Utterly tragic. It's also singularly evil the devastation humans have brought to some of the hyperintelligent species on the planet.
That is, animals may kill to eat, but humans slaughter animals to get tastier/more convenient/etc., food.
Not to mention that the rest of the shark is perfectly recycled by the ecosystem.
I don't really understand how what you said relates to taste, convenience, or cruelty.
And no, if everyone ate cows that way, they would not be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. These out of context arguments are never useful because they sideline the facts, the scale and population of humans being the relevant ones here.
Humans are the number one cause of environmental destruction and animal and plant suffering on Earth that is completely out of whack with what it takes for humans to live. All of the "hope for something better" you refer to are for humans to solve less than 1% that we have ourselves caused in the first place.
The natural world is full of unimaginable cruelty. Wolves will take down young deer and eat them alive while parents watch. Bears will pin down whatever they can catch and who cares if it is alive. On and on, the amount of bloodshed required to support an omnivore/carnivore is simply bananas. Killer whales are hyper-intelligent aquatic nightmares, imho, that thankfully have not decided to eat humans.
We, humans, made the following bargain with nature, at least until recently: We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully).
I agree - we can carefully manage the wilderness for our own benefit, and that may take away the randomized killings. But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery and disregard for the life that has been reduced to just a link in the grass-to-meat or plankton-to-meat foodchain.
I've come to terms with that and continue to eat meat.
Maybe once in the past, or in places that still graze their animals. I don't think the average factory farm situation can be framed as mutually beneficial for the animals.
Absolute statements are not useful in this context. Vultures are obligate scavengers who eat the flesh of already dead animals as a practice. The dead animal could be due to death from natural causes (diseases, old age, injury, poisoning, starvation) or hunting by other animals. So there are some versions.
Also, as a couple of examples, the animal world is not one that has consent to sexual intercourse or empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own. So your (or our) morals cannot be absolute for one purpose (killing an animal to eat the flesh) while being considerate for other aspects. In other words, we don’t gain much by pointing to the non-human world as a justification or excuse for our actions.
But, life on earth evolved with predators in the mix. I’d be curious to know what life would look like without the presence of predators during evolution. Or, which set of life would be more evolutionarily successful: creatures from evolution w/ predators vs. creatures evolution w/o predators. Sounds like a great topic for Primer [0].
Last, to push back, I don’t think the parent comment was using the brutality of nature as an excuse for their actions. They said it helped them understand/come to terms with their hunting behavior, of which is totally natural.
Surviving in nature is outcompeting others, regardless of how fair it seems to our current culture.
As well as their own: "numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression (PPD) and lack of social support or indicators of possible infant health and development problems. PPD may be an adaptation that informs mothers that they are suffering or have suffered a fitness cost, which motivates them to reduce or eliminate investment in offspring under certain circumstances, and that may help them negotiate greater levels of investment from other [1].
More broadly, "the analytical rumination (AR) hypothesis proposes that depression is an adaptation that evolved as a response to complex problems and whose function is to minimize disruption of rumination and sustain analysis of complex problems" [2].
[1] https://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/documents/316/Hagen_1999_Th...
Not to justify humans eating meat or killing, just to say "wow, there's a lot of it". That's the stage I'm at.
I thought that would be obvious when I went on to talk about how things are "better" because we kill them quickly vs wolves who disregard the feelings of their food, which I think is a good thing. Humans attempt (for the most part), to inflict minimal suffering when killing. We probably also drive off predators. We also try to abstain from killing young animals (at least before industrialized farming).
One can care about the anthropomorphized "feelings" of animals whether or not they are subject to any of our "morals".
I think it's because I've felt discriminated against myself and thinking about ways in which I myself discriminate against certain animals such as cows, pigs and chickens helps me to put it into perspective.
That said, my moral framework is consistent because it's based on intelligence. I will not eat dolphin or killer whale.
Among humans, I often find myself tolerating intelligent jerks, for the same reason.
I started penalizing for evil more strongly in recent years though. Before that, I subconsciously assumed that there was an inverse correlation between intelligence and evil, but it has come to my awareness that it's not the case. Reality is that, as intelligence goes up, evil, if present, gets better at hiding.
I’m also not so hopeful about humans. A simple example: the way we mass produce and slaughter animals for food is beyond cruel. It’s impossible to not be on the wrong side of some argument if you look hard enough. No matter how ethical you are. I am honestly convinced the world just is. We give meaning to things to live as a civilization (and avoid conflict) but the universe/nature/world probably doesn’t give a shit.
This reflection expresses a deeply existential and relativistic view of the world. Here’s a breakdown:
1. SNAFU as the Status Quo: The term SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) suggests that chaos, dysfunction, and disorder are inherent to the world. It implies acceptance that imperfection and unpredictability are the norm, not the exception.
2. Limits of Comprehension: The belief that trying to make sense of the world or universe is futile arises from recognizing the limitations of human cognition and perspective. This acknowledges that meaning, morality, and truth are often constructs rather than absolutes.
3. Relativity of Values: Concepts like compassion, love, morality, and even suffering are seen as subjective. They are shaped by context and perspective—what benefits one being might harm another, exemplified by the food chain.
4. Critique of Human Ethics: The example of industrial animal farming underscores a broader disillusionment with humanity’s moral contradictions. Even well-intentioned actions can have unintended, unethical consequences, leading to the view that absolute moral “rightness” is unattainable.
5. Indifference of the Universe: The idea that the universe “doesn’t give a shit” challenges the anthropocentric tendency to project meaning onto existence. This highlights the randomness and indifference of nature, leaving humans to assign purpose to their actions as a way of coping.
6. Civilization as a Construct: Meaning and morality are framed as tools for societal cohesion and conflict avoidance, rather than intrinsic truths. This echoes a nihilistic perspective where life “just is,” devoid of inherent purpose or universal justice.
It reflects a worldview shaped by realism, skepticism, and existential questioning, wrestling with the contradictions of human morality and the indifferent nature of existence.