DarthFrodo

When it is necessary. Humans have replaced the apex predators in a lot of places. If population control isn't done with deer, the population skyrockets, gets out of control, and destroys the ecology, taking several species and the environment with it

But all that applies to humans, and much more so. The harm done by deer overpopulation is completely and utterly dwarfed by the habitat destruction, pollution and climate change that our overpopulation causes. Based on your argumentation, hunting humans for population control is necessary and ethical.

But of course nobody will apply the logic consistently because of how cruel it would be.

Why don't we implement more humane population control measures for deer, like spaying/neutering? It might have something to do with humans liking the taste of their dead bodies...

(game meaf from necessary population control = ethical imo)

At what point do you consider population control necessary? The inconvenient truth is that the worst instance of unsustainable overpopulation is us humans. No other species could come close to the harm and destruction we cause. Making special exceptions for ourselves while we are the worst offenders by far would be very hypocritical. If you consider population control ethical, you ought to consider school shootings, murder, etc. ethical as well.

I think we need to find better solutions than going on killing sprees.

Those Russian speaking separatists got heavily influenced by Russian disinformation and propaganda for years in preparation of the invasion, and supported by the Russian armed forces, precisely to have this justification. This is like saying Putin got 88% in the election, so clearly that's the will of the people. Assuming that authoritarian regimes lead by secret service agents play by the rules of democracy is dangerous.

Imo it's remarkable how successful they are at spreading their twisted narratives, even in western countries.

Thanks for the elaborate response. It's interesting how different considerations are at such remote places. Here in Germany, a place is generally considered "in the middle of nowhere" when the nearest small town is like 10 km away, and a 20 minute drive to the next supermarket is exceptional.

The cultural differences between rural and urban regions here seem enormous already, I can't even imagine what it's like in the US.

I'm not familiar with food deserts, but wouldn't it be possible to order dried and tinned foods in bulk every few months to get more reasonable prices?

Payments were also reportedly made to politicians from other European countries. Without providing further details, sources stated that apart from Germany, the countries included France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary.

Damn, I wish they shared the parties and politicians involved.

I wouldn't say they're equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn't as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.

That's probably because you criticized their behavior (in a rather provocative way), which is often perceived as hostile and leads to downvotes.

Haven't you been told that we don't talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn't lead to anything bad in history, so it's not at all problematic.

Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!

But that breeds diseases like avian flu and swine flu that will eventually kill loads of humans when they become human transmissible. It's all just a bit delayed this time.

I'd be very interested in the source for this...

America’s richest 10% are responsible for 40% of its planet-heating pollution

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html

The emissions of the middle class are also a huge problem and will have to drop to 0 as well.

This is partially why most veganism arguments that try and say that we shouldn't kill and eat animals and instead we should kill and eat plants usually fall on deaf ears for me just because it makes an implicit assumption that plant life is worth less than animal life

Animals don't create biomass from thin air though. They have to eat a lot of plants to grow.

the production of 1 kg of beef requires 8 kg of feed and 14.5 thousand liters of water. For 1 kg of pork, 3 kg of feed is needed and nearly 6 thousand liters of water

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Amount-of-feed-and-water-necessary-to-produce-1-kg-of-meat_tbl2_359929829#:~:text=Table%202%20shows%20that%20the,only%201.1%2D1.2%20...

Eating plants directly instead of feeding them to animals is clearly much more efficient, requiring much fewer animal deaths as well as plant deaths to sustain a human.

If plants are sentient, the moral argument for veganism is even stronger.