Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Path: clanworld.com!news.webspan.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.22.81.9!europa.clark.net!204.127.161.1!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHCIFF.18F@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <60bpum$f7v@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> <34296E54.F66B3F3F@geocities.com> <342bb2e2.2086138@news.iastate.edu> <342C2430.31F@valhalla.fc.hp.com> <342e6381.48844842@news.iastate.edu> <dbongardEH91Fx.Fn2@netcom.com> <342f2841.9310438@news.iastate.edu> <dbongardEHABHq.Iv7@netcom.com> <3431425e.20022676@news.iastate.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:54:51 GMT
Lines: 80
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8611 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:20833 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14713 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4749

Ryan McGinnis (mcginnr@iastate.edu) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
:> Ryan McGinnis (mcginnr@iastate.edu) wrote:

:>: Let them grow out of control.  They will not all die. Some will
:>: live -- the fittest.  These will then rebuild and adapt.  

:> "The fittest" also survive when humans go hunting. If we follow your
:> logic, hunting is completely right and good...

:   Yes, but you claim that they could not exsist without us. 

I have never once claimed anything of the kind. I have claimed that
they could not exist if we did not wish them to, and that they would
explode in population and suffer massive starvation (while wreaking
immense environmental damage) if humans did not hunt them. This is
not a problem that will go away until many deer generations later
when the predator population improves to the point where it can match
the deer. At that point the situation for the deer will be the same --
many of them will be painfully killed by predators. So basically 
the choices are (a) allow humans to kill a bunch of deer each year
or (b) let the deer suffer massive starvation for a few decades,
then let other predators kill bunches of them each year. I can't see
a single advantage to (b), Ryan.

Incidentally, from the "yes" in your above statement I see that
you now agree that hunting is completely right and good... so what's
the problem, Ryan?

: This is, of course, bullshit.  Silly bullshit at that.

Of course it is bullshit. That's probably why it originated in your
own mind -- I never said it.

:> Your problem is that you think "the fittest" means "deer that can
:> survive and reproduce under conditions of starvation and resource
:> scarcity". It means that, of course, but it also means "deer that
:> can avoid getting killed by their predators". Ie, humans.

: As the population thins out through starvation and natural predatation
[snip copy of the description I already gave of predator-prey balance]

Basically what you are arguing is that we should disrupt the human-
deer predator-prey equilibrium that currently exists and allow it to
"naturally" be replaced, after a few generations of deer population
booms and starvation, with a mountain-loin/deer, wolf/deer, or
other predator/deer equilibrium. Why on earth would we want to do that?
It robs humans of an enjoyable sport tasty meat source and gives no
benefit to the deer (unless you call "massive starvation while waiting
for the new predators to show up" a benefit).

:> Your opinion that it is somehow nicer to let a deer die slowly from 
:> starvation than it is to shoot it is truly sick. Letting the deer

: Damn. There goes 200 million years of nature. Thank goodness you set it
: staight.

So basically you are denying that the deer's population will boom
if its sole predators (humans) cease hunting it? It isn't like there
are huge packs of wolves waiting around saying "Damn humans -- wish
WE could kill those deer". There is a predator shortage that would
take decades to recover even IF we wanted it to, which we don't. In
the meantime there would be massive deer overpopulation and starvation,
and widespread destruction of the deers' habitat. Then, assuming
that predators eventually took over (which is not guaranteed -- 
nature is not a conscious entity dedicated to keeping deer alive)
things would return to where they are now, with a different animal 
taking human's place. Which is, of course, pointless.

Side note -- nature is not as infinitely resilient as you seem to think
it is. If it were, it would be impossible for humans to render a species
extinct through action or inaction. 

: I'm not argueing that hunting is a horrid thing that must cease.  I'm
: simply publicly laughing at you for insenuating that nature wouldn't get
: along if we suddenly stopped hunting.  What a funny ha-ha. 

I have never insinuated that. You simply can't read.

-- Dan
