作為一個讀過下生物嘅人,我覺得Mcmahan 與其話係極端素食主義者,不如話佢係反演化主義者。 1. 反殘殺反suffering 。其實動物之間嘅捕獵行為都係selective pressure 之一,用嚟催化物種嘅演化,係大自然嘅機械化原理之一。而只要有selective pressure,就總會有動物會被淘汰,有suffering 。如果推到極端,唔想有動物suffer ,係咪連一啲非生物性嘅selective pressure (如天災,資源)都要eliminate埋? 2. 反生物多樣性。Mcmahan好似講到生物多樣性係人類FF出嚟嘅價值咁。但其實生物多樣性喺個大自然入面係演化入面係有其功用。如果套用返Mcmahan嘅邏輯,咁我都可以問,suffering 有咩問題,佢有啲咩intrinsic value? 點解我地一定要減少suffering? 3. 退後一步,如果要減少suffering ,我地咪用另外一個方向囉,將動物基因改做到死亡時唔會有恐懼同痛楚,一樣減少到suffering,仲唔洗殺曬啲肉食動物,一家便宜兩家著,仲附合效益主義係唔係? 其實Mcmahan 對於動保/素食主義嘅諗法,推到極致就係no death no suffering no selection(except those human desire)。完全附合play god 嘅指控。最ironic 嘅係佢作為無神論者,但佢嘅諗法無疑係從「神」嘅角度出發,想創做一個「天堂」。而撇開有神定冇神呢點嚟講,我地可以想像mcmahan理想嘅世界係點,no death no suffering no evolution no progress, the world would be boring and dull
其實有唔少草食性動物係某些情況下都會食肉,對於動物黎講Food is food,加上肉比起植物有營養得多,所以即使肉食動物真係冇哂嘅時候,係咪真係解決到"動物間的邪惡"? 再者,草食動物之間都會有互相殘殺的情況出現,若真係冇哂肉食動物、自然系統失衡嘅時候,因為草食動物失去天敵而大量繁殖,供給草食動物嘅資源自然供不應求,最後會唔會因而產生另一種"惡"?
McMahan is not a biologist hence doesn't understand the complexity of how the ecosystem operates. Organisms need to be in good balance for our ecosystem to function healthily. Their are in tight conection to regulate each other's existence. Changing the characteristics or quantity of one species would have devastating flow on effect to other species and the environment they live in. For example, here in central NSW, Australia, we've been battling a mouse plague for the past 1.5 yrs. One of the contributing factors is the decline in predators such as snakes and eagles, due to climate change, loss of habitat, and people/domestic pets killing them. (Ironically, farmers kill native animals to protect their stocks, just to be raided by pest mice.)
@koffron96962 жыл бұрын
Decline of top predators causing ecological desaster been happening again n again. I think McMahan is suggesting a new ecological balance will eventually be achieved with an ecosystem without any predator but i just cant image how
@BACCC4902 жыл бұрын
Changing the ecosystem healthily (achieve a new balance) would solve this concern. Which is not logically impossible to do.
@koffron96962 жыл бұрын
@@BACCC490 then (1) how is this possible - it matters a lot i guess (2) still cant eliminate intra-specific competition & inter-specific competition (between all herbivores i presume), and thus u cant eliminate violence arise from those competitions whther blood is shed or not (i guess this is the real concern when we talk about those carnivores) in natural environment
@55666932 жыл бұрын
I guess the author didn’t even treasure biodiversity, as he denied intrinsic value in species and didn’t support the concept of ‘ecosystem’ and a way that it supposed to
想問一個最根本嘅問題,點解食肉就係act of evil,食草有冇問題? 人類根本係無聊到將自己嘅道德價值套用喺動物度…
@user-cb3cj4kz1l3 күн бұрын
我係素食者,我可以回答你既問題。 【點解食肉就係act of evil】--因為係現今社會,素食係一個易如反掌就可以既選擇,例如好多餐廳都有素食餐飲,日常超市都可以買到素食。所以如果你有素食既選擇,仍然堅持要食肉,就係對動物制造緊一種【非必要痛苦】,目的是為了滿足自己的味蕾快感,為左享受私慾而對動物進行非必要既殘害,就係Act of evil。 【食草有冇問題?】--至於你講既食草(農作物),係無問題既,因為保障生存既情況下,食植物,食農作物係符合道德既行為,為左生存而吃,並不算是evil。
講得出人類Against the nature嘅人先至係真正咁against the nature,佢哋會咁講係因為喺佢哋眼中人類係超然於大自然,所以人類嘅行為會干涉大自然,但事實係人類都係大自然嘅一部分,不論人類發展文明嘅行為係幾咁破壞環境,呢d行為都應該視為大自然嘅一部分,某程度上都算係人嘅習性,正如冇人會覺得蜜蜂採花蜜同獅子食肉係against the nature
@nothingchanges0142 жыл бұрын
唔知有冇理解錯,好似有啲自相矛盾,你咁講咪啫係連嗰啲話人類against the nature嘅人都唔係against the nature lo?