German Hunter pays £39,000 to kill largest elephant in living memory

Just curiously, have you ever researched the effects of vegetation farms on climate etc?

I have no idea what a vegetation farm is :/ so no?

a vegetable farm? it's where vegetables come from.

a vegetable farm? it's where vegetables come from.

What kind of vegetable farm?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It said vegetation... Didn't know if was some strannge sort of farm that grew bushes or something.

The impact of plant farms is irrelevant to the vegetarian sustainability argument because the vast majority of plants grown go to feeding animals for people to eat. Eat that plant yourself and you have to dedicate much less land to farming and can protect much more natural habitat.

Of course all is not rosy in the plant growing world, but it's like when people say soy is bad so veganism is unsustainable - completeley overlooking the fact the vast majority of soy produced is fed to pigs not people.

I'm fairly immune to animal suffering unfortunateley as its something I've had to come to terms with very swiftly through my work, I'd be driven mad if I took that on board as a cause too

Also as soon as things become emotive the evidence bbecomes heavily distorted on both sides and any sort of argument becomes fairly redundant beyond your own personal morals, which are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things.

It's more sensible to advocate for the facts.

Hate to invoke Godwin's Law but it is that mindset that allows atrocities like a racial holocaust to happen or for a communist dictatorship to go on a great purge all sacrifice millions in a famine. Or like I said before, conservationists exterminate humans for environmental reasons. In both those cases the perpetrators think they are acting on 'science' even if we know that social Darwinism of that time period was pretty unscientific. But what if it was scientifically correct? What if different races of people are all in a mad survival of the fittest law over resources and land? Would a holocaust be scientifically justified then? What if Marxist-Leninist doctrine is correct? I mean you could easily use maths and rational reasoning to come to the conclusion that all the lives under you dictatorial rule are worthless compared to the utopia to be created in the future where the rest of humanity will live in a giant international commune until the Sun engulfs us.

There are loads of questions science can not answer. Moral philosophy come into it and a lot of it is down to human gut feelings ultimately. It's better if those gut feelings are guided by facts sure, but facts on their own are meaningless. You think you are not guided by emotion but you are.

The idea we need to conserve the planet and the ecosystem is based on human emotion. There is no reason why we have to do that. There is no reason why we should even care about whether biodiversity goes down. Humans are causing the global climate to change. That is not in itself bad. That's just organisms effecting the ecosystem they live in. You can argue we should do something about it just because the human race would suffer, btu that is based on human emotion to the propagation of the species we live and the need we feel to look out for otehr humans. It;s not based on science, it;s based off of human emotion and the desire to survive. Again, you could get humans that think planet earth and all the other creatures will be better off without people, so better go and kill them all. I;m sure you could make some scientific arguments to back up that hypothesis.

Ultimately most of our scientific enlightenment thinking and discoveries point towards existential nihilism anyway so nothing matters. Why are you even doing anything? Who cares if deer in Scotland all starve to death

Philosophy important Mkay? I can;t be written off as a wish washy humanities person since I have a physics degree

Yeah, but lets say you guys win and the whole world now requires vegetables and fruit.

Then what will the impact of that be?

@redferry

As much as this guy is annoying you you can bring facts to support his views. Al Though I can also think of facts that discredit some of his views based on the ethical axioms he subscribes to.

I mean there are actual scientists that say certain primates should be given rights similar to human rights... They use scientific reasoning.

Point is, they are all these views are based on totally arbitrary foundations.

More natural habitat and lower emissions

Sort of depresses me thinking about a world with no meat...as bad as that sounds.

I support it more than no kill dairy though