#ethics

Yes, Victor Frankenstein was totally irresponsible with science and his creation, but the argument the story presents seems to be much more "take care of what you made" than "don't create life/play God"

Maybe I am missing something, but I would love to read a story that actually and fairly explores the ethics and consequences of creating life

Y'all hate a number of them for genuinely feeding their family while exploring a passion for nature, and thus treating them all like the much smaller, albeit louder, subgroup of pro-gun fooligans that just want to kill stuff.

That's a person, perception, and permission problem - not a hunting problem. A hunting problem, in my eyes, are those that ethical hunters would face in their experience of the hunt; not a problem that pro-gun fooligans run into trying to kill stuff.

I don't mean to argue the use of guns in hunting either - I mean to say an ethical hunter knows the limitations of practicality for what equipment is used for each prey species - anything above that is useless and below would just be cruelty to animals when you injure, but fail to kill

Ethical hunters are very aware of this already - many decide to not shoot a gun even because they find it against the spirit of the hunt/the intentions of their hunting trip, or because they prefer a real challenge

Regardless of means; hunters contribute so much to the environmental community, ecological research conservation, and revitalizing areas of habitat far more often than any papers I find credit then with:

- hunters go where others won't, they remain a hella distance from wild animals (if they're good) and maintain a safety caution in those herds/flocks to remain scared of people, gunshots, and other human disturbances - which is really needed to deter ill intentioned folks from luring them closer to people, taking them through habitual exposure, or stealing them straight up from a human-made area the prey is known to frequent

- hunters advocate for what they kill; they don't want poisoned meat, they don't want damaged hides and pelts, they don't want to have to question the health of their own food supply - that's a large reason many turn to hunting - and a large reason why many advocate against the use of lead in wildlife interactions, against poisons used in different areas, against developments that endanger habitats their prey rely on

- hunters want to see more animals and plants return to the land than most city environmental activists; many of them already deal with nature conditions as is on their hunting trips, many embrace this and see it as a vital element to learning to hunt - becoming in tune with, and understanding the environment of your prey - the only thing deteriorating that environment further does is drive away their prey and lower population numbers - hunters know this lowers bag limits, yearly tags, and catch counts so many work explicitly in the business of advocating for better land and forest management to ensure future flocks and stocks of animals

- hunters care for more than just the animals they hunt; a healthy wolf population keeps deer populations in check = more can be harvested safely as opposed to when they over flood deer yards, destroy a whole area too soon, and leave to find resources outside of normal migration routes - healthy bears catch fish out of waterways leaving harder to catch fish to replenish stocks and grow healthier populations next season - healthy predatory birds maintain various agricultural, urban, rural, and wild ecosystems by operating as pest management, things that normally parasitize hunted prey populations devastatingly quickly

- hunters want to know more about animals which drives scientific research; anecdotes and hunt trip photos are key demographic info cards from every trip captured, it provides historical records that allow future researchers to pull their own data and conclusions from without having to assume various details

- a hunters drive to know more about their prey is a key driver in getting people to care about that species, it's needs, the important habitats it has, and special requirements the species need to thrive in order for folks to both help and hunt the best possible prey in the healthiest conditions possible for them

Would you rather act to save people, knowing that by choosing who to help you are implicitly choosing who to let die? Or would you rather keep your hands clean by letting the disaster unfold on its own, regardless of how much worse it will be because you didn't act?

Asking for a friend.