Could modern society exist without displacing animals?
August 5, 2011 8:35 PM Subscribe
Is modern society possible without killing animals? Could we have mines and paper and factories without taking animal territory? Aren't animals killed if we take their habitat, possibly leaving them nowhere to live? Does anyone know of any books that deal with the ethics of territory?
This post was deleted for the following reason: You may need to flesh this question out a bit more, explain why you're asking and outline your parameters a little better. This is clearly not going where you want it to go and since it's not time sensitive it might be best to just start over. -- jessamyn
What does this question mean? Animals are killed all the time in the course of nature, whether by man or beast.
Are you asking if civilization is possible in a manner such that no animal is killed that is not being used for some express purpose? Even there, the question, as posed is somewhat unclear because what defines a purpose?
posted by dfriedman at 9:23 PM on August 5, 2011
Are you asking if civilization is possible in a manner such that no animal is killed that is not being used for some express purpose? Even there, the question, as posed is somewhat unclear because what defines a purpose?
posted by dfriedman at 9:23 PM on August 5, 2011
Response by poster: We need food to eat. We don't need paper. It's not really addressing the issue to say that animals are killed to feed us.
posted by vash at 9:27 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 9:27 PM on August 5, 2011
Response by poster: To be clear, I'm only talking about things that aren't necessary for life. Agriculture is not included.
posted by vash at 9:31 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 9:31 PM on August 5, 2011
What is necessary for life? Is it just eating, drinking, shitting, sleeping, breeding? Human life has evolved to interact with our environment, maybe just to keep us from going mad with boredom now we've got these big brains an' all. It's what we do.
Every upper food chain critter, heck even some plants, kill other things to help themselves stay alive. The active competition for the environment's resources is a natural upper food chain behaviour.
Are you wondering how to live the most ethical, moral, non-intrusive or invasive life you could live? There are religions who have this perspective as you probably already know. But to even come up with a framework of what is 'necessary for [human] life [in the long term]' will be nigh on impossible. Competitive human is competitive.
posted by the fish at 9:42 PM on August 5, 2011
Every upper food chain critter, heck even some plants, kill other things to help themselves stay alive. The active competition for the environment's resources is a natural upper food chain behaviour.
Are you wondering how to live the most ethical, moral, non-intrusive or invasive life you could live? There are religions who have this perspective as you probably already know. But to even come up with a framework of what is 'necessary for [human] life [in the long term]' will be nigh on impossible. Competitive human is competitive.
posted by the fish at 9:42 PM on August 5, 2011
I'm not sure there is any logical end to this line of reasoning. Even if you revert back to a subsistence gatherer lifestyle, just eating berries and sleeping under the stars, you would still be competing with animals for the berries/whatever and preventing the local berry-eater population from expanding.
The berry-eating animals still have a territory that you would be using for yourself. If you remove a grazing species from a territory then eventually some other species will move in to occupy that niche. Introduce a new species (like our hypothetical grazing people) and some other species gets squeezed. Every action leads to a reaction, etc.
posted by N-stoff at 9:46 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
The berry-eating animals still have a territory that you would be using for yourself. If you remove a grazing species from a territory then eventually some other species will move in to occupy that niche. Introduce a new species (like our hypothetical grazing people) and some other species gets squeezed. Every action leads to a reaction, etc.
posted by N-stoff at 9:46 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I'm confused why there are still answers concerning food. I already addressed that. Hunter-gatherer societies would be an example of taking only what you need. I'm asking if things that make us modern compared to them could be had without killing animals.
posted by vash at 10:00 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 10:00 PM on August 5, 2011
Hunter-gatherer societies would be an example of taking only what you need.
That kind of "Noble savage living in balance with nature" is bunk. Hunter-gatherer societies routinely kill and destroy and waste. For instance, the North American aborigines used to deliberately set forest fires, in order to clear out the brush, to make it easier for them to move around.
And this question is chatfilter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:04 PM on August 5, 2011
That kind of "Noble savage living in balance with nature" is bunk. Hunter-gatherer societies routinely kill and destroy and waste. For instance, the North American aborigines used to deliberately set forest fires, in order to clear out the brush, to make it easier for them to move around.
And this question is chatfilter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:04 PM on August 5, 2011
Food is the basic reason we do anything. You can't discuss an issue like this without including it.
And yeah, chatfilter.
posted by the fish at 10:07 PM on August 5, 2011
And yeah, chatfilter.
posted by the fish at 10:07 PM on August 5, 2011
Hunter-gatherer societies would be an example of taking only what you need.
Not so much.
See also.
posted by dfriedman at 10:11 PM on August 5, 2011
Not so much.
See also.
posted by dfriedman at 10:11 PM on August 5, 2011
Response by poster: I feel like people are trying to prove things I say wrong instead of helping with my question. If a certain hunter-gatherer society does not match what I've said about taking only what you need, then they are obviously not my ideal. I've already listed food as something that people need to live, therefore I consider it justifiable to kill animals to get it. If I am missing something on that, feel free to mention it, but getting the same answer about how animals are killed in agriculture over and over just makes me think people aren't reading all the answers before posting.
posted by vash at 10:13 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 10:13 PM on August 5, 2011
Response by poster: I think I have been unclear. Let me rephrase my question. Would it be possible to make things like paper and manufactured goods without displacing animals? I am not proposing giving back what territory humans have taken already, but asking if our modern society could have been created without displacing animals.
posted by vash at 10:31 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 10:31 PM on August 5, 2011
Modern society runs on energy, and production of that energy and agriculture are probably the two biggest disruptors of habitat.
If you start saying things like "well, we don't need paper," you're going to run into a definition problem. What makes modern society modern?
posted by rtha at 10:32 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you start saying things like "well, we don't need paper," you're going to run into a definition problem. What makes modern society modern?
posted by rtha at 10:32 PM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I said we don't need paper to show the difference between destroying forests for paper and destroying insects for agriculture. I didn't mean we don't need paper for modern society.
posted by vash at 10:36 PM on August 5, 2011
posted by vash at 10:36 PM on August 5, 2011
Would it be possible to make things like paper and manufactured goods without displacing animals?
No.
Samples could be made. But to create those kinds of products in quantity requires utilizing land in quantity, which means displacing (or killing) animals.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:50 PM on August 5, 2011
No.
Samples could be made. But to create those kinds of products in quantity requires utilizing land in quantity, which means displacing (or killing) animals.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:50 PM on August 5, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Without very careful planning, live is inherently competitive. Whenever there's enough resources for everyone, everyone will make more everyones until there isn't.
posted by aubilenon at 9:08 PM on August 5, 2011 [2 favorites]