I'm convinced that deep in the reptilian brain, most male humans are hard-wired to hunt and find it hard to suppress the “thrill of the kill”.
The scientific debate on whether and how evolution accounts for this is not settled, which I find curious. My non-scientific experience is that it's instinct, end-of-story. Why else does one's heart rate elevate while air gunning for mere pests such as house sparrows and rats?
What else could possibly explain the popularity of Ted's Holdover or Matt Dubber videos shooting starlings and feral pigeons? You'd think from their reactions on YouTube, they'd just shot a trophy elk. Its nuts, actually (and highly offensive to those who do not approve).
Those of us who allow ourselves to flip the "kill something" switch have discovered that we're just as hard-wired to stalk, ambush and kill as a Neanderthal 60,000 years ago or a modern house cat today. The heartbeat always quickens to a live, legal target, however small. I'm guilty as charged.
This is not to mention the bonus (mostly male) instinct to project power with precision. Whether it’s an air gun or Marine artillery, guys like to shoot stuff. All the better if the target breaks, makes noise, blows up - or dies. This explains the overwhelming popularity of video games.
Yes, if we are honest with ourselves we will admit the obvious.
We should never pretend, varminting is merely some "pest job", as if someone called the Orkin man who's just trying to get through his 8-hours. Actually, varminting and hunting is fun.
Critics suggest some twisted penchant for cruelty is the true motivator. But I can assure you cruelty is not part of the equation. Cruelty is several layers of Superego removed from reptilian instinct. It requires forethought and malice. I do not believe that's the part of the brain that lights up on a hunt. It doesn't even register. With quarry in the sights, there's no time to ponder as one tries to settle the nervous breathing. If you find yourself hunting to be cruel, stop and see a therapist.
I don't apologize for any of it, because we were wired to hunt by evolution for good reason -- notably survival.
However, if cruelty is not part of the calculus, ethics most certainly is.
Is it ethical that things should die for mere entertainment or instinctual satisfaction, when survival is not at stake?
I'm not a particularly religious person, but do subscribe to the concept of a "Creator" and the idea that nature and the cosmos function with a greater, undefinable spiritual power involved. Not exactly "God's Plan” in a literal sense, but at least the idea that we, and the world we live in, are not here by accident. I'll add that I view life, self-awareness, and nature as a gift.
Even so, any observer can see the "Creator" has set up a world where life and death are in constant conflict, and one does not happen without the other. Hobbes said it best: Existence is "...nasty, brutish, and short."
In fact, Nature is unspeakably cruel. Watch Animal Planet and you will see that predators eviscerate prey while the victims are still alive and struggling. To a high percentile, animals suffer slow, agonizing deaths from predation, hunger, thirst, disease, heat, and cold -- not to mention those unlucky enough to have to crawl off the roadside with broken hips and bleeding organs to suffer for hours after being struck by a vehicle.
The stockyard and slaughterhouse are arguably even worse. Animals crowded, afraid, and helpless after leading industrial lives with no dignity whatsoever.
There is no hospice for wildlife where they pass to the great beyond with their cute, fuzzy relatives gathered 'round them to say goodbye. This is the Disney anthropomorphic fantasy version that I suppose some antis adhere to. They are wrong.
Through this lens, meeting the inevitable at the hands of a skilled and humane sportsman, actually starts looking pretty good, perhaps even noble, especially when you consider the reverence many of us have for nature, wildlife and conservation -- and the freedom that these animals enjoyed in life compared to their factory-farmed cousins.
It's why I always roll my eyes at anti's who might want to lecture me about how you should only "kill to survive" minutes after they have consumed a ham sandwich. I don't see the difference between hunting for sport -- and eating a slaughtered turkey at Thanksgiving. Death is not discerning that way.
Even so, as creatures with the gift of intellect and consciousness, this "nature is more cruel" argument does not give us license to deal death at will, or indulge the "thrill of the kill" for no good reason. Merely satifying "instinct" is not a good enough justification.
The death we deal for sport must be purposeful and legal. Legitimate overpopulated "pests" and invasive species that displace local wildlife are two good examples. Wildlife that is harvested and consumed by us, so much the better. Especially when byproducts such as fur and hides are put to greater use. Legitimate wildlife management and conservation goals provide more justification.
We should kill as quickly and humanely as possible in every circumstance. A botched kill is a grim experience. Even hunters have empathy.
If you are into air gunning because you like "killin' stuff" -- if you think You Tubes of squirrels getting popped are cool -- it’s OK by me. That's your instinct talking. You shouldn't have to apologize for it.
On the other hand, ethically, it's worth pausing to reflect on that fact that life is a gift that should not be destroyed without ascribing some meaning or purpose.
So buy a hunting license, observe wildlife management and conservation laws, eat what you kill, or in the case of pests -- keep it legal. It's OK to enjoy the thrill of the kill. It's not OK to be wasteful and purposeless. (And if you're an American dentist who paid tens of thousands for a lion hunt in Africa, best not to kill the one that has the radio tracking collar, a name [Cecil], and a Twitter account. Use your head).
Keep it real and keep it ethical. It makes explaining it to those who are offended, a whole lot easier.
The scientific debate on whether and how evolution accounts for this is not settled, which I find curious. My non-scientific experience is that it's instinct, end-of-story. Why else does one's heart rate elevate while air gunning for mere pests such as house sparrows and rats?
What else could possibly explain the popularity of Ted's Holdover or Matt Dubber videos shooting starlings and feral pigeons? You'd think from their reactions on YouTube, they'd just shot a trophy elk. Its nuts, actually (and highly offensive to those who do not approve).
Those of us who allow ourselves to flip the "kill something" switch have discovered that we're just as hard-wired to stalk, ambush and kill as a Neanderthal 60,000 years ago or a modern house cat today. The heartbeat always quickens to a live, legal target, however small. I'm guilty as charged.
This is not to mention the bonus (mostly male) instinct to project power with precision. Whether it’s an air gun or Marine artillery, guys like to shoot stuff. All the better if the target breaks, makes noise, blows up - or dies. This explains the overwhelming popularity of video games.
Yes, if we are honest with ourselves we will admit the obvious.
We should never pretend, varminting is merely some "pest job", as if someone called the Orkin man who's just trying to get through his 8-hours. Actually, varminting and hunting is fun.
Critics suggest some twisted penchant for cruelty is the true motivator. But I can assure you cruelty is not part of the equation. Cruelty is several layers of Superego removed from reptilian instinct. It requires forethought and malice. I do not believe that's the part of the brain that lights up on a hunt. It doesn't even register. With quarry in the sights, there's no time to ponder as one tries to settle the nervous breathing. If you find yourself hunting to be cruel, stop and see a therapist.
I don't apologize for any of it, because we were wired to hunt by evolution for good reason -- notably survival.
However, if cruelty is not part of the calculus, ethics most certainly is.
Is it ethical that things should die for mere entertainment or instinctual satisfaction, when survival is not at stake?
I'm not a particularly religious person, but do subscribe to the concept of a "Creator" and the idea that nature and the cosmos function with a greater, undefinable spiritual power involved. Not exactly "God's Plan” in a literal sense, but at least the idea that we, and the world we live in, are not here by accident. I'll add that I view life, self-awareness, and nature as a gift.
Even so, any observer can see the "Creator" has set up a world where life and death are in constant conflict, and one does not happen without the other. Hobbes said it best: Existence is "...nasty, brutish, and short."
In fact, Nature is unspeakably cruel. Watch Animal Planet and you will see that predators eviscerate prey while the victims are still alive and struggling. To a high percentile, animals suffer slow, agonizing deaths from predation, hunger, thirst, disease, heat, and cold -- not to mention those unlucky enough to have to crawl off the roadside with broken hips and bleeding organs to suffer for hours after being struck by a vehicle.
The stockyard and slaughterhouse are arguably even worse. Animals crowded, afraid, and helpless after leading industrial lives with no dignity whatsoever.
There is no hospice for wildlife where they pass to the great beyond with their cute, fuzzy relatives gathered 'round them to say goodbye. This is the Disney anthropomorphic fantasy version that I suppose some antis adhere to. They are wrong.
Through this lens, meeting the inevitable at the hands of a skilled and humane sportsman, actually starts looking pretty good, perhaps even noble, especially when you consider the reverence many of us have for nature, wildlife and conservation -- and the freedom that these animals enjoyed in life compared to their factory-farmed cousins.
It's why I always roll my eyes at anti's who might want to lecture me about how you should only "kill to survive" minutes after they have consumed a ham sandwich. I don't see the difference between hunting for sport -- and eating a slaughtered turkey at Thanksgiving. Death is not discerning that way.
Even so, as creatures with the gift of intellect and consciousness, this "nature is more cruel" argument does not give us license to deal death at will, or indulge the "thrill of the kill" for no good reason. Merely satifying "instinct" is not a good enough justification.
The death we deal for sport must be purposeful and legal. Legitimate overpopulated "pests" and invasive species that displace local wildlife are two good examples. Wildlife that is harvested and consumed by us, so much the better. Especially when byproducts such as fur and hides are put to greater use. Legitimate wildlife management and conservation goals provide more justification.
We should kill as quickly and humanely as possible in every circumstance. A botched kill is a grim experience. Even hunters have empathy.
If you are into air gunning because you like "killin' stuff" -- if you think You Tubes of squirrels getting popped are cool -- it’s OK by me. That's your instinct talking. You shouldn't have to apologize for it.
On the other hand, ethically, it's worth pausing to reflect on that fact that life is a gift that should not be destroyed without ascribing some meaning or purpose.
So buy a hunting license, observe wildlife management and conservation laws, eat what you kill, or in the case of pests -- keep it legal. It's OK to enjoy the thrill of the kill. It's not OK to be wasteful and purposeless. (And if you're an American dentist who paid tens of thousands for a lion hunt in Africa, best not to kill the one that has the radio tracking collar, a name [Cecil], and a Twitter account. Use your head).
Keep it real and keep it ethical. It makes explaining it to those who are offended, a whole lot easier.
