Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:The Earth has a natural carrying capacity for any species, and that of humanity would be the number that can survive as hunter gatherers. The population of humans has far exceeded that number, so that now the only way humanity can survive is through intensive agriculture. I'm not advocating that we abandon agriculture but if there were fewer humans on the planet, humans would have much less impact on the environment. As it is humans are destroying the environment and that will have negative impacts in the future.

Right, but there won't be fewer humans and that's my progress point. Some species will have to go until humans leave the planet, which I'm okay with. They're animals; they're our food.

Green wrote:

thedoc wrote:The Earth has a natural carrying capacity for any species, and that of humanity would be the number that can survive as hunter gatherers. The population of humans has far exceeded that number, so that now the only way humanity can survive is through intensive agriculture. I'm not advocating that we abandon agriculture but if there were fewer humans on the planet, humans would have much less impact on the environment. As it is humans are destroying the environment and that will have negative impacts in the future.

Right, but there won't be fewer humans and that's my progress point. Some species will have to go until humans leave the planet, which I'm okay with. They're animals; they're our food.

Moron. Go swimming with crocodiles some time and see who's the 'food'.

pinto wrote:
Moron. Go swimming with crocodiles some time and see who's the 'food'.

I'd get eaten. Are you really this clever, or just pretending?

thedoc wrote:Just as in the US where hunting has replaced predation, hunting controls the size of the wild animal population in the UK.

That simply isn't true, which you will discover, if you read your own reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_a ... ed_Kingdom . A lot of effort is put in by gamekeepers to make life comfortable for game animals in the off season, so that there is plenty to chase and aim at when the law allows.

thedoc wrote:In the UK large predators were seen as competition to the hunters, so the hunters eliminated the competition.

You're just making things up, doc. Bears went so long ago that no one knows why. Wolves on the other hand were hunted to extinction for the bounty placed on them by various kings, because they were a threat to livestock.
I've no particular gripe with hunters, but risible justifications for killing harmless creatures, on a philosophy forum, is fair game.
If you get your jollies murdering wildlife, you might consider what that says about you, but you are deluding yourself if you believe you are doing something important,

uwot wrote:...but you are deluding yourself if you believe you are doing something important,

Ah but they are, ultimately they are protecting their second amendment.

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:...but you are deluding yourself if you believe you are doing something important,

Ah but they are, ultimately they are protecting their second amendment.

Which of course is essential if they want to overthrow a government so cold-hearted, or stupid, as to sell their descendants into bondage to financiers to the tune of over 20 trillion dollars. Oh wait...

Could overpopulation work like a predator?