Hacker News Reader

Comment by babesh | Hacker News Reader

How cavalier we are about taking life of other species.

We're arguably the least cavalier about taking life of any life on earth.

In the wild, life is so cheap and valueless that when we witness unspeakable acts of horrific wild violence, we have to condition it: wild is wild, nature is nature, human expectations and morality don't apply.

Really? What did you have for lunch today?

All the herbivores in Animal Kingdom would disagree with that statement.

No really. Go to /r/natureismetal and witness it for yourself.

Here is a goat eating baby chickens...http://imgur.com/kHJhMjW

Plants still count as life.

In many (most?) cases herbivores aren't taking the life of the plant.

Think of a squirrel, perhaps, and how it feeds on plants.

(Still don't agree with the GP)

Good point, but I think squirrels are a bad example. They're not only taking lives, they're killing the babies!

On the contrary, I imagine a lot of the nuts are planted by squirrels! In either case, many plants have an implicit bargain with animals: eat my fruit, but you must carry my seeds out beyond where I can reach and deposit them there.

Which happens when they pass through the gut, essentially.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Herbivores, by definition, do eat living organisms (plants).

> We're arguably the least cavalier about taking life of any life on earth.

Fungi beat us in this respect. Most of them feed exclusively on dead matter.

But those that do? A fungal infection leading to death is a slow, horrible way to die.

It is just as cavalier and anthropocentric to impose a deliberate ecological aesthetic based on the idea of preservation. Cyanobacteria oxygenated the world and caused mass extinction of most Earth species. Life moved on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com