Ethical Vegetarians (part 2)?!

Ethical Vegetarians (part 2)?

Ok, this is a hypothetical question based on real events, please dont use the word "sick" in your answer.

A group of people get stranded on a lush tropical island. They are very fortunate but also unfortunate. They have two people with the knowledge to keep them alive(for the most part) on this island. One of them is a hunter, he has spent time living in the wild hunting/fishing/forageing for food as a pass time, and is extremely capable of providing, but will provide meat as well as vegetation. The other is an agriculterul biologist that happens to have seeds perfect for the climate there and the knowledge to make them grow, he is a serious vegetarian and will not offer food from his crops to those that eat meat with the hunter so two groups form and the island is "split".

The hunter goes off and hunts and forrages on his side of the island, with his community, they set themselves rules(no killing animals with their young, or good breeding stock). A year passes and....

11 hours ago
Although there is a reduction in wildlife, a balance eventually returns.(One further reason comming). There is wildlife and humanity thriving there.

The Biologist in his wisdom decides crops need to grow, so he act with his community to clear some land of trees so it may be farmed, (many of the animals spread away from this man made enviroment that now exists. He has success so more land is taken. Another few years pass and both communitys survive.

The hunstmen stay low in numbers and were as the farmers grow, and so do their farms. eventually they meet in the middle. One side is lush jungle the other feilds of crops.

Who has done more damage ethically in this situation?

I don't see anything wrong with this question because it's hypothetical although I am somewhat dubious about it supposedly being based on real events.

Although I am a vegan I would have to say the biological farmer did the most damage. The hunters were in essence acting like wild animals and so didn't do too much damage to the environment.

But what needs to be taken into account is that this little story is not how the world is today. Meat eaters aren't that careful about the meat they eat and do not go out killing it themselves. Meat eaters in reality also benefit from crops and in fact, a high percentage of all crops in the world are used to make food to feed the animals who we in turn kill for meat. If all this food was given to humans which needed it then there would actually be no more hunger in the world.

Something else that's wrong with this story is you really have tried to show the biologist in a bad light... he won't share his food with meat eaters and his group grows more in numbers than the huntsmen.

This really isn't a case of meat-eaters vs vegetarians which I think you are trying to put across. It highlights the effects of human evolution. Yes, the environment would benefit if we all lived in the jungle but we don't and it wasn't vegetarians who first decided to clear land for crops... humans naturally want to better their lives.

It is a fact that a meat-eating diet does a lot more harm to the environment than a vegetarian/vegan one. I'm not trying to cause offense here and I'm not judging meat eaters but this story does not prove anything.

Can I ask just out of interest what you were trying to get at with this question? What are your views on it?