Hunting... Animals...

I agree with you on only one point: the idea of superiority. If you're out hunting animals because you feel as though it gives you validation in your position on the food chain, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

However, hunting in and of itself is in no way, shape or form wrong. What would you consider more inhumane: hunting an animal in the wild, killing it, gutting it and eating it, or keeping those animals crammed together in a factory, pumping them full of chemicals and mass producing their meat for the country's hasty and thankless consumption? I would consider hunting the animal a much more noble act.

And I don't agree with your "animals can't fight back" argument. Bears, Moose and Rhinoceri are all naturally equipped with weaponry and physical attributes that we don't posses. In a one-on-one fight, there's no way an unarmed human could best a bear. That's why we have the capacity for invention. Our intellect is our natural weapon, our greatest gift and at the same time our greatest flaw. We adapted to survive in a world where we were physically outgunned by the majority of animal life surrounding us. We evened the playing field. Over the last few centuries, we have overbalanced the playing field, surely, but animals would do the same if they were intellectually capable of it. So, no, your argument that animals "can't fight back" doesn't fly with me. We just managed to outsmart them. I would assume that 1,000 years from now (if our planet is still alive) animals will have evolved and adapted new ways of defending themselves from us. Then again, maybe not.

Hunting in and of itself is not wrong. To hunt for your own food is a noble gesture, and it's much safer and healthier than buying the chemically-enhanced shit you buy at Albertson's. It depends entirely upon the mindset of the hunter to determine whether or not their acts are vain or noble. Those who hunt solely for their own personal ego-stroking are doing it for the wrong reasons.