• Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    13 days ago

    Well you could take only what you need, and then give what remains of the creature a proper burial and some brief rites.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        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.

      • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Yeah, I agree, sustainability is important and we shouldn’t waste. But I don’t think not wasting shows respect to the dead animal.

        • Mirror Giraffe@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          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.