Do you really kill mountain lions in US Canada

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Seeing how Canada is mentioned in the title, I add some comments.


I am aware of more attacks by cougars on humans than vise versa. I'm in my fifties and don't know anyone who hunts cougars for sport. Not in the past, not now.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America

 

In 1988, while I was with the Canadian Coast Guard, I saw for myself what cougars are capable of. I live on Vancouver Island, where more fatalities occur by cougars than anywhere. I knew the boy and his parents very well. His mother almost my whole life, being the same age from the same town. The animal was shot by a neighbour. He sat where the body was recovered and moaned for little more than a few minutes. The cat boldly reared his head long enough to have it's brain matter relocated in the wilderness. The post mortem revealed human remains in the digestive tract. The animal was four years old and appeared in perfect health. Blood, tissue and stool analysis showed no signs of infection, injury, parasites or starvation. The boy was a target of opportunity, not despair.

 

In all of my years, I've seen or heard of dozens, if not hundreds of other cornerings, crossings or attacks on humans or pets. Most are chased away, never to be seen again. My electric generator is in a shed, several hundred meters along a narrow path from the living space. Very often, I'll walk in the dark with a flashlight to start or shut it down. I never, ever do the walk without my trusty pry bar in hand, because I expect I may be jumped at any time. A gun is useless when jumped from behind, no less forced rapidly to the ground with the wind knocked out of you. I wear a hat with eyes on the back of it. I wear a coat with a high, padded collar every single time. I'll always insist others do the same.

 

With the high incidence locally, scat and footprints everywhere and knowing how food can be scarce occasionally, I, no less anyone else I know embarks upon a mission to hunt them down for the sake of anything. It goes with the territory.

 

All I'm saying is that I find it psycho to enjoy killing, that killing animals isn't very nice, nature is savage and nasty, and that humans need to develop beyond nature somehow. What's wrong with that?

 

I don't accept your assertion that hunters are psychotic. You've not stated an opinion because you're not qualified to substantiate it, you've made an accusation.

 

There is a difference.

 

By your own logic, vegetarians savoring a carrot are every bit as psychotic for their indifference to the destruction of animal, insect and plant habitat for the purposes of agriculture. How does being labeled as psychotic sit with you? Not very well, I'd bet.

 

In fact, it's tantamount to abusing fellow humans for the sake of making yourself feel important, activist or holier-than-thou, under the guise of something else that will never happen.

[Phi for All]

Ultimately it must, yes. One day we're going to have to leave nature behind and move on.

Do you know the concept of emergence? That many small, seemingly unrelated things and conditions can all come together, and something much greater emerges? Fire and lightning are emergent events. The right materials and conditions and they happen, every time. Life is like that too. What if nature is a big part of all the little pieces that come together to make something magnificent, like life?

 

Can you share a bit of your vision of what we might be moving on to after we leave nature behind?

 

All I'm saying is that I find it psycho to enjoy killing, that killing animals isn't very nice, nature is savage and nasty, and that humans need to develop beyond nature somehow. What's wrong with that?

Is it our destiny to be nice?

 

How much beyond nature do you want to develop? Where do you draw the line between you and nature? You can stop killing animals for food, but not plants. Getting rid of all the bacteria (ack, nature!) would be at the other end of the scale, you probably wouldn't survive without it, so you absolutely have to have SOME nature. Where is the line drawn? Keep the bacteria, eat the plants, let the animals deal with themselves, avoid the rest of nature whenever possible, is that going to make you think we're doing it right?

[Thorham]

Can you share a bit of your vision of what we might be moving on to after we leave nature behind?

An existence of enlightenment.

 

Is it our destiny to be nice?

I certainly hope so.

 

How much beyond nature do you want to develop?

To leave biology behind completely by developing something that's superior to biology in every way.

 

Yes, I know that it's not going to happen any time soon (if at all). I still like to think that it's possible somehow (possible as in the workings of the universe not making it impossible).

[Phi for All]

An existence of enlightenment.

We're much more enlightened than humans a thousand years ago. How far do we need to go in your lifetime before you think we're doing it right?

 

I certainly hope so.

 

There's a lot more cooperation than there was a thousand years ago. One of the definitions of nice is being agreeable, so I think we're improving there as well.

 

To leave biology behind completely by developing something that's superior to biology in every way.

It's hard to imagine that. Are you talking about taking our minds and putting them in a machine or something?

 

Yes, I know that it's not going to happen any time soon (if at all). I still like to think that it's possible somehow (possible as in the workings of the universe not making it impossible).

If you ever figure out what "it" is, this superior-to-biology approach that makes us nicer and more enlightened, you should write it down. I still don't get it, or why it has anything to do with hunting mountain lions. Again, it sounds like you have this nebulous hate for human society, but you're also down on all biological systems as well, and don't think the whole world works right. But you really don't know how you'd change it or fix it or adapt to it.

 

From someone who is trying to reduce the stress and brain damage in his own life, I think this is an unhealthy rant. It's like claiming you won't be happy until all the green M&Ms are destroyed, or that you'll never use your telescope again until NASA moves an asteroid in another solar system. If you thought the other way, that humans are too technological, you could join the Amish and live without electricity. But you want something only possible in the future, if at all, and you're annoyed we don't already have it, but can't tell us what it is.

 

How would you go about making your criticism constructive and productive? How does it relate to hunting?

[MonDie]

An existence of enlightenment.

The value of inquiry as a personal and societal ideal can provide a default metaethics when there are open questions, which there certainly are for utilitarian metaethics.

Edited July 17, 2015 by MonDie

[Thorham]

How would you go about making your criticism constructive and productive? How does it relate to hunting?

 

Forget what I said, it's just some angry, off-topic rambling.

[MonDie]

All I'm saying is that I find it psycho to enjoy killing, that killing animals isn't very nice, nature is savage and nasty, and that humans need to develop beyond nature somehow. What's wrong with that?

The cougar will be pretty brutal to its prey, unless you stop it first, for example by killing it.

Edited July 17, 2015 by MonDie

[overtone]

Like I said, I can judge whatever I want. Vantage point is irrelevant.

Lacking one invalidates any judgment made. Why would you want to make obviously invalid judgments about stuff you don't understand?

 

 

 

 

i agree with your basic premise that killing for pleasure is something that not compatible with notions of the higher ideals of humanity.

Killing for pleasure is not a reasonable description of hunting with enjoyment.

 

We're built to enjoy hunting. It's deeply embedded. This isn't mysterious.

Edited July 19, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

We're built to enjoy hunting. It's deeply embedded. This isn't mysterious.

We were probably naturally selected to hunt in our natural environment (at least when we had fire), but we no longer live in our natural environment, so these "instincts" might find expression in new ways. They result from gene x environment interactions, and our environment has changed A LOT since prehistoric times.

 

Perhaps we stopped hunting beasts, and began hunting criminals; stopped strategizing to capture of beasts, and embraced football strategy; or stopped desiring pretty animal furs, and began weaving silk fabrics.