Josh and Ingrid: The idea of you two, a hunter and a vegetarian, simultaneously typing similar comments tickles me to no end!

I’m obviously not speaking for Tovar. I realize you are responding to his comments. I like to use the term “least harm,” because, as you say, living harmlessly is an impossibility. The fact that we invariably harm by existing — even in treading upon soil — doesn’t mean that we should use “we all cause harm” as a rationalization to do as we see fit. For one thing, I don’t believe we have that luxury in this over-populated world . . . to not think about our impacts and our outcomes on others. Our choices affect not just our individual pleasures and pains, but the well-being of the world at large. If more people endeavored to reduce their impact or level of “harm,” it would, indeed, have an effect on the world at large. I think that does matter. And it certainly will matter to all grandchildren born today, who inherit this planet.

You ask why is living harmlessly a goal? That’s obviously an idea born of a personal belief system. There is a lot suffering on this planet and from my perspective, if I have a choice, why not choose to diffuse some of it? It may not constitute a sea change to save one human life or one animal life. But it does matter to that human or or that animal who was spared. And I tend to believe that little gestures of compassion build a greater whole.

So, perhaps not for you, but for some of us, the world is a tough enough place. And the idea of harmlessness to me speaks of a desire to tread lightly upon this place, and simultaneously make life a bit more palatable and compassionate for others with whom we share it for this short time.

Many people set unachievable goals, at times for good reason. The attempt at doing no harm comes from our conscience, and I think it is a fine goal. With wisdom, one can come to accept both that they must try to avoid unnecessary harm, and accept responsibility for the necessary harm. But to throw out the notion, altogether, I think would be a step backwards. With regards to zero impact, I completely agree with you (and Tovar, and Ingrid) – zero impact shouldn’t be a goal. But, zero bad impact should be a goal, even if unachievable.

thanks for your thoughtful response. I’d like to add a couple of points:

A) I do not understand the idea behind “living harmlessly”. Since it is unavoidable, why is it a goal? It is akin to being human but never making an error. It is impossible. No organism has zero impact. The only way for humans to have zero impact is extinction.

B) I see no separation between eating vegetation that was grown at the “accidental” ** expense of many lives lost and the loss of a single life so I and perhaps many others can eat meat. None.

** since we know it will happen how is it an accident?

May I make a suggestion? You eat the foods you like and make you healthy, I’ll do the same. We each agree not to judge the other for their choices and hopefully we can all do it in a fashion that allows our grandchildren to do the same.

That inevitability of killing—both animals and plants—can be a bitter pill to swallow when, as I once did, you invest so much value and belief in the harmlessness of how you’re living and eating.

One does decapitate a lettuce for every salad. Why did it have to die? Because we have to eat. It is a fact of life.

If one does not wish to have anything die on their behalf, then likely they themselves will die. It’s a hard choice.

I like that, Josh. I think we probably have many more points of agreement than disagreement. But the points of disagreement are a bear, aren’t they? (pardon the pun) Issues of rights, consciousness, and sentience are not easily resolved. Like you and Tovar, I also ponder plant sentience. However we define “sentience,” plants have a life force that I do not diminish. To me, the rampant “abuse” of plant life on this planet is as troubling as what we see happen to animals.

I struggle with the same conundrum that brought Tovar to hunting: No matter the lifestyle, death and suffering are inevitable in a corporeal existence. For me, the question was, “how do I reduce my impact and my contribution to that suffering?” My answer continues to modulate over the years which is, perhaps, why I’m okay entertaining the various points at a hunting blog.

Being “No Impact Man” is inordinately difficult in a modern world. I’ve touched on this in my blog many times, using the term “ahimsa” (least harm) to best describe my spiritual inclinations, though I’m neither a Buddhist nor a Jain. Don’t even get me started on Descartes, btw.

I grew up in an environment where I was never removed from the cycle of life (farm killing, hunting, trapping). I also lived close to a big, international city which muddled my ideology. I was neither rural nor urban, and not quite suburban. Furthermore, my mother exercised her animist ancestry in treating kindly, every living thing that crossed our threshold.

This is another one of those things I can’t “prove,” but I’ve wondered if the inclination to hunt or fish is constitutional. I was exposed to it all. But I cannot recall a time when I enjoyed such things, even though other members of my family didn’t share my hyper-sensitivity. I couldn’t bear the slaughter and again, that loaded word, suffering. What I’ve witnessed throughout my life will haunt me to the end of my days.

All of that appears to be part of my constitution. So, understanding this — that I could not bear to knowingly take a life in my hands — I had to find other ways. And then admit, as we’ve all discussed, that any lifestyle is imperfect when you look at the extended benefit or harm of that lifestyle, beyond what we ourselves do or see.

Here’s the thing: Where you are at philosophically . . . where Tovar is at . . . I believe that if more people were contemplating these issues in earnest, most lifestyles, whether they included meat or not, whether they included hunting or purchasing agricultural meats, would be — by virtue of this “consciousness” — moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the gross negligence (as I see it) where we have such unconscious “dominion” over other living things makes it tougher to embrace the cycle of life. The cycle we’ve created includes so much wanton waste and, sometimes, malice. And yes, it is a cycle of our creation. The “natural” cycle does not much resemble the model we’ve construed.

Thanks for the discussion, you two.

I was simply noting that, in my view, the conclusions we come to—about what a “bad impact” is, or what “good behavior” is—are often rooted deeper than rational thought. Nothing at all wrong with that. Despite our idealization of it in this culture, the rational mind isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be.

I was noting, too, that the convoluted logic puzzles spawned in many animal-rights vs. animal-welfare debates often seem to me like attempts to rationally justify what folks have already decided, on very different grounds, grounds that may not be as honored in our culture as logic is.

Sorry if my last comment wasn’t clear, or if this one isn’t. My brain is on the fuzzy side at the moment!

By the way, the last few paragraphs in your comment from earlier this afternoon were right on the mark for me. Very resonant.

I don’t know if we are merely rationalizing here, though. I think we are all people here who actually did alter their behaviors trying to lessen their bad impacts.