animals who die for indirect causes...pray for their well being in the next life. They will be born again so don't worry. Its not the end of the world for that animal. But it is quite harmful for whomever has killed that animal for having committed a sinful action.
Additionally, as a practice of compassion...abstain from eating meat, even if you did not kill it. Because as the supply and demand promoters will say, if you don't eat it, then they won't kill it. So bravo...if you can eat less meat or none at all, then I am sure that others will not kill as many animals. But killing animals is not the only sin in the world. You and the person who didn't kill an animal for your food may be doing many other horrendous things that harm others, like lying, stealing, committing adultery, etc.
So in the end, abstaining from meat is just a drop in the hat. But bravo if you find it as a way to practice compassion. But somehow, we have to understand that intent is the first step in causing the death of an animal or the cause of just about any negative action.
So...if you can...don't go hunting.
Don't worry, I have no desire to go hunting ever. Even if I was still eating meat, I don't have the emotional distance to kill an animal myself, let alone skin it and clean it and all the gory details
its interesting that you mention emotional distance. for instance, we can have emotional distance if we eat meat in a restaurant but not kill it ourselves. that is because we are not involved in the killing itself.
I firmly believe that meat eaters have very little to do with the cause of killing an animal, like the actual killers have. Its also probably why it is so easy for consumers of meat to go veg whereas butchers probably are mostly meat eaters, (or...maybe I assume too much). well if they are not meat eaters, then they are just cold blooded is all, which is kinda of wack.
anyway, my whole campaign is all about having less people kill animals more than having less people eat animals. the latter will follow naturally in my opinion and I support vegetarianism for health and environmental reasons more than ethical, as the way I have already described my ethics.
I would suspect by the way that people who kill animals, would probably kill people if they were not killing animals, so in my view, people will always kill no matter how many vegetarians in the world. So that is why I focus on the no kill aspect of things. I think if we reduce violence in general among all of us, then killing will naturally stop and then less meat is available anyway.
I personally respect those who kill and hunt their own meat more than those who eat the meat that someone has killed for them. Those who have killed the animal have at least investigated their own moral compasses and decided that they are OK with the death of an animal. Personally, my moral compass is completely diametric to theirs, but that is another story.
Those who passively eat meat have not fully embraced any position on the subject. They are not actively taking a stance, and are not investigating significant causal relationships which explain their lifestyles. They are living on the sidelines. I used to be in this camp until I realized that I could not actually kill an animal. If I could not do it myself, I could not justify having someone else do it for me. At least hunters are taking ownership of their actions. In most cases (ones not involving tribal survival), I disagree with their justifications, but at least they have thought about the subject matter. Change begins with thinking. Now if they empathized and felt more for the animals, the world would see a huge change in a positive direction.
what's the diff in your opinion between those who live off the grid and those who live in the grid? I mean in terms of harming animals? for instance I can think of one difference is that they harm less animals if they live off the grid, whereas in the grid people contribute to slaughterhouses which kill many animals...but somehow there must be a relation between supply and demand in both cases. I mean that either you kill what you need to eat and you buy what you need to eat.
I suppose in commercial industries, they probably kill more than they need to feed people, such as male chicks that are dumped in the garbage or veal that is thrown away because of some reasons I have heard of. But if those things would change? then I suppose commercial industries would be more or less the same as off the grid style hunting, right? Or we would have to minus the hormones, and then we are basically talking about free range farms, eh? Would that tally as being equal?
yes of course, I can also see that. but as another way of looking at it, I am also suspecting that it is possible for a small industry to kill what people need to eat as customers?
perhaps there can be pre-order so not as to cause waste? at the same time, there ought to be more legal hunting grounds.
I am not saying it is the way you are describing. I am not describing a primitive off the grid living scenario. I am just talking about the ethics of living off the grid and hunting. If it is ethical or acceptable in the minds of anyone to hunt for what you want to eat, then it would also make sense and kill the same number of animals if butcher operations were very small range and only provided the amount of meat that people bought.
that is how society used to be, after it moved away from hunter gatherer society and before it turned into a factory farming one.
actually, I am not in favor of hunting at all, but I am just making the point that if there is a local butcher, then when people tell him that they need such and such meat and amount...then he can arrange that. the same number of animals will die as if the customers killed the animal themselves.
however, I am not in favor of many people killing animals. better in my view if only a few people are guilty of that and the rest are consumers.
Good luck with your dream. I think it would be a wonderful thing to be self sufficient and content with a simple and stress free existence. Sounds like paradise to me :)
Your dream sounds spectacular :) I was thinking along those lines as well.
I watched an interesting documentary recently that I think you'd enjoy, it's called "Surviving Alone in Alaska". It's about a man who has lived in the Alaskan wilderness for several decades, living off the land. He even raised a family out there. If you do decide to watch it, be warned that there are some graphic scenes where he's hunting.