Why Can't We Do This To Humans?
Deer management cannot be regulated at the federal level. As early as 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states have “ownership” of their wildlife. As a result, each state has its own intricate rules. State regulations need not be standardized, but efforts at reform must be made state-by-state. This process will be slow as rules are generally promulgated by processes that ensure adequate evaluation by respective wildlife authorities and to allow for public review. Nevertheless, some states are beginning to do the difficult work of changing policies to stabilize or reduce the number of deer. For example, Indiana recently enacted the first modern firearms season targeting female deer in the state’s history. It will be difficult to overcome traditional hunter concepts of proper deer management as it is counter-intuitive to most hunters that fewer game animals are desirable. Decades of effort, patience, and expense were invested to enhance populations to the point where hunting success is now commonplace. To suggest that populations be reduced and therefore increase the effort needed to harvest a deer understandably generates resistance. Success will take a carefully crafted and sustained public relations effort. Like almost all conservation problems, deer management is a societal issue. If the deer population is to be reduced, it must be reduced slowly. Rules that lower the population drastically will almost certainly spur a backlash from hunters who can appeal to their respective legislatures to overturn regulations they regard as harsh. In an effort to lower the population of deer in Wisconsin the DNR liberalized hunting dramatically.
See [http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/] for full story.
Because...
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Because...
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
My contention is that these cleansing actions being employed out if necessity is not--and I suppose can not--be applied to the even bigger threat... humans. Even though this is entirely nonsensical as there is no such thing as objective morals, let’s suppose that killing off humans to better the environment is “immoral” (though that standard should be applied to nonhuman animals), why then can we not remove individuals from the environment that are directly contributing to its destruction? One might say, “We have no place to put them,” which I believe is the same quandary we run into with the deer, so I motion to kill off the individuals in the same way we kill off the deer. Funny thing is, people are more likely to cause bigger damage given all the “needs” one has to which the environment consequently has to pay the price. Now if we wanted to persist with this immense hypocrisy and partiality, then I would move for the castration of the male individuals in the environment at hand. But then we enter a debacle of ‘human rights’ which is exemplary to how irrational (most) humans are, so much so that they are willing to put their environment--an essentiality to all life--in jeopardy for the lives of a few (relative to 8 billion) individuals… This, in total, brings me to an entirely separate question… why do we consider humans an intelligent species? Side: Because...
2
points
human morality does not fully extend to animals. i think many have extrapolated inter-human compassion to extra-humans which causes our concern for non-humans. however that does not override the original 'moral code' between humans, which is why the hypocrisy. it is perfectly logical to trim the species unbalancing the environment. so why not humans? i agree with you, and something imminently needs to be done. i think it's fair to say the ultimate general goal for humans is to reproduce and pass on genes. the environment becoming too hazardous or unstable to survive in won't really help with that goal very much. stopping ourselves from ourselves should be a priority, but the methods of doing so involve: sterilising some of the population. but then come the moral issues. "who becomes sterilised?", "why should those chosen be chosen?" you could just pick the worst or least useful of humanity, but that while that makes the most sense, it conflicts with our moral code, our compassion, the evolutionary advantage which our societies rely on to function. this also conflicts with the ultimate goal of passing on genes. mass murder. again, "who dies?", "who has the right to choose?" same reasons. again it conflicts with the ultimate goal as well. perhaps the most ethical solution is limiting the number of children per family. two would be ideal, halting growth and causing slight decrease in population. (although read the shadow children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix - fictional novels about illegal children following this rule) but again, morals disagrees, "having children is a right every other animal has, why should it be restricted?". also, slight ultimate goal infringement. i'm sure you knew this all already, i'm guessing you disagree that a logical solution is repelled by illogical explanations, but yeah, because morals. as for other question, humans are an intelligent species because they are capable of things that other species have been incapable of doing, and most have identified the difference being of the mind. evidence -> conclusion. nothing wrong with considering humans as an intelligent species given the relative scope. Side: Because...
Reproduction is the general goal for all species; but I would agree with your points if it wasn’t for the fact that human-like animals, and even animals that humans consider aesthetically pleasing, would not even be considered in a cleansing plan such as ‘extermination’. Take chimps for example, in a few countries (like England) they have given chimps special rights tantamount to humans. But chimps aren’t humans? But if it wasn’t deer that’s was the problem, instead, chimps were the problem, we wouldn’t condone excessive hunting of chimpanzees. My other contention is that if killing off most of the (human) females is the best solution for humanity then why not go through with such plan? Furthermore, if such plan is rendered deeply immoral, then why not sterilize the male deer in order to decrease the population size? Why is it that simply killing them should be the best way to go for deer but not humans? You make decent alternatives for humans but don’t even consider the same alternatives for deer. This line of reasoning is hypocritically evil and callous. Side: Because...
We consider humans as intelligent because we are humans. By the same reasoning, the various so-called races and ethnic groups always think the are the best. Everybody always wants to be on top of the heap. That is except for the few rare individuals who realize it's much better to smell the roses. Side: Because...
My contention is that these cleansing actions being employed out if necessity is not--and I suppose can not--be applied to the even bigger threat... humans. A bigger threat to what? We protect the environment because we want humans to be able to continue to live in it. Killing humans to protect to environment is counterproductive. This is aside from the fact that it is less morally wrong to kill a deer than it is to kill a human. This, in total, brings me to an entirely separate question… why do we consider humans an intelligent species? You want someone to tell you what intelligence is? We have a greater sense of self than animals, better problem solving, better ability to communicate, higher capacity to learn etc. Side: Because...
A bigger threat to what? We protect the environment because we want humans to be able to continue to live in it. Killing humans to protect to environment is counterproductive Letting humans live to destroy the environment in which it is necessary to live is even more counterproductive. Killing off a few individuals to create an environmental balance so such life (like that of humans) can peacefully persist would obviously be the best decision. This is aside from the fact that it is less morally wrong to kill a deer than it is to kill a human. That is your belief, some others, such as myself, believe that all life is equal- which means if it is necessary to kill off a certain type of life to save more then I would hold that to all facets of life (including humans). You want someone to tell you what intelligence is? We have a greater sense of self than animals, better problem solving, better ability to communicate, higher capacity to learn etc. I think the real answer is: "we are the ones who administer the criteria for intelligence, therefore in doing so we obviously must fit ourselves within this criteria". What if an alien considered us unintelligent given that we don't even know how to traverse intergalactic space? Or that we take such a long time learning calculus, yet calculus is an intuitive concept to them, to which they understand fully by the time they're 5. Furthermore, what if they fully understood physics in way that is so obvious they find it hilarious that we praise people like Newton and Einstein for coming up with equations that are stupendously simple? Or what if they have an even GREATER sense of self, so much so that they even understand what consciousness is and know how to control their brainwaves and neurons perfectly. We would be considered blithering idiots, and we would probably consider them gods (or at least if the told us they were so we would believe them given that we would see their abilities as being magical, as it would defy every law that we put forth- which of course would be wrong given our unintelligence). Side: Because...
1) Killing deer to help the environment could just be an excuse to go hunt. People love to hunt. 2) Killing deer to help the environment is also targeted at the environment near human beings. It could still indirectly benefit a human. Evolutionarily speaking, every communal species will work together to improve some factor related to the community. 3) It doesn't have to be about morals, just utility. It is just more economical to prevent than react. 4) We could certainly justify the killing/sterilizing of human beings for utility. The main issue would be reaching an extreme-majority for "democratic" states. Utility is better met in totalitarian states. 5) It is not irrational for humans to put the lives of 8 billion humans over that of everything else. We could extend this to some human being putting his/her life ahead of every other living being on the planet. Basic survival instinct. The concept of "selfishness" relates directly to your claim of objective morals. 6) It should be obvious why humans are considered intelligent. Side: Because...
|
You cannot treat humans as animals in the area of population control, at least not in this country (the USA), for one specific reason, besides it being against the law. Who gets to chose who can reproduce and who can't? Personally, I would neuter all known drug addicts, illegal dealers, known murders, rapists, anyone who committed a violent crime and I'd kill pedophiles outright, but that's just me. The problem with that idea, is it would also, over time, reduce the number of people who would fight in the military, become police, firemen and other high risk employment. It might even effect politicians, bankers, and stock brokers. All these people are risk takers, some in a good way, some not. You couldn't even make your selection by IQ, because that is not necessarily a genetic trait. You definitely couldn't go by wealthy verse poor. Then we would be inundated by the Paris Hiltons and G W Bushes of the world. Ewww! Side: Because...
I'd kill pedophiles outright You'd kill someone for a sexual preference? Or for looking at a child with sexual interest? Or for looking a nude photos? Or for downloading child porngraphy? Or for touching a child with sexual intent? Or for sexual conduct with a child? Rape of a child? Sexually motivated murder? Sexual torture of a child? I don't understand what you mean. You just come across as vicious when you say such blank statements. Side: Because...
I agree that a person who it has been proven to have touched a child or hurt a child to gratify their sexual desires should be put to death. You can not cure them and as long as they are alive they are a threat to all children they come across. I am a survivor of childhood sexual molestation and I have studied them extensively. Side: Because...
1
point
Personally, I would neuter all known drug addicts Right off the bat you have half of the country. Over 50% of the United States has a caffeine addiction, consuming coffee at least once every single day. Caffeine is a drug. illegal dealers So if someone sells a bit of pot to their friend, they should be castrated? anyone who committed a violent crime So two people get into a fight at a bar, get charged with assault, and then boom, they are neutered? and I'd kill pedophiles outright Even if they have never acted upon it or done anything wrong? The problem with that idea, is it would also, over time, reduce the number of people who would fight in the military, become police, firemen and other high risk employment. Actually, if your opinions were put in place, it would simply end our entire country, as you would be neutering well over half of the entire nation. Side: Because...
I would neuter known drug addicts of drugs that cause birth defects, such as alcohol, crack, cocaine, meth or heroin. Pot does not cause birth defects and there are warnings on prescription drugs that are known to do so. Personally, I don't think a woman should use tobacco products or caffeine when they are pregnant. Side: Because...
If unemployment is too high, we can reduce unemployment by taking out those who are unemployed. This will also fix the homeless problem. No more people living under bridges! No starvation problem. Imagine..., TV without any starvation adds! The benefits are almost endless! If Global Warming is caused by people, we can fix the problem by taking out those with a large carbon foot print. Side: Because...
1
point
I am sure he will respond with 'conscience', but that still does not exclude animals; so he would probably then reduce to 'levels' of conscience in which humans would have the highest. But that, to me, does not render humans as being more valuable or important. In fact, lower productive beings have the least impact on the environment as their cycle of life is very simple. The only good I see out of humanity now would be the fact that we may be able to deter asteroid collisions with our advanced technology and potentially save another global extinction. Side: Because...
|
