And there it is, someone jumping in commenting about how you're not supposed to ride on the elephant's back. I guess one can always take the moral highway when they are in an AC cooled room with 1Gbps internet arguing about what other people should do.
At the same time though, our """ecosystem""" wasn't designed in billions of years to take our guns into the equation. Human has the ability to conquer pretty much every (big) animal there is on earth. Give me an AK-47, some generous supply of bullets, and let me hunt whatever whenever I want, I'd sure be able to clean out a very significant part of a jungle. It would not have happened if I had to wrestle with the bears for their meat.
The argument based on the premise that it is natural to do so. There is nothing natural about dominating another living with a gun that you can shoot at a ridiculous range. It doesn't matter how much money you bring to it, maybe that bear is destined to die of old age if it wasn't for the human shooting him down.
We don't know for sure what's the impact of hunting an old bear or a rhino down (I'm aware that there are some arguments about it being a good thing), but sure that wasn't what nature did for billions of years.
Does the good triumph over the bad aspect when you pay for a kill? Maybe, possibly. Is it ethical? Debatable. Is it part of nature? No.
Hey, do they get a chance to ask the American one to not destroy the Earth, or only the American one can lecture them to not hunt some food?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumpt...
Just because from your view point killing an animal is murder, does not mean everyone agrees. No one is ethically or morally bothered, because, one animal killing another is a foundational part of our ecosystem.