this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
679 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

19196 readers
2329 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 88 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

"Choose lead free ammunition"

No?

Just stop shooting guns and murdering things like a crazy ape?

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 10 points 4 hours ago

Let's try the not poisonous bulltes first. Because something tells me that Americans can't even do that.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.

From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).

From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don't like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesn't consume many resources, as they're just living their lives in nature.

I don't think there's any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. That's fine, and you can just not do it. I've never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. It's not really something I want to do. I can't construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can't either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren't hunted by humans.

I have a half assed argument against hunting, and it's mostly my being a picky ass. Most of the time, the game around here, you get better meat from the store. So people just let it sit in their freezer and it ends up going to waste. Which reminds me, I have some moose ass in my freezer I gotta eat.

[–] Aarkon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 hour ago

Just because something happens on its own in nature doesn’t mean it’s a good thing per se - for instance, I prefer the warmth of my heated house over the "natural" cold temperatures of the winter months. That’s the famous "appeal to nature" fallacy right there.

Also, like others already pointed out, hunting deer is only necessary because we eradicated most of their natural predators. Making the case for hunting today in order to fix a problem hunting created in the past feels oddly circular to me.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Crazy ape comment aside (i'd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but that's just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting aren't mutually exclusive.

Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.

I don't know if it's on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don't really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there's no lead. What's really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms. If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don't see how banning them is the best option in general.

I didn't make any proposals in my above comment. It's entirely statements of observations. I don't know what you mean by saying you don't see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn't negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?

[–] Unquote0270@programming.dev -4 points 5 hours ago

You must be exhausted after all those huge jumps in logic and reasoning.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago

We killed the predators on a lot of our continent. Deer hunting is ecologically necessary here. And thats before we get into the boar problem

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 46 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

The American mind cannot comprehend this. Probably due to neurological symptoms from lead poisoning or sth

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

What are you even talking about? There are plenty of people that hunt even here in Germany.

Americans don't have a monopoly on hunting.

We have a monopoly on hunting 30-50 feral hogs tyvm

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I'm talking about a whole country being obsessed with owning and firing guns. I don't observe that in Germany. Also a hunters license comes with mandatory education about responsibility and preserving wildlife.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

So do hunting licenses in the US. Wildlife enforcement has some of the most authority in the state.

The issue is the states allow inherently unsafe munitions to be used. If they changed hunters in the US would comply

[–] Pirat@lemmy.org -4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Not sure if you're American or not but here's a question for you. These bald eagles are allegedly dying from lead poisoning from eating creatures shot by lead bullets/pellets. This must mean they are scavenging. Yes, I know bald eagles do that a lot but they also kill their own prey. So why aren't vultures dying of this lead poisoning. Vultures only scavenge so it should happen much more often.

Here's another thought. 80% of eagles brought into a clinic may be dying of lead poisoning but that 80% is part of a small number overall. Notice they never say how many eagles are brought in.

Here's another thought for you: When someone says such and such is the fastest growing demographic for such and such a thing, it could just mean that there were very few such incidences. 2 such incidences occurred when there used to be just one. WOW! Hundred percent increase? Such incidences have DOUBLED!

Don't let Rita Skeeter twist your thoughts. Get the whole story.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Ingestion of lead ammunition is the primary reason California Condors (obligate carrion eaters) almost became extinct, are still endangered, and aren't having the greatest success with being reintroduced.

As for bald eagles, they're lazy smart, if they see takeout just sitting there, they're not gonna make dinner from scratch.

[–] Pirat@lemmy.org 2 points 10 hours ago

Secondary reply: I don't know If I'd call bald eagles smart. When I drive by a road kill that has vultures and a bald eagle feasting at it, the vultures fly away from the road while the stupid eagle flies right in front of my car. I've nearly had them smash into my windshield several times. It is now my standard reaction to slow down if I see a bald eagle eating road kill. I don't worry about the vultures because they know what to do.

BTW, bald eagles were nearly driven extinct by DDT. We quit using that so bald eagles are now numerous enough that I have to brake to keep from hitting while they eat road kill despite the lead poisoning.

[–] Pirat@lemmy.org 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Not denying the condor thing. Still didn't answer the vulture thing. Yes, I know condors are a type of vulture but so are black vultures and turkey vultures which are more common than ever.

A lot of wildlife rehabs don't deal with the non-endangered or threatened birds. Several years ago a friend of mine found an injured bird of some sort and we called around trying to find help for it but all of the local rehabbers said if it wasn't a bald eagle they couldn't help. So because most vultures aren't endangered afaik, they just die and probably nobody is keeping track.

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 3 points 9 hours ago

I couldn't tell you and I don't really care. Just jumping on the opportunity to mock gun culture

[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 30 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

The overwhelming majority of bullets are used against paper or steel targets. Most hunters take the entire carcass for butchering, so the eagles aren't eating lead from animals shot and left in the wilderness. And given the volume needed, I wouldn't be surprised that they're eating fragments fired at steel targets that they mistake for rocks to keep in their stomach to grind up food.

This is untrue, gastroliths are associated only with birds that eat plants. They grind up food, which isn’t necessary for meat. Eagles eat bullets from animals that have either been shot and abandoned, lost, or had parts of them discarded as zqxwas pointed out.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago

Don't know what they do over there, but we usually get the lungs and guts out as soon as possible in order to keep the meat from spoiling. Long lived predators that likes to scavenge can develop lead poisoning from those remains if it's their main source of food.

If confusing with rocks was the main source you'd expect it to be just as common in other birds.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 7 points 14 hours ago

Plenty of people hunt for food. Lead ammo should be avoided though.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

I think you might have some ontologically incongruous standards. We are crazy apes. You can take the guns away, but the murder will persist for millennia, if not gene edited out. Banning the guns and lead bullets is more likely to work than expecting humanity to spontaneously diverge from its evolutionary roots as a bang bus murder ape

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know, humans are good at diverging from their instincts when it comes to letting sick people die, but when it comes to killing less, they cannot anymore?

I think that low-ass standards are what prevent humans from getting any better, if you start justifying mindless murders as "just instinct" then of course people will be fine with it. And funnily enough, that's one of the main arguments that hunters use, saying that they're just doing something "natural".

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

We are killing less. And overwhelmingly so. If you don’t count faceless, recontectualized packaged cow, chicken, and pig meat. We’re also still pretty good about keeping our close group alive, but medicine men, insurance, and numbers over 100 are a strictly cultural practice not cemented within our genetic memory in any helpful way, so society as a whole suffers under the burden of our limited empathy.

You can also get into the economics of governance to get a good look at what it would mean to move the systems in place enough to reach the sort of universal socioeconomic safety that you’d personally find acceptable. I’m a fan of Europe’s deal… up to a point.

I really don’t mean to cut things off, but the scope of this conversation would necessarily reach so incredibly wide that I don’t believe I can keep your attention or mine for a dozen pages of philosophy, biology, anthropology, history, psychology, and economics. In short, I, personally, can only expect people to fit neatly into a groove so long as it isn’t too far removed from the one we dug a hundred thousand years ago. Certain people have done too much to remove themselves, and to some degree us, from personal responsibility in the US to do anything but set fire to what we have.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

... bang bus murder ape

Adding that into my book of wonderful phrases.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago

Just don’t credit me, I’m pretty sure I plagiarized it in part from elsewhere