It’s the phrasing of honouring or respecting the deceased that is the problem. If someone decided to kill and eat me and some weird afterlife shenanigan would allow me to be aware of it, I sure as hell wouldn’t find it honouring that they made a cowboy hat of my skin and guitar frets of my bones. Though it would be very metal.
Slaying an animal to utilise every piece of it’s corpse would be a more correct and honest take.
If your population was being hunted for food, would you rather have the hunters eat all of their kill, or only part of it? Keep in mind that in both scenarios, their energy needs are the same.
Yeah it’s also good for the surviving animals. But it’s of no benefit to the dead one. It’s dead.
Also, the ancient Egyptians believed one needed all their organs intact to get to the good afterlife. That’s why they preserved those mummies so well. If I were an Egyptian buffalo and someone ate My heart before I could weigh it against a feather, I’d be pissed.
I think at that point it has nothing to do with the dead animal. It has been transformed from a living being to a resource we can chose to be wasteful or not with. But there are some serious spiritual hoops to jump through if we want to see it as a honorary action towards our victim.
Only humans would decide that the way to honour a dead creature is by desecrating more of its corpse.
I mean otherwise what, you killed a living creature to eat half of it? You killed it for sport? That’s just extra wasteful of a life.
It’s the phrasing of honouring or respecting the deceased that is the problem. If someone decided to kill and eat me and some weird afterlife shenanigan would allow me to be aware of it, I sure as hell wouldn’t find it honouring that they made a cowboy hat of my skin and guitar frets of my bones. Though it would be very metal.
Slaying an animal to utilise every piece of it’s corpse would be a more correct and honest take.
Well you could take only what you need, and then give what remains of the creature a proper burial and some brief rites.
If your population was being hunted for food, would you rather have the hunters eat all of their kill, or only part of it? Keep in mind that in both scenarios, their energy needs are the same.
Yeah it’s also good for the surviving animals. But it’s of no benefit to the dead one. It’s dead.
Also, the ancient Egyptians believed one needed all their organs intact to get to the good afterlife. That’s why they preserved those mummies so well. If I were an Egyptian buffalo and someone ate My heart before I could weigh it against a feather, I’d be pissed.
Still seems more wasteful than preserving it for use later to me.
Yeah, I agree, sustainability is important and we shouldn’t waste. But I don’t think not wasting shows respect to the dead animal.
I think at that point it has nothing to do with the dead animal. It has been transformed from a living being to a resource we can chose to be wasteful or not with. But there are some serious spiritual hoops to jump through if we want to see it as a honorary action towards our victim.
Whatever small communities still existing that rely heavily on hunting for sustenance and survival practice this concept.
If an animal must be killed, then all parts will be used in some fashion.
I would say the same logic also applies to me