I agree that killing should be the absolute last resort, though I disagree that killing humans for population control should ever be in consideration. There is a difference between taking the role of a natural process, the predators that have been depopulated, and killing humans for population control, which have no natural predators. We also never need to consider that as an option, because as you pointed out, we can’t distribute pills and condoms to deer, but we can to humans. We shouldn’t be thinking of things in terms of equality, but equity. Humans can be managed through effective legislation and education. Deer cannot, and need much more direct intervention. I look forward to the day that culling is no longer necessary, as it’s a brutal and unfortunate necessary evil. And for the purposes of demonstrating that it’s not specifically about species to me, yes, I believe that if the only way to save the global ecosystem was a rapid depopulation of human beings with no alternatives, it would be right to do so, regardless of how impossible that hypothetical situation is.

Without getting all Agent Smith about it, yes, humans are an ecological disaster. I’m not trying to throw charged what-ifs back and forth. We solve the problems we can. Can you clarify what you’re saying? I agree that no animal should be killed by humans, but I also recognize that we must work with the solutions we have. Are you suggesting that we stop cullings and allow overpopulation to happen?

I strongly agree that hunting should not be a sport. I also believe that if we’re going to kill an animal, we should at least use the corpse to feed back into the ecosystem, and I don’t begrudge those that eat the things they hunt, if necessary. Many people subsist off hunting to survive, and while I disagree with the concept of hunting another animal for food, I won’t suggest that they starve, especially when they’re filling a vital ecosystem role. If we don’t need the food though, we should not be hunting animals for food. I don’t know if my opinion is well founded enough to defend the position that if an animal is killed, tragically necessarily, for culling, it should not be eaten. I believe that to be true, but I can’t defend that position with anything but my personal feelings and beliefs. On some level, I understand the argument that if an animal must be killed, then it’s wasteful to not use the meat. Regardless of either argument, I strongly disagree with trophy hunting, and find any hunting for sport abhorrent.

I hope you can see the nuanced nature of my position. I’m not trying to play devil’s advocate or be contrarian. I have a well-formed belief from my experiences, and I am trying to argue my position, and don’t think you have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to. I do not see a large scale alternative to culling at the moment. I think those types of alternatives are being pursued by some in the industry, but the scale is small. I also do not believe it’s an option to allow populations to grow uncontrollably. I believe allowing that to happen would be as morally reprehensible as hunting for sport, as it’s neglecting a duty we have to sustain an ecosystem that we damaged. I am open and interested in any and all alternatives to culling, but I’ve heard none that haven’t been tried or that haven’t been able to succeed at scale.

I’m vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it’s a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.

Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they’re stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We’re introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that’s wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren’t arguments I think you’d make, and I’m not suggesting you’d agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we’ve done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it’s better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn’t a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.

You saw it too huh

It’s a reference to Noah’s Ark, where God supposedly flooded the whole world except two of each animal and Noah’s family, then put a rainbow in the sky as a symbol that He’d never do it again. Young Earth Creationists and their like take the story as fact, despite the fact that such an event would have put humanity well below the number of people needed for a stable gene pool, and that two of an animal likely wouldn’t repopulate an entire species. I digress.

Authoritarian doesn’t mean exercising authority. Banning slavery did exercise authority, of the law, over slave owners, but it was anti-authoritarian. It took power, and authority, condensed wrongly in the hands of a few and, in theory, distributed it to the many, however effective it actually was.

Expressed well or not, you didn’t use any logical fallacies or resort to ad hominem attacks. I could disagree on every point and still enjoy the discussion just for the sake of respectful debate. Hope to run into you again.

I happened to read your last reply before it was deleted, and I have to give you props for disagreeing respectfully. I don’t see nuanced debates online often, and I’d much rather have a respectful discussion where we don’t see eye to eye. Have a good one, you seem dope.

I think the issue is that the “new” usage of “they” is seen as different, or incorrect, when that’s simply not the case. The strict usage of “they” as only a plural pronoun is not “correct.” It’s revisionist. Historically, “they” has been used as both a singular and plural pronoun, and it can be found in conversation and literature going back hundreds of years. At some point, we revised that they should be only plural, and that’s why it feels like things are changing in our current lifetimes. We aren’t changing how the word is used, we’re going back to how it’s been used for centuries.

Language is not a set of rules and strictures. It’s fluid, and the way people use words becomes grammatically correct. If these things could not change, then language couldn’t exist. You can feel uncomfortable that language has changed from what you’ve known, but don’t hold it back, or complain about the next generation. Language will change in their lifetimes too. Overall, it’s a good thing and pushes us to understand each other in the manner appropriate for the times. Right now, an easily recognizable and commonly accepted gender neutral, singular pronoun is more valuable to language than a strict usage or a new word for the use case.

“They left their bag.” “They went that way.” “I’ll find them later.”

All these examples could refer to either singular or plural cases, and maybe that confuses some people, but I think it’s very simple to determine with even the barest bit of context. It’s better than defaulting to “he” for any unspecified gender, as was “correct” for the last few decades, and allows for non-binary people to be referred to without needing oft-criticized neo-pronouns.

TLDR: Times change. We need to get with it.

It’s my name

What? Cognitive behavioral therapy is not for the mentally handicapped. It’s for anyone.