[Lucky 1]

Originally Posted by Gem
There has been a history of refusing to eat meat dating back, but veganism, as far as I know, is recent. For example, the Jain, who are strict about killing things, consume dairy, as do Buddhist vegetarians who's teaching on morality, based on the general ethical principle of do no harm, stipulates that one should not be involved in killing anything directly or indirectly. For example, one should not consume meat or sell meat or raise animals for slaughter, or in any way conduct oneself in a way that even remotely entails harming living things. However, such tradition has roots in places that have climatic conditions that make vegetarianism feasible, unlike the Aboriginals of central Australia, for example, whose environment does not allow for a vegetarian diet. In fact, vast regions of the world are dry, cold, high in altitude or otherwise don't allow for a complete vegetarian nutritional profile. Hence, environments that enable veganism are limited to those that are warm, fertile and moist, or populations in regions that are developed and affluent, and indeed, veganism is really only feasible in wealthy populations.


The people who make noise in the shop aren't really thinking things through. They don't appreciate issues such as poverty, geography and environment both material and social. They are merely virtue signaling.


The rhetoric on compassion isn't simple because virtue ethics doesn't deal with what is simple, black and white right and wrong. Ethics operates in the realm of dilemmas that present grey areas and the narrative on compassion isn't one to be used for virtue signaling.



It is important to try to understand that the peoples who fish and hunt did so for generations without depleting the environment they shared with wildlife. For example, the Aboriginal people around here used to manage the environment so that it produced greater abundance of wildlife than it would if left to go wild, knowing their own bounty depended on the bounty of nature. In this way, one can be responsible for increasing the capacity of the land to support life, which is the responsibility to care for the country, and kill the wildlife one needs to eat, all the while ensuring all living things have what they need. Hence, compassion is a practically and not so much a sentiment.


There was a story about Yellowstone park where nature was unbalanced, and the trees were not regenerating, the grazing animals were overpopulated, and even the terrain itself was degenerating. Wide scale ecological devastation. They assessed that the problem was due to lack of predator wolves, so they brought some in and let them loose. The wolves started killing the grazers, and their population exploded because there was so much 'dog food' running around. The trees started regenerating as everything began to balance out, and the terrain, the rivers etc. began to flourish with fish and frogs and water animals of all kinds, and the birds came back etc. etc. etc. A people could actually live off the bounty if need be, as a wide variety of flora and fauna became available, and those people would be a part of the natural world in which they have a place, the wolf has a place, the deer have a place, trees have a place - everything has a place. But 'place' is not a concept which is well understood in the Western world. (End Gem's quote)



This is a post Gem made in another unrelated thread....but I liked what it had to say a lot and in its way relates to the "spiritual path of the hunter".

As far as I know every hunting society around the world and through the ages has followed such ideals...

In other words....Hunters are the true environmentalists and care for the natural world is part of the hunters path.

Insuring that nature remains in balance is paramount to the hunter.

Insuring that the wild places are healthy and sustained for the benefit of all....from the plants and animals to humans.

The hunter feels these places in his heart and soul and loves the wild places and the plants and animals that inhabit them in a way that a non-hunter can never know.

One who follows the "spiritual path of the hunter" only takes what he needs to survive.

As far as Gem's mention of the issues Yellowstone had before the reintroduction of the wolf....here is a quote by naturalist (and a follower of the spiritual path of the hunter) that Aldo Leopold made more than 100 years ago

“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”