Is it natural to kill animals for food?

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kangoo - watch the programme I linked to earlier, it gives a bit of an insight into it. People who are on benefits often become de-skilled and de-motivated which is something you really need to get into the kitchen. There was a lady who was in tears because she felt so pathetic and she seemed like she really wanted to learn but when she's struggling with everything in her life which is by no means easy. Two kids, no income, no 'nice' things, having to sell her jewellery, she's the kind of person who becomes marginalised and just has to struggle through each day.

    Other than that, Jamie is trying to look at how to get these people learning how to cook. And for what it's worth, having a chicken farm down the road, whichever way you look at it chickens don't leave an amazing life even free range ones. As much as I hate to link to a vegan website, this is exactly what a free range farm looks like:

    http://www.veganoutreach.org/freerange/

    FreeRangeChickens2s.jpg FreeRangeCloses.jpg

    But it's not just food, it's the entire way of human life. We practically rape our environment and exploit everything from chickens up to human beings. The only people who can change things are the people in power but they don't see that bothered because it's expensive. I mean, how can you get the brazillian rainforest to stop the destruction when it is one of their most lucrative industries? How DO you stop conflict over oil when it is a commodity needed in everything?

    When it comes to food purchasing decisions, I don't think it's right to hold the people who buy it to account because a lot of the time they are not informed consumers, a lot of the time they can't afford a choice, and ultimately a lot of the time the food is on the shelf because someone in government said ok to it being on the shelf. Even food crops often destroy the habitat of animals and lead to more problems. How is it possible to be an ethical consumer?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    But it's not just food, it's the entire way of human life. We practically rape our environment and exploit everything from chickens up to human beings. The only people who can change things are the people in power but they don't see that bothered because it's expensive. I mean, how can you get the brazillian rainforest to stop the destruction when it is one of their most lucrative industries? How DO you stop conflict over oil when it is a commodity needed in everything?

    No, those in power dont care because we dont care.

    We are perfectly happy to let people in the developing world starve and die of disease.

    We are happy for our food to be made intensively with massive amounts of chemicals added to the ground.

    We are happy for our clothes and electricals to be made by people earning next to nothing in shocking conditions.

    Hell we dont even care about the poor in our own country let alone anywhere else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Of course it's another debate. I think you missed the point.
    There was a point? :confused:
    Our biology is geared to having meat in our diet. We've been eating eating meat since the dawn of mankind and your denying we have an instict to hunt? It's one of the main reasons we play sport, it's a substitute for the lack of hunting we do.
    Again, I disagree.

    Our biology is geared towards having meat in our diet, or not having meat in our diet. You do not get ill if you don't eat meat (obviously, provided you have a balanced diet)... it is not a necessity for good health.

    'Instinct' is not the right word to describe us eating meat. It is a dog's instinct to piss up walls, a bird's instinct to build a nest, but consuming meat is a choice. Our only instinct is to seek food, to be providers. At one point for everyone that had to be done by hunting... Then people developed agriculture ect.

    I think that playing sport is more of a display of prowess to attract a potential mate than anything... Especially competitive sport.

    That is my view.

    I don't think we can reduce hunting to be 'instinct'... It is a method of survival, not something innate.

    I also think that justifying something because it has been done for a long time is risky... The human race has raped, tortured and pillaged its way through history. Are they human instinct too?

    (Sorry... the above statement would be too much on a tangent)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    No, those in power dont care because we dont care.

    We are perfectly happy to let people in the developing world starve and die of disease.

    We are happy for our food to be made intensively with massive amounts of chemicals added to the ground.

    We are happy for our clothes and electricals to be made by people earning next to nothing in shocking conditions.

    Hell we dont even care about the poor in our own country let alone anywhere else.

    :yes:
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    Namaste wrote: »
    There was a point?

    Yes that the quote below is bad logic. Just because something isn't black doesn't mean it HAS to be white.
    Namaste wrote: »
    But to suggest something is 'natural' is surely suggests that the opposite behaviour isn't natural.


    Namaste wrote: »
    Our biology is geared towards having meat in our diet, or not having meat in our diet.

    No, our biology IS geared towards having meat in our diet, and geared for hunting. It's why we have ability to digest it, why we have the teeth we do and it's why we have eyes relatively close together.

    But as you you say we're also geared to eating other matter, and we can live on that healthily as long as a large selvetion of different matter is available to us.

    And hunting is an instinct in other meat eating animals. It why cats kill despite having plenty of food available in the bowl. Why wouldn't it exist in us.

    There is a strong biological, social, and historical argument for why eating meat is ordinary human behavior.

    The only argument in favour of abstaining is the moral argument, but it's an important one. I just think him more realistic and less extreme. I like to know that the meat I'm eating has come from animals with a good quality of life, but I also recognise that species eating other species is part of life.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    budda wrote: »
    No, those in power dont care because we dont care.

    I think most people care about their own quality of life before that of the enviroments, or that of animals. That doesn't mean they don't care, just that they don't care enough.

    If people wern't so well removed from some of these issues they might care more, but it's hard for a lot of people to care about something they can so eailly ignore.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »

    Don't they label those as barn eggs in the shops though? Which means "not caged and no sunglight" pretty much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually I don't believe technology is the only reason people can be vegetarian. The likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Einstein were vegetarian way before technology can be considered to accomodate it. They lived perfectly healthy lives (well they didn't die young or anything) so anyone who claims it's a modern 'fad' is being naive.

    I don't think eating meat is in human design, but doing so is a choice; not a necessity. Debate between vegs and carnivores is akin to debating the existence of god. No amount of conclusive evidence can be presented either way.

    Live and let live. I'm veg but don't object to others eating meat, likewise I hate veggies who preach - at the end of the day its personal choice. Doesn't matter how 'natural' it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cascara wrote: »

    I don't think eating meat is in human design

    There's arguments for and against this. We definitely have hunting instincts, no-one can argue against this - the evidence is too strong.

    However, the arguement that we are able to digest meat is slightly flawed as our bodies find it difficult to process raw meat. Does this mean humans could only eat meat when they became developed enough to create fire, or that our bodies have changed over time so raw meat is no longer safe for us?

    Either way I'd say that it is definitely natural for humans to eat meat, we are animals at the end of the day. I don't think the way we are as consumers is natural though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    If people wern't so well removed from some of these issues they might care more, but it's hard for a lot of people to care about something they can so eailly ignore.

    This is true, we insulate ourselves from the suffering of others because it is easier.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't they label those as barn eggs in the shops though? Which means "not caged and no sunglight" pretty much.

    The guy down the road does his chicken for meat so I dunno exactly.

    As for what biologically we are able to eat well one person put it as fruitarian which is pretty true. We excel at scavenging fruit and berries. But at the same time we ate meat to supplement our diets. If you look at apes, people believe the stage where we evolved from them was a stage where we excelled at fishing and fish formed a cornerstone of our diet. They got this info because we are relatively 'streamlined' and anyway its very interesting but I won't repeat it all here :p.

    Biologically speaking I believe as Namaste said we have evolved to survive and the best 'recipe' for survival is adaptibility, we can eat pretty much anything.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    Cascara wrote: »
    Actually I don't believe technology is the only reason people can be vegetarian. The likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Einstein were vegetarian way before technology can be considered to accomodate it. They lived perfectly healthy lives (well they didn't die young or anything) so anyone who claims it's a modern 'fad' is being naive.

    Your being naive in thinking you'd still be able to be a healthy vegetarian without the choive farming technology and transport technology bring.
    It's only because of this technology you can choose from such a massive range of products even when they're out of season in the country you live.

    There's still a hell of a lot of poeple in this world that don't have that choice.

    Cascara wrote: »
    I don't think eating meat is in human design,

    Well human biology says otherwise I'm afraid. It's pretty conclusive evidence.

    But your right we do have a choice, in this country anyway. It's a moral argument, and it depends on whether or not you think killing an animal for food is wrong. I don't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Well human biology says otherwise I'm afraid. It's pretty conclusive evidence.

    Pretty meaningless tbh and not justification for the vast quantity of meat now consumed (which is in absolutely no way comparable to our ancestors... unless you're counting Henry VIII - who of course had the very modern obesity problem).

    Venison - being meat from any animal killed by hunting, was always a very rare luxury for most of the population. Humans eating venison a handful of times a year does not justify the very modern and completely unnatural practice of industrial factory farm meat production.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pretty meaningless tbh and not justification for the vast quantity of meat now consumed (which is in absolutely no way comparable to our ancestors... unless you're counting Henry VIII - who of course had the very modern obesity problem).

    Venison - being meat from any animal killed by hunting, was always a very rare luxury for most of the population. Humans eating venison a handful of times a year does not justify the very modern and completely unnatural practice of industrial factory farm meat production.

    That very much depends on the specific communities you're talking about. Nomads in Mongolia today for example, eat a diet of almost exclusively goat meat, and vegetables are something of a luxury. What is certain is that we didn't start eating meat until fairly recently in evolutionary terms. That's why we haven't yet evolved a taste for it, and have to do things to disguise the taste, such as cook it and flavour it. Fruit and veg, on the other hand (despite being subject to selective breeding nowadays) always tastes great straight off the plant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    -
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Past consumption patterns have ranged from entirely meat to vegetarian. Back in the old days etc it was based off of what was readily available. Our ancestors wouldnt have had much meat because their feudal lords were busy stealing it all and impoverishing everyone else but many other cultures survived on huge quantities of it. Humans are dependent on animal products for vitamin b12. I doubt a caveman instincively sought out eggs and berries as his diet but didnt think a deer would be tasty when he came across one.

    Eating a large quanitity of meat isn't neccessarily unhealthy either. If this is to be believed then the main source of calories in that example would come from meat and nuts. Also, the human digestive system can easily digest raw meat. Its a modern preference to eat cooked meat and there are plenty of examples of raw meat in diets across the world and even britain where some like raw steaks and use raw eggs in their recipes.

    It isnt unatural to eat huge amounts of meat it isn't immoral and it doesnt have to be unhealthy either. If British consumption is compared with continental consumption the average French, Spanish or Austrian eats a hell of a lot more meat than a British person at 101.1kg, 118.6kg and 94.1kg per year compared to 79kg a person in the UK (Sauce) but they tend to live a bit longer.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    Pretty meaningless tbh and not justification for the vast quantity of meat now consumed (which is in absolutely no way comparable to our ancestors... unless you're counting Henry VIII - who of course had the very modern obesity problem).

    I didn't say it was.
    The question is whether or not killing animals and eating them is natural, it is.
    I don't find it morally wrong.

    I do find over consumption of meat and the way a lot of animals are treatment morally wrong. This is something that means you should watch your consumption, and be wary of where you meat comes from, but I don't find it reason enough to stop eating meat altogether.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Yes that the quote below is bad logic. Just because something isn't black doesn't mean it HAS to be white.
    Well if something is natural, then the opposit is unnatural surely. That is why I don't like the over simplification of what is natural and what isn't.

    Hence I believe in human choice, rather than instinct which is innate and we have far less control over. I think human beings are animals

    No, our biology IS geared towards having meat in our diet, and geared for hunting. It's why we have ability to digest it, why we have the teeth we do and it's why we have eyes relatively close together.

    But as you you say we're also geared to eating other matter, and we can live on that healthily as long as a large selvetion of different matter is available to us.

    And hunting is an instinct in other meat eating animals. It why cats kill despite having plenty of food available in the bowl. Why wouldn't it exist in us.

    There is a strong biological, social, and historical argument for why eating meat is ordinary human behavior.

    The only argument in favour of abstaining is the moral argument, but it's an important one. I just think him more realistic and less extreme. I like to know that the meat I'm eating has come from animals with a good quality of life, but I also recognise that species eating other species is part of life.
    I am not denying that we are designed to be able to hunt. We have evolved to be able to hunt, climb and our brain is evolved enough to find other forms of food.

    But hunting is a necessity for some people... I don't think it is 'instinct'. I think you are grossly over simplifying human nature.

    To be able to hunt is learned behaviour. We are not cats. We are designed to adapt.

    To somebody in a country such as our own, eating meat is moral. if it were instinct to hunt, we would not have people deciding to abstain from meat, nor would we have such complex debates such as this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »

    I do find over consumption of meat and the way a lot of animals are treatment morally wrong. This is something that means you should watch your consumption, and be wary of where you meat comes from, but I don't find it reason enough to stop eating meat altogether.

    Absolutely - this is where I stand. But how many people are bothered about where their meat comes from? And you're right - it is over consumption, at a cost.

    There's no problem with eating meat, there is a problem with the industry churning out cheaper and cheaper meat and people viewing their right to eat meat as more important as basic welfare standards

    As far as battery chickens are concerned the EU wants to illigalise battery farms by 2012. This is already meeting resistance as farms claim it's not enough time for them to switch. There will be no penalty for those who have not managed the switch by the deadline, meaning no incentive to change. There's also going to be no ban on importing battery chickens and eggs from non EU countries. Quelle point?

    After some chains (M&S for example) have introduced a no battery chicken policy, Tesco defended their battery eggs by saying that their customer should have the right to make an informed choice between value and free-range eggs. Yeah right are they informed. It's all about money money money. Ethics went out of the window a long time ago
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cascara wrote: »
    Actually I don't believe technology is the only reason people can be vegetarian. The likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Einstein were vegetarian way before technology can be considered to accomodate it. They lived perfectly healthy lives (well they didn't die young or anything) so anyone who claims it's a modern 'fad' is being naive.

    I don't think eating meat is in human design, but doing so is a choice; not a necessity. Debate between vegs and carnivores is akin to debating the existence of god. No amount of conclusive evidence can be presented either way.

    Live and let live. I'm veg but don't object to others eating meat, likewise I hate veggies who preach - at the end of the day its personal choice. Doesn't matter how 'natural' it is.

    What's more, Einstein was a smoker!

    I get the feeling that preachers are usually hypocrites, veggie or not! I will change my opinion if I come across any evidence to the contrary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kangoo wrote: »

    But this discussion has got a bit sidetracked (sorry!) and we're onto a different debate now!

    This is fine. Topics for discussion can relate to one another so there is no need to stick with the original question.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    Namaste wrote: »
    Well if something is natural, then the opposit is unnatural surely.

    No. Flawled logic.
    It's perfectly natural for humans to eat meat, but at the same time not eating meat is perfectly natural too.
    It's not difficult to understand.

    Namaste wrote: »
    Hence I believe in human choice, rather than instinct which is innate and we have far less control over. I think human beings are animals

    You recognise that human beings are animals yet you don't believe that we have instincts as other animals do? :confused:
    You don't think we have inborn behaviors that effect us in everyday life? We do.

    Namaste wrote: »
    I am not denying that we are designed to be able to hunt. We have evolved to be able to hunt, climb and our brain is evolved enough to find other forms of food.

    No we have evloved to find food period, and that includes meat.
    Namaste wrote: »
    But hunting is a necessity for some people... I don't think it is 'instinct'. I think you are grossly over simplifying human nature.

    A species doesn't go through hundreds of thousands of years killing animals and eating them, without developing an instinct to hunt.

    And we havn't suddenly evolved the ability to contemplate morality. We've had that for thousands of years too.

    Namaste wrote: »
    To be able to hunt is learned behaviour. We are not cats.

    We are predetors, same as cats.
    I can't believe you're denying that something that that has featured so heavilly in human evolution is simply learned behaviour.
    Animals develop inborn behaviours through natural selection, we are no different.

    Namaste wrote: »
    if it were instinct to hunt, we would not have people deciding to abstain from meat, nor would we have such complex debates such as this.

    It's instinct to fuck. Not everybody does it. Some people abstain. There are many complex debates about sex and morality, doesn't mean it's not an instinct.

    I'm not saying that it's some undenaible urge to go out and chuck'a'spear, but there something definately still there. That's why millions including myself still fish, shoot and play sport for fun. And I'm not saying everybody experiences it at the same level.

    As I've been saying all along there is another factor, morality. In the world today many of us now have the option to put more consideration into the morality of it, because we don't need to depend on meat for survival. That doesn't make it any less natural.

    The question was, is it natural to kill and eat meat. The answer is yes. If you beleive in natural selection than your going to have a very hard time saying otherwise.

    The question you trying to argue is whether it is moral. Again I think it is, but here you disagree. The morality in the simple act of eating meat hasn't all of a sudden changed - it's the same as it has always been.
    I do beleive that over consumption and the treatment of many animals is immoral though, and that is where things have changed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You recognise that human beings are animals yet you don't believe that we have instincts as other animals do?
    You don't think we have inborn behaviors that effect us in everyday life? We do.
    Yes, but as I said... There's a difference between an 'instinct' and learned behaviour.

    And human beings are animals, that is scientific fact.
    No we have evloved to find food period, and that includes meat.
    Who is saying otherwise?

    I am arguing the difference between choice and instinct.
    A species doesn't go through hundreds of thousands of years killing animals and eating them, without developing an instinct to hunt.

    And we havn't suddenly evolved the ability to contemplate morality. We've had that for thousands of years too.
    Not an instinct. And I am not denying the ability to contemplate morality.

    Human beings have been doing a lot of things for thousands of years. Is rape derived from an instinct? Is racism instinct? is infanticide instinct?
    We are predetors, same as cats.
    I can't believe you're denying that something that that has featured so heavilly in human evolution is simply learned behaviour.
    Animals develop inborn behaviours through natural selection, we are no different.
    It is learned behaviour.

    An instinct is basically the reaction to a change in environment. A psychological reflex. When you see a deer, you do not automatically throw something at it. You only see that it is 'food' because you have learnt that you can eat it.

    I am not denying the history of hunting, I am simply stating the simple fact that it is not human instinct to hunt, it is something we learn in able to survive.

    Is it natural to want to survive? That is a definate yes. But nature to me is innate, not learned.

    And no, I am not arguing if it is moral or not to eat meat. Personally I don't give a shit about what other people do and how they try to justify it to themselves. I am arguing psychology. If you don't believe my definition of instinct maybe you should look it up.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    Namaste wrote: »
    And human beings are animals, that is scientific fact.

    Why do you keep telling me this?

    So why do you think we as a predatory animal are so different from other predatory animals? They have an instict to kill and eat, why are we the exception?

    Namaste wrote: »
    Who is saying otherwise?

    You said that our brains have evoloved enough to to eat other kinds of food.
    Namaste wrote: »
    Human beings have been doing a lot of things for thousands of years. Is rape derived from an instinct? Is racism instinct? is infanticide instinct?

    You don't see the difference there then? :banghead:
    It's about natural selection do I reallu have to explain how animals evolve instincts and inborn behaviors?

    Pretty safe to say racism, rape and infanticide wern't massive factors in determining how well social animals like us survived. Infact they would have most probably (definately in the case of infantaside) decreased the chance of survival and reproduction in a social group.
    Namaste wrote: »
    It is learned behaviour.

    Hunting technique is learned but at the core of it is an inborn behaviourn to want to kill quarry. That's why people enjoy it.
    When I go hunting I enjoy bagging quarry not because I enjoy inflicting pain but because it's satisfying. I don't expect you to understand that side of it, but it's there.
    It's why we play sports, it's why we fish, and why we still shoot, it feels good.

    I fail to see how you can deny the possibility that in all the hundreds of thousands of years of hunting we havn't evolved a trait that predisposes us to kill quarry and eat it. Our body's have evloved to do it, why not our brains.
    Namaste wrote: »
    When you see a deer, you do not automatically throw something at it. You only see that it is 'food' because you have learnt that you can eat it.

    I am not denying the history of hunting, I am simply stating the simple fact that it is not human instinct to hunt, it is something we learn in able to survive.

    Is something an instinct if it can be overcome. I believe so. Is reproduction not an instinct?
    Everytime I see a woman I don't want to fuck her and have babies.

    The fact is so many people still hunt because it makes them feel good, it relsease all those feel good endorphins. Why does killing an animals do it do you think?
    Namaste wrote: »
    I am arguing psychology. If you don't believe my definition of instinct maybe you should look it up.

    Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior.
    That is what I'm arguing.

    Instinct or not, it is natural for humans to eat meat. Every other predatory animal does it and it's called natural. What's the difference?

    Choice has got fuck all to do with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Id quite happily kill an animal for food, dont see the big deal, its the most natural thing in the world in my opinion! i dont think ramsay has anything to do with it.

    catching fish and cooking meat is a basis rule of survival before money and shops were invented where someone can do it for you, slowly, our right to kill animals for ourselves was taken away and we were slowly adapted to modern society where we buy our meats from shops, a good adaption i think.

    Buy yes, its defiantly natural to kill animals for food.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »




    It's instinct to fuck. Not everybody does it. Some people abstain. There are many complex debates about sex and morality, doesn't mean it's not an instinct.

    Not necessarily abstinence, there is a concept known as involuntary celibacy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Something which I think hasn't been discussed is, if it is natural to kill animals for food, why would some people refuse to do so?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    WLH wrote: »
    Something which I think hasn't been discussed is, if it is natural to kill animals for food, why would some people refuse to do so?

    Because people have different morals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    So why do you think we as a predatory animal are so different from other predatory animals? They have an instict to kill and eat, why are we the exception?
    All animals are different aren't they?

    Human beings posess the ability for reason and logic. We can potentially choose whether we desire to eat meat or not. Go look up a definition of instinct. Hunting is not an instinct, it is a means to an end.
    It's about natural selection do I reallu have to explain how animals evolve instincts and inborn behaviors?
    Go for it.
    Pretty safe to say racism, rape and infanticide wern't massive factors in determining how well social animals like us survived. Infact they would have most probably (definately in the case of infantaside) decreased the chance of survival and reproduction in a social group.
    Do you think?

    Somebody could argue say... Racism, or genocide to be about survival of the genes. Kind of like when a new lion enters a pride and kills and eats the young. Infanticide has also been practiced throughout history, to enable the survival of many nomadic tribes who would be held back by too many little'uns/
    Hunting technique is learned but at the core of it is an inborn behaviourn to want to kill quarry. That's why people enjoy it.
    When I go hunting I enjoy bagging quarry not because I enjoy inflicting pain but because it's satisfying. I don't expect you to understand that side of it, but it's there.
    It's why we play sports, it's why we fish, and why we still shoot, it feels good.
    I think that aside from survival, hunting is more about enjoying power, rather than enjoying hunting. The same as with competitive sports, or fighting... It is a matter of dominance.

    I think 'people' would enjoy it if they were socialised to that. How many people watch slaughter houses on TV and feel uncomfortable? Or would refuse to kill and eat their own meat?
    I fail to see how you can deny the possibility that in all the hundreds of thousands of years of hunting we havn't evolved a trait that predisposes us to kill quarry and eat it. Our body's have evloved to do it, why not our brains.
    Just because we have been doing something for hundreds of thousands of years does not mean that it is an instinct.
    Is something an instinct if it can be overcome. I believe so. Is reproduction not an instinct?
    Everytime I see a woman I don't want to fuck her and have babies.
    No, but you do have sexual feelings for some women don't you?
    The fact is so many people still hunt because it makes them feel good, it relsease all those feel good endorphins. Why does killing an animals do it do you think?
    Exercise and domination.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    WLH wrote: »
    Something which I think hasn't been discussed is, if it is natural to kill animals for food, why would some people refuse to do so?
    Plenty of things are natural that people refuse to do because they consider them immoral. In fact, most of the things we legislate against are perfectly natural things to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.