That you refer to bears kind of illustrates my point.Philip wrote:Audie: Isnt it time to outgrow bsrbarities of the paleolithic?
WHAT barbarities? A hungry omnivore, a bear, his body is designed to eat both meat and vegetarian sources of nutrition. He runs out of berries, he kills whatever protein source he desires, that he has the opportunity to kill - chickens, eggs, young deer, fish, young coyotes or wolves. A bear merely lives as he is so designed. Is that barbaric? I could plug a man into the same equation, excepting that if he were to kill another human for food, that would be barbaric and sick. But if that man kills whatever animal for food, as long as the kill is quick, and the specie is not endangered - how is that in any way barbaric? If we are all a hierarchy of lifeforms preying upon other species, then what do you define as barbaric? If a man harvests a plant - which is a life form - why is that any different from him eating a fish or killing a deer for its meat? Why would it be wrong to kill a deer but not a plant or fish? What should any Darwinist call a successful predator? An animal skilled in furthering it's opportunities for living longer and producing more offspring, that's what!
Humans eating animals is in the most part inhumane and unnecessary.
Im sure it is uncomfortable to confront that directly.