Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: ParaTed2k So now you are the judge and jury about what we should and shouldn't be doing, based solely on "need"? Yeah, I understand now. This thread has nothing to do with why I choose to hunt, but why you think I'm wrong for doing it. Sorry, but I don't look at my perception of "need" to decide whether some one else should be doing things, simply because I don't think they should.

Ohh...so now you can't handle an opinion different then your own? If you can't handle other people's opinions, then you shouldn't be on a debate forum.

My opinion that people don't need meat, but this is a hunting debate, not a vegetarian debate which various people have tried to turn this into.

This was a debate about why people hunt and for people to debate about it.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well, we don't live in Eden anymore. What do you think of the story of Noah's Ark? True? Like I said, if you're a Creationist Christian, you believe that, according to the Old Testament, God gave us the animals.

No, but God considered the perfect world to be where nothing hunted or ate each other, so explain how he would want us to hunt animals now when we didn't need to?

Also, why would God help rescue two of each species of animal? Most of the species of animals made humans don't use, so if he only made them for our use why did he rescue the ones we didn't need from the flood?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt No, not all trends do. But most non fad things do, and I'm very confident this trend will continue.

I'm afraid your confidence alone is not enough to convince me.

Although, now that I think about it, why would a decrease in the number of hunters be a reason to ban it? If the decrease is such that culling is not enough to keep down the deer population, then we can, as you say, introduce the predators. But why should this mean that hunters can't still have their share of the prey? As with any species introduction, the introduction of wolves and cougars would have to be strictly monitored and controlled. So why not control it in such a way that there is a balance between the predators and the hunters? That way everyone is happy.

Quote by: Matt The only predicter for future behavior is past behavior. Past behavior: In the last hundred years people have been growing more considerate to animals year by year. I think it will be pretty simple to guess if you follow that simple, proved logic to see what happens from here

The idea that the trend will continue is not proved logic; it's an anecdotal generalisation from your personal observations.

Quote by: Matt Well, we humans are casuing enviromental deterioration, some of resources are running lower and its just a matter of time until a couple them go all together, and alot of people around the world are experiencing famines and diseases.

Famine and disease are not prevalent in North America, environmental damage is not significant (by this I mean it isn't yet life threatening), and the the depletion of oil and other resources is not life threatening to us while other potential energy sources exist. Yes, some things we are experiencing can be caused by overpopulation, but as long as the human population continues to thrive, the carrying capacity has not been exceeded and we are not overpopulated.

Quote by: Matt Lets see...if we re-introduced a sustainable predator who will want to hunt deer in a 100 years from now, we wont have an overpopulation. Though some people are just too greedy to do that....they want to hunt and feel all 'masculine'.

You can make hunting sound as pathetic and distasteful as you like, but ultimately you still don't have the right to prevent people from doing so unless you can prove that, from the point of view of the hunted animal, death from a hunter is significantly worse than death from a "natural" predator.

Quote by: Matt I would like to ask you a question, what do you think about the hunting of moose, bears, cougars, and wolves which do not have an overpopulation?

I don't know a great deal about it, so I haven't formed an opinion on it.

[Michaela]

I have one simple question, and a couple of comments I would like to share. First, do you really think that all of this, this meaning the earth and everything on it, do you really, truely think it matters? Why would god your loving god send you to this place full of war, and desruction. Where the Koreans are testing nuclear weapons under ground? Why? Well to tell you the truth he didn't and FYI eden still exists. You brought yourself upon this mess. You were running because you did something bad in eden and you think God is going to punish you for it. The story of Eden says that after Eve ate the forbiden fruit she and Adam were banished, but they thought they were in trouble, but God would not have banished them. He would have simply forgave them, but instead they flead to earth because they thought god was angry with them. You will keep coming back to this earth until you learn the lesson of forgiveness. If you don't believe me look up: A course in Miracles on Chapters Indago.

To answer Matt's question:

All the animals have a niche in life. So if you remove on animal it effects many. For example:

You remove the Snow-shoe Hair from the Artic Ecosystem... the Artic Fox's only food is now the vole, he will have to hunt more voles in order to survive. Even if you take something as simple as the mouse... the owl , hawk, and Eagle now have to look else where for food, it goes both way it is the same as if you introduce a speices.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I'm afraid your confidence alone is not enough to convince me. Although, now that I think about it, why would a decrease in the number of hunters be a reason to ban it? If the decrease is such that culling is not enough to keep down the deer population, then we can, as you say, introduce the predators. But why should this mean that hunters can't still have their share of the prey? As with any species introduction, the introduction of wolves and cougars would have to be strictly monitored and controlled. So why not control it in such a way that there is a balance between the predators and the hunters? That way everyone is happy. The idea that the trend will continue is not proved logic; it's an anecdotal generalisation from your personal observations. Famine and disease are not prevalent in North America, environmental damage is not significant (by this I mean it isn't yet life threatening), and the the depletion of oil and other resources is not life threatening to us while other potential energy sources exist. Yes, some things we are experiencing can be caused by overpopulation, but as long as the human population continues to thrive, the carrying capacity has not been exceeded and we are not overpopulated. You can make hunting sound as pathetic and distasteful as you like, but ultimately you still don't have the right to prevent people from doing so unless you can prove that, from the point of view of the hunted animal, death from a hunter is significantly worse than death from a "natural" predator. I don't know a great deal about it, so I haven't formed an opinion on it.

They don't need their 'fair' share, they aren't natural predators. When you say 'control', what do you exactley mean? I agree, introducing natural predators to some extent and limiting hunting to some extent would be a good compromise for both sides, and I would be happy if that happened. Though I doubt most hunters would, though I don't know, I would like to hear their responses.

No, it is not 100% proved logic, but it is right alot of the time. Dr. Phil agrees with me lol

Yes, it is life threatening for many species of animals, who are on the verge of extinction in North America. Many species in North America have already went extinct.

No, their aren't any great famines or diseases in North America, but AIDS is bad in some parts of the USA. Also, in Africa and Asia there are huge diseases and famines, which shows you there are overpopulations there.

I don't have a right to stop people from doing it, but I can air my opinion loud and clear.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Matt They don't need their 'fair' share, they aren't natural predators. When you say 'control', what do you exactley mean? I agree, introducing natural predators to some extent and limiting hunting to some extent would be a good compromise for both sides, and I would be happy if that happened. Though I doubt most hunters would, though I don't know, I would like to hear their responses. No, it is not 100% proved logic, but it is right alot of the time. Dr. Phil agrees with me lol Yes, it is life threatening for many species of animals, who are on the verge of extinction in North America. Many species in North America have already went extinct. No, their aren't any great famines or diseases in North America, but AIDS is bad in some parts of the USA. Also, in Africa and Asia there are huge diseases and famines, which shows you there are overpopulations there. I don't have a right to stop people from doing it, but I can air my opinion loud and clear.

So the animals that are going extinct aren't allowed to be hunted, that's already been done. What's your point? Where are you going with this?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Matt No, but God considered the perfect world to be where nothing hunted or ate each other, so explain how he would want us to hunt animals now when we didn't need to? Also, why would God help rescue two of each species of animal? Most of the species of animals made humans don't use, so if he only made them for our use why did he rescue the ones we didn't need from the flood?

sigh...

Genesis 9:1-3
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Look, you're not going to win from a biblical perspective. The God of the Bible CLEARLY intends for animals to be food for us. He could have told Noah right here that he would help him by providing plants and fruit, but he didn't. He said now I give you all of the animals for food. You can't pick and choose which parts of the creation story you believe or not.

We've already shown that from a scientific perspective you're argument is nonsense.

Where is this going?

[another day]

Quote by: Matt Oh come on...get real. If you want to turn this into a 'why we shouldn't eat meat' thread, be my guest. But the original intent was to talk about hunting, not eating meat.

That's like saying that this is a thread about christianity, not about god. The two are inevitably related and therefore you must talk about them both if you want any kind of meaningful, relevant discussion.

If you say one thing is bad (eg. hunting) it doesn't mean the other is better or more humane (eg. factory farms).

No, it means either you think farming animals is a better method of procuring meat then hunting them, or that you think all meat eating is bad, in which case your "hunting=bad" position is simply part of a larger worldview that all meat eating is bad. Therefore we cannot attack your position on hunting without attacking your position on meat eating as a whole. To only attack your position on hunting, your position would have to be based on certain factors such as the one that farming is more humane compared to hunting, or that farming is more beneficial to the environment. But that's not your position... it's simply that meat-eating = wrong therefore hunting=wrong. So it brings us back to the vegetarian debate.

I thought if people wanted to talk about not eating meat, they could go to the vegertarian thread.Some people can't find that. I was focussing on a topic, hunting. I don't understand how people can think if I say hunting is bad then I'm saying factory farms are better. Please explain. I love it how people try to swing the topic to make it suit them better Won't work in the long run, sorry.

Why didn't you just talk about hunting in the vegetarian thread? It's all related. You say people are trying to swing the topic to suit them better, infact that's not the case. It's YOU who has created a narrowed down, niche focussed thread on hunting in an attempt to manipulate the discourse by saying people cannot bring vegetarianism into the mix, therefore making it impossible for people to refute your position.

By saying that 'no animal exsists to feed you' means that it may end up on your dinner plate, sure, but its life purpose is NOT to feed you.

Life purpose? What is it's life purpose? The only purpose of anything that exists is to serve as a strand in the web of nature. A big part of that web is that everything eats everything else. Circle of life and all that. You can't say an animal has a "life purpose" any more then you can a tree. It wasn't that tree's life purpose to end up as my house, but it was my need to use that tree for my purpose. Purposes only exist to fill needs. One of my needs is food. Animals fill that purpose. I'm not gonna be sentimental about it, it's the harsh reality of nature.

[Anmon]

Shooting rabbits is fun, and wolvers enjoys the great outdoors, so theres nothing wrong with hunting.

[Matt]

Quote by: Hurt So the animals that are going extinct aren't allowed to be hunted, that's already been done. What's your point? Where are you going with this?

Ummm, me and the the Bacon Guy were talking about overpopulation. One of the things dictionaries put in their description of the word 'overpopulation' is 'enviroment deteriration'. Since some species have went extinct or their populations have reduced drastically because of humans, I would call that eviroment deteriration.

Quote by: tivodan1116 sigh... Genesis 9:1-3 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. Look, you're not going to win from a biblical perspective. The God of the Bible CLEARLY intends for animals to be food for us. He could have told Noah right here that he would help him by providing plants and fruit, but he didn't. He said now I give you all of the animals for food. You can't pick and choose which parts of the creation story you believe or not. We've already shown that from a scientific perspective you're argument is nonsense. Where is this going?

I forget where I read it in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure God states that we should take no more then we need (relating to animals). If we need zero nowadays, that means taking one is too much.

Quote by: another day That's like saying that this is a thread about christianity, not about god. The two are inevitably related and therefore you must talk about them both if you want any kind of meaningful, relevant discussion. No, it means either you think farming animals is a better method of procuring meat then hunting them, or that you think all meat eating is bad, in which case your "hunting=bad" position is simply part of a larger worldview that all meat eating is bad. Therefore we cannot attack your position on hunting without attacking your position on meat eating as a whole. To only attack your position on hunting, your position would have to be based on certain factors such as the one that farming is more humane compared to hunting, or that farming is more beneficial to the environment. But that's not your position... it's simply that meat-eating = wrong therefore hunting=wrong. So it brings us back to the vegetarian debate. Why didn't you just talk about hunting in the vegetarian thread? It's all related. You say people are trying to swing the topic to suit them better, infact that's not the case. It's YOU who has created a narrowed down, niche focussed thread on hunting in an attempt to manipulate the discourse by saying people cannot bring vegetarianism into the mix, therefore making it impossible for people to refute your position. Life purpose? What is it's life purpose? The only purpose of anything that exists is to serve as a strand in the web of nature. A big part of that web is that everything eats everything else. Circle of life and all that. You can't say an animal has a "life purpose" any more then you can a tree. It wasn't that tree's life purpose to end up as my house, but it was my need to use that tree for my purpose. Purposes only exist to fill needs. One of my needs is food. Animals fill that purpose. I'm not gonna be sentimental about it, it's the harsh reality of nature.

You make assumptions very easily. This debate was about hunting, not about eating meat. The main thing that bugged me about hunting is someone is killing an animal...not the part about eating it.

No, all things have a life purpose other then to serve as food or 'part of the web'. Their purpose is to breed and continue the species, but more so it is just the purpose to live, to enjoy, to have fun, to have a good life.

If I say I don't like cats, does that mean I like dogs more? No, of course not. For some reason you believe me going after hunting means I think factory farming in better. It isn't, but I choose in this thread to talk about hunting since it is something that hits closer to home with me.

I'm fine if you want to bring on the 'meat eating' debate in this thread, but thats wasn't its original purpose.

[another day]

Quote by: Matt You make assumptions very easily. This debate was about hunting, not about eating meat. The main thing that bugged me about hunting is someone is killing an animal...not the part about eating it.

I see you still fail to understand the logic... so be it.

No, all things have a life purpose other then to serve as food or 'part of the web'. Their purpose is to breed and continue the species, but more so it is just the purpose to live, to enjoy, to have fun, to have a good life.

Right and how long does a species get to breed without any food? None... THey eat other species to be able to do that.

As for your "the purpose of all life is to have fun", give me a break. This is same ultra human, detached from nature perspective I was talking about. There is no "fun" in the wild. Wild animals live to survive, it's a constant battle against hunger, disease, the elements, and predators. The only reason humans and perhaps domesticated animals can live to have fun is because we have so thoroughly overcome that need, at least in the western world.

"Having fun" is not a purpose, it's a selfish desire. The only purpose of any thing is like I said, to serve as part of the planets ecology. To balance out the earth. Spiders exist only to balance out the other insects, which in turn serve their purpose. I'm sorry but it's all a lot harsher and colder then your Disney view that all animals exist to run about in fields laughing with their brothers and sisters.

If I say I don't like cats, does that mean I like dogs more? No, of course not. For some reason you believe me going after hunting means I think factory farming in better. It isn't, but I choose in this thread to talk about hunting since it is something that hits closer to home with me.

No... I don't think you read what I wrote. I think you think meat eating is wrong all together, which is infact what you believe. The farming thing was merely meant to illustrate how it's impossible for us to attack your position on hunting without bringing your views on vegetarianism into the mix.

[Matt]

Quote by: another day I see you still fail to understand the logic... so be it. Right and how long does a species get to breed without any food? None... THey eat other species to be able to do that. As for your "the purpose of all life is to have fun", give me a break. This is same ultra human, detached from nature perspective I was talking about. There is no "fun" in the wild. Wild animals live to survive, it's a constant battle against hunger, disease, the elements, and predators. The only reason humans and perhaps domesticated animals can live to have fun is because we have so thoroughly overcome that need, at least in the western world. "Having fun" is not a purpose, it's a selfish desire. The only purpose of any thing is like I said, to serve as part of the planets ecology. To balance out the earth. Spiders exist only to balance out the other insects, which in turn serve their purpose. I'm sorry but it's all a lot harsher and colder then your Disney view that all animals exist to run about in fields laughing with their brothers and sisters. No... I don't think you read what I wrote. I think you think meat eating is wrong all together, which is infact what you believe. The farming thing was merely meant to illustrate how it's impossible for us to attack your position on hunting without bringing your views on vegetarianism into the mix.

Like I said previous, I make my judgements not from Disney characters. I live in the woods, I observe nature everyday, whether it be chickadees, bears, deer, or whatever.

Yes, animals have to live to survive, and it is a dog eat dog world out there so to speak. But there is fun and happiness mixed into it (and thats what I believe the animals really do live for). You would actually be able to tell that if you whatched nature long enough like I have.

If you say that the jobs of animals/humans are the 'balance out the earth' you do realize we are doing an awful job at it, and hunting is not helping.

Sure, bring my vegetarian views into the mix. It would be very interesting.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt They don't need their 'fair' share, they aren't natural predators.

Firstly, humans are a part of nature and therefore anything we do is natural. Secondly, what difference does it make to the deer whether their predator fits some arbitrary concept of naturalness?

When you say 'control', what do you exactley mean? I agree, introducing natural predators to some extent and limiting hunting to some extent would be a good compromise for both sides, and I would be happy if that happened. Though I doubt most hunters would, though I don't know, I would like to hear their responses.

I don't support making an effort to limit hunting; simply that if hunting becomes insufficient to control deer population we could introduce predators to work alongside hunters. I don't see why hunters would object to this, since anyone who does want to hunt would still be free to do so.

Quote by: Matt Yes, it is life threatening for many species of animals, who are on the verge of extinction in North America. Many species in North America have already went extinct.

But it's not life threatening to us and we're therefore not overpopulated.

Quote by: Matt No, their aren't any great famines or diseases in North America, but AIDS is bad in some parts of the USA..

Not due to high population density. It's due more to overcopulation than overpopulation.

Quote by: Matt Also, in Africa and Asia there are huge diseases and famines, which shows you there are overpopulations there

Right, but we're not talking about Africa or Asia.

[ParaTed2k]

The bottom line...

Hunting is a legal activity, so we shouldn't have to justify why we want to hunt to anyone.

[another day]

Quote by: Matt If you say that the jobs of animals/humans are the 'balance out the earth' you do realize we are doing an awful job at it, and hunting is not helping.

No, humans do not balance out the earth. As creatures that have surpassed a plateau of consciousness, we no longer primarily serve the earth and nature. We serve ourselves. You can either see that as a flaw of nature, or as a virtue, that nature has created us to enjoy ourselves. Personally I think it's likely a flaw.. but why should we serve nature? It has created a world for us that is full of suffering. If we can overcome that, even at the expense of other species etc, is it necessarily wrong? Or are we rebelling against a crude and harsh existence? Maybe this rebellion is our "purpose" as humans. I don't necessarily subscribe to this philosophy but it's an interesting perspective I've taken to examining lately.

But as for the problems that humanity causes the earth, hunting for food is not one of the problems. Poaching for animal skins and elephant tusks and such is a massive problem. I also disagree with all forms of animal cruelty such as foie gras production, inhumane animal farming etc. But the real problem is our pillaging of the earths limited natural resources like coal, lumber, natural gas, oil etc. and the pollution caused by this to the ecosystem. It's just so much easier to say "save the seals" when they have cute cuddly faces and look at you with those adorable puppy eyes, then it is to fight for a worthy cause, like the protection of the earth's atmosphere and such.

[another day]

Quote by: ParaTed2k The bottom line... Hunting is a legal activity, so we shouldn't have to justify why we want to hunt to anyone.

Ridiculous... since when did legality equal truth? All "laws" must be rationally examined to determine if they should infact be laws or not. This is like saying "marijuana is illegal, so there should be no debate about it's effects on health or wellbeing"

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Firstly, humans are a part of nature and therefore anything we do is natural. Secondly, what difference does it make to the deer whether their predator fits some arbitrary concept of naturalness? I don't support making an effort to limit hunting; simply that if hunting becomes insufficient to control deer population we could introduce predators to work alongside hunters. I don't see why hunters would object to this, since anyone who does want to hunt would still be free to do so. But it's not life threatening to us and we're therefore not overpopulated. Not due to high population density. It's due more to overcopulation than overpopulation. Right, but we're not talking about Africa or Asia.

Actually, in North America humans are unnatural predators, see my reason in a past post.

It may make a difference:

The deer that may have been killed by a human could have lived out its life or be killed by a predator who needs it later on. Either way it lives longer, which would make a difference to the deer.

Do you agree that if predators would be added to an area to help control deer populations that there should be a law saying the hunters can not kill the predators? Otherwise, they will most likely, from what I've heard is that they do get annoyed that the cougars/deer are killing 'their' deer and then they kill them.

Again, the dictionaries' definitions do not say that if a certain species of creature does effect other species, but not its self, that it is not overpopulation.

"the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash"

Many species of animals have impaired living quality because of us, and enviroment deterioration would include species going extinct or almost extinct, and the ruining of their habitat.

Quote by: ParaTed2k The bottom line... Hunting is a legal activity, so we shouldn't have to justify why we want to hunt to anyone.

In Afghanistan, if people say women are equal to men, the law says they get beheaded. Since it is legal, that makes it right and their shouldn't be any justification about it, correct?

In the USA, abortion is legal, but does that mean it shouldn't be questioned and people shouldn't have to justify their positions on it? No.

Thanks for conceading, btw.

Quote by: another day No, humans do not balance out the earth. As creatures that have surpassed a plateau of consciousness, we no longer primarily serve the earth and nature. We serve ourselves. You can either see that as a flaw of nature, or as a virtue, that nature has created us to enjoy ourselves. Personally I think it's likely a flaw.. but why should we serve nature? It has created a world for us that is full of suffering. If we can overcome that, even at the expense of other species etc, is it necessarily wrong? Or are we rebelling against a crude and harsh existence? Maybe this rebellion is our "purpose" as humans. I don't necessarily subscribe to this philosophy but it's an interesting perspective I've taken to examining lately. But as for the problems that humanity causes the earth, hunting for food is not one of the problems. Poaching for animal skins and elephant tusks and such is a massive problem. I also disagree with all forms of animal cruelty such as foie gras production, inhumane animal farming etc. But the real problem is our pillaging of the earths limited natural resources like coal, lumber, natural gas, oil etc. and the pollution caused by this to the ecosystem. It's just so much easier to say "save the seals" when they have cute cuddly faces and look at you with those adorable puppy eyes, then it is to fight for a worthy cause, like the protection of the earth's atmosphere and such.

No, its not a flaw, its a gift. We must use our gift wisely, and we must be good stewards to the earth. With are extra brain power, we are the only creatures that can reason things out. Would I say to a wolf that hunting is not needed and you shouldn't be doing it? No, since they can't understand that. Humans can though.

Trying to stop seal hunting is a worthy cause. I agree, the whole climate change thing is probably more important, but I'm doing my little part to aware people of the cruelty of the seal hunt.

Btw, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping this a nice debate, and actually stating thought provoking points and not just saying "Shooting rabbits is fun, and wolvers enjoys the great outdoors, so theres nothing wrong with hunting."

Quote by: another day Ridiculous... since when did legality equal truth? All "laws" must be rationally examined to determine if they should infact be laws or not. This is like saying "marijuana is illegal, so there should be no debate about it's effects on health or wellbeing"

Agreed.

[another day]

Alas, agreement is an eventual circumstance among people. I do truly believe that if humans are to survive and survive well we must make our peace with mother nature and accept all her harsh realities. This is why I speak of the neurosis of man in not accepting nature's realities. The simple thing is though, that all that man must do is ensure that we leave nature as we touched it, disturbed for it's own purpose. Hunting is fine until we begin to prey upon the ecology that birthed us. Though my rebellion upon nature theory has it's merits in the upper echelons of human consciousness it is ultimately a perverse parasite that preys upon the one God that has given birth to us. This is the main division in my mind lately... do we accept and live with god, as it has birthed us, and though instituted so much suffering, has also given us happiness? Or do we rebel and forge a nature of our own liking? Is anything we inevitably do a product of nature or a perverse disorder that stems from a flaw in nature in which we have superseded the natural realm of a creature's consciousness and thus broken a barrier which is like a break in a computer's code that spills out and destroys the inherent balance of the universe's programming? It is disheartening to think that nature could produce any flaws, but it is a reality we must consider. Are we such a flaw? Or a product of a greater design? All questions of evolution. Minds will hopefully unravel these questions in the future as the puzzle of mankind begins to form. You might think it ridiculous to think of such grandiose concepts on a topic such as hunting, but it is pertinent in every case to look upon the greater situation in examining a narrow one.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, humans do not balance out the earth. As creatures that have surpassed a plateau of consciousness, we no longer primarily serve the earth and nature. We serve ourselves.

No creature "serves" earth and nature. The simplest living creatures destroyed nearly all life on earth by committing the most terrible act of pollution ever committed, the pollutant, oxygen. A species has only one objective, survive and reproduce.

[The Bacon Guy]