Fritz
Humans need a mixture of minerals and vitamins to stay healthy. It just so happens that plants and animals provide that. But it is not the sole source. One day we will be able to mine the minerals into pills that will provide us with all that our body needs.
Meat is not the only source of protein. Or I would have been dead a long time ago. So your argument about humans needing small amounts of fish/meat becomes invalid.
The cycle of nature is about survival. Humans do not need to eat meat to survive. So saying - sorry, that's the way it is - is untrue. It's a well worn excuse by humans who care little about anything but the square they live in.
Evolution is about change, so it is fair to say that we can EVOLVE past the mindest (and that's all it is) that we "HAVE TO" eat meat, and one day past eating plants too.
Now drukqs;
a) I believe you mean the tasmanian devil, as the tasmanian tiger has been officially extinct since the last female died in melbourne zoo around 1930).
b) I did like eating steak, seafood etc too. But I found it morally wrong.
On to your question:
The fox situation is tricky, just like any pest situation. But nature is survival of the fittest, just because humans caused the problem does not give us the right to just go in and kill the foxes. It's not the foxes fault that they're there. Let it be, some animals will adapt, the weaker will perish.
Nature has the ability to balance things, no matter how devastating it gets it will find an equilibrium eventually. It has done so in the past with thousands of ice ages, meteor hits, immense volcanic uprisings. 15 billion years of universal balance compared to humankinds 2000 years of many failures. Humans should leave it to the expert (i.e nature) to fix the problem, and only try to prevent it from happening again.
Mud - Which would you prefer. To die by injection or feel yourself ripped apart by bulletwounds. Don't be so easy to judge before you jump into the shoes of the victim.
|