A Hunting Syllogism

(Thank you Adam K for sparking this idea.)

1. We are descended from carnivores. [1]
2. We are programmed to eat meat.
3. Killing has in the past been necessary to eat.
4. #3 is no longer true.
5. Hunting reinforces behaviors that are no longer necessary for the welfare of the species.
6. These behavior are unhealthy and dangerous.
7. These behaviors are manifested outside the hunting context.
8. Therefore, hunting is unhealthy and dangerous .

I'm not entirely happy with this, but I can't argue with my own logic; I know where the holes are (you can see them too), but they are easy to fill with smaller steps. The crux is 5-6; aside from the social and pseudo-religious aspects of hunting, it has no reason to exist.[2]

A radio host recently reminded me of this exchange between Katharine Hepburn (Rose Sayer) and Humphrey Bogart (Charlie Allnut) in The African Queen:

Charlie: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human nature.
Rose: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put into this world to rise above.

The point being that we are not necessarily bound by what's in our DNA.

(That picture of Bogart hangs in my home office, a gift from my brother Tom many years ago.)

[1]
Although much of our digestive system has changed to consume other types of foods (flat molars to process grain, eg), we have been carnivores or omnivores for hundreds of thousands years. Our eyes are in the front of our heads.

[2]
I eat meat but do not support hunting; this syllogism is partly in response to my internal battle with this apparent inconsistency; hunters and vegetarians alike take me to task over it. I am in "the troubled middle"; more on that later.

Talking to a vegetarian is like "Can God create a rock too big for Him to move?" Talking to hunters… well, there's no talking to hunters.

I am good friends with many hunters and vegetarians. I don’t want to take away anyone’s guns or vegetables.

And God bless Ted Nugent, I like his music and I like him.

Started: 2012-04-10