What about hunting?

[Sculptor1]

These days when we can get out meat and leather from humanely killed animals there is no more need to hunt.

Hunting was once a challenge and a noble and dangerous practice. Then came guns, and it was then reduced to target practice with unnecessarily cruel results.

Only people with some sort of mental or social deficiency would ever want to go hunting with anything other than a camera.

I agree with your assessment on the nobility and challenge of the hunt. Though there are ecological reasons for balancing the ecosystem as well as culling invasive species.

2/3rds of agricultural land is marginal, and cannot be used to support plant based food sources. Keeping that as a resource for meat, glue, leather, wool, milk, cheese, and a range of fertilisers is a wise idea.

Grazing animals are their own ecological balance, and encourage species diversity way over and above growing plant crops.

The only invasive species I can thing of that is of any serious impact is the human species which has used artificial means to invade and pollute every continent on earth.

[Sculptor1]

These days when we can get out meat and leather from humanely killed animals there is no more need to hunt.

Hunting was once a challenge and a noble and dangerous practice. Then came guns, and it was then reduced to target practice with unnecessarily cruel results.

Only people with some sort of mental or social deficiency would ever want to go hunting with anything other than a camera.

What bunk! Since when is the factory farming from which most people get their meat "humane"?

Strawman. I did not say factory farming is humane. Please learn to read.

[Pattern-chaser]

...there are ecological reasons for balancing the ecosystem as well as culling invasive species.

I wonder if I am right to detect a human-centric outlook here? 'Balancing the ecosystem' is something that should often involve culling, or otherwise reducing the population of, humans. The 'ecosystem' was self-balanced for many millions or billions of years, before humans reached their current position of dominance. And aren't 'invasive species', species that simply wish to 'invade' land set aside by humans for their own exclusive use?

Once more, I feel forced to conclude that there is no convincing argument for hunting, by humans, with guns.

[Pattern-chaser]

These days when we can get out meat and leather from humanely killed animals there is no more need to hunt.

Since when is the factory farming from which most people get their meat "humane"?

I did not say factory farming is humane.

I think the point is that factory farming is less 'humane' than hunting, and that's probably correct. But there's an equally significant point that goes with it: if we relied only on wild hunting, our human 'needs' for meat would not and could not be met. Assuming we are unwilling to consider mass (human) starvation or culling, factory farming has become necessary and unavoidable. Unless, perhaps, we all started to eat an exclusively vegetarian diet?

[Pattern-chaser]

I feel forced to conclude that there is no convincing argument for hunting, by humans, with guns.

Clarification: I feel forced to conclude that there is no convincing philosophical argument in favour of hunting, by humans, with guns.

[Sculptor1]

These days when we can get out meat and leather from humanely killed animals there is no more need to hunt.

Since when is the factory farming from which most people get their meat "humane"?

I did not say factory farming is humane.

I think the point is that factory farming is less 'humane' than hunting, and that's probably correct.

Actually no. There are strict laws about how to kill a farm animal. But there are not laws that mandate a quick painless kill whilst hunting. Often a quarry will receive non fatal wounds and bleed out slowly and evade capture and die from infection.
The other thing worth pointing out is the vast availability of farm reared (as opposed to factory reared) meats. I see lamb and cattle on the hoof everyday. They are all extremely healthy, get provided shelter in the cold and veterinary care throughout the year. These are the rule rather than the exception.
As well as providing meat they provide natural biodegradable leather and wool.
The land they graze has thousands of species; grasses; vetch;orchids;daisies; dandylions;doch' nettle;hawthorn; insects of innumerable types.
By contrast the wheat fields are depleted of soil,and loam, and the mono-crop relies wholly on artificial fertiliser, and pesticides.
Eating wheat is more harmful to the environment than eating meat.

But there's an equally significant point that goes with it: if we relied only on wild hunting, our human 'needs' for meat would not and could not be met. Assuming we are unwilling to consider mass (human) starvation or culling, factory farming has become necessary and unavoidable. Unless, perhaps, we all started to eat an exclusively vegetarian diet?

We are not adapted to eat a vegetarian diet.
Consider the100s of thousands of years that humans emerged from Africa before the days of agriculture. The availability of energy rich plants that are also safe to eat is minimal. Root vegetables were tiny compared to the domesticated varieties now, and so were fruits, which were only available in the autumn.
Animals protect themselves from predation with legs. Plants do it by harbouring toxic leptins in their tissues which are noxious in smell and taste to the human palate. Animal flesh is wholly edible and provides 100% the dietary needs of humans.

[Pattern-chaser]

We are not adapted to eat a vegetarian diet.

Agreed. Evolution has made us omnivorous. But if we focus sharply on the need to feed so very many human beings, a vegetarian diet will make more efficient use of the available land. This does not detract from the truth of all that you said (and I didn't quote), but it exists alongside your points. As a plague species, our numbers are vastly in excess of the land's ability to feed us by any 'normal' or 'natural' means, so we need to focus on the most efficient way of using the land to nourish all those humans. I think that way is vegetarianism, isn't it?

[Ecurb]

Strawman. I did not say factory farming is humane. Please learn to read.

Good grief! Nor did I say that you said..... whoops, this could go on forever.

99% of the meat consumed in the U.S. is factory farmed, and 95% in the U.k. (acc. multiple sources). It is possible to buy expensive, free-range meat, but most people don't do it. (The majority of the fish consumed is also famed,these days, but I don't have statistics.)

In addition, only 14% of hunting and gathering societies studied get 50% or more of their calories from meat. It's more ususal to get 65-70% of calories from plants.

Pattern: Clarification: I feel forced to conclude that there is no convincing philosophical argument in favour of hunting, by humans, with guns.

Doesn't the "with guns" quualifiation fly in the face of Sulptor's objections to hunting as inhumane? I don't have any statistics, but I'm quite sure that hunting with bows or spears causes the prey animals to suffer more than hunting with rifles. Inferior weapons are less likely to kill cleanly. In addition, the hunting methods of many aboriginal hunters included traps and snares which often caused prolonged suffering. I'll grant that bow hunting or spear hunting is more romantic than hunting with a rifle, but not that it is somehow more moral. Why would it be?

Either hunting is moral or immoral. I think vegetarians have a reasonable argument that it is immoral. But even they risk being labelled as elitist and ethnocentric if they criticize the vanishing groups of hunters and gatherers thAt still exist.

Here in the U.S. , many rural people still get a signficant protion of their diets from hunting. Rural dwellers tend to make less money than their urban counterparts -- but they also need less, and hunting is one reason why.

[Sculptor1]

We are not adapted to eat a vegetarian diet.

Agreed. Evolution has made us omnivorous. But if we focus sharply on the need to feed so very many human beings, a vegetarian diet will make more efficient use of the available land.

No - it is s greenist myth.
Mot agro land cannot sustain edible plants practically.

This does not detract from the truth of all that you said (and I didn't quote), but it exists alongside your points. As a plague species, our numbers are vastly in excess of the land's ability to feed us by any 'normal' or 'natural' means, so we need to focus on the most efficient way of using the land to nourish all those humans. I think that way is vegetarianism, isn't it?

If there are too many mouths, then it would be much better on the ecology to work towards reducing the number of mouths to feed.

The solution ATM seem to be the production of "food-like substances" made in factories which include fake ingredients like seed oils made in factories, trans-fats, fructose and other sugar based substances, which are high in energy, low in satiation, high in lipogenesis, and low in micronutrients.
Wheat seems to e one of the chief substances that are mobilised to solve this problem and it is claimed that an acre of monoculture wheat makes more calories than growing meat on the same land. Yet there are problems with this way of thinking. First is that you cannot grow wheat on a hill farm. WHeat intolerance is a growing problem; wheat causes Alzheimers (Grain Brain, Dr. David Perlmutter) and is the cause of celiacs disease.

[Sculptor1]

Strawman. I did not say factory farming is humane. Please learn to read.

Good grief! Nor did I say that you said..... whoops, this could go on forever.

99% of the meat consumed in the U.S. is factory farmed, and 95% in the U.k. (acc. multiple sources). It is possible to buy expensive, free-range meat, but most people don't do it. (The majority of the fish consumed is also famed,these days, but I don't have statistics.)
.

Please cite from reliable sources.
Not that it would support your hysterical claim.

[AverageBozo]

I think you are talking about not all guns but assault rifles. They are associated with mass murder and poor sportsmanship on the part of hunters who need to spray their intended target in hopes of hitting it.

If by "assault rifle" you mean the semi-auto rifles so mis-named by the gun banners, they don't "spray." They are not full-auto rifles. Most modern rifles sold in the US, and virtually all handguns, are semi-auto.

Thanks for the correction.

[Ecurb]

Please cite from reliable sources.
Not that it would support your hysterical claim.

Don't you have google on your computer? "Hysterical claims"?

OK, much as I hate to do your reasearch for you, you appear too incompetent to do it yourself, so I'll help:

Percentage of plant food in hunter/gatherer diets:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1070216 ... nt%20foods.

Percentage of meat that is factory farmed in the U.S. and U.K.

https://plantbasednews.org/opinion/opin ... l-welfare/ (this one says 85%, but other sites say 95% -- a 5 minute search didn't lead me to the site where I saw 95%)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... on-reveals

U.S. stats:

https://faunalytics.org/fundamentals-farmed-animals/

https://www.livekindly.com/99-animal-pr ... ory-farms/

Here's a review of the world situation:

https://cdn.fairr.org/2015/12/13134508/ ... _Risks.pdf

[GE Morton]

Wheat seems to e one of the chief substances that are mobilised to solve this problem and it is claimed that an acre of monoculture wheat makes more calories than growing meat on the same land. Yet there are problems with this way of thinking. First is that you cannot grow wheat on a hill farm. WHeat intolerance is a growing problem; wheat causes Alzheimers (Grain Brain, Dr. David Perlmutter) and is the cause of celiacs disease.

Well, you've destroyed your credibility with those claims. "Can't grow wheat on a hill farm"? Ever heard of the Palouse region in the Pacific Northwest? It is the most productive wheat-growing area in the US (in terms of bushels/acre), and is nearly all steep hills. Self-leveling combines were invented to harvest wheat on those farms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palouse

And David Perlmutter is a snake oil-peddling quack.

https://www.thecut.com/2015/06/problem- ... octor.html

[Sculptor1]

Please cite from reliable sources.
Not that it would support your hysterical claim.

Don't you have google on your computer? "Hysterical claims"?

Yes and I immediately found out that you exaggerated.

[Sculptor1]

Wheat seems to e one of the chief substances that are mobilised to solve this problem and it is claimed that an acre of monoculture wheat makes more calories than growing meat on the same land. Yet there are problems with this way of thinking. First is that you cannot grow wheat on a hill farm. WHeat intolerance is a growing problem; wheat causes Alzheimers (Grain Brain, Dr. David Perlmutter) and is the cause of celiacs disease.

Well, you've destroyed your credibility with those claims. "Can't grow wheat on a hill farm"? Ever heard of the Palouse region in the Pacific Northwest? It is the most productive wheat-growing area in the US (in terms of bushels/acre), and is nearly all steep hills. Self-leveling combines were invented to harvest wheat on those farms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palouse

That is not a hill farm..