Hunting/Meat in a Post-Revolutionary society

[Hexen]

How would Hunting & Meat be handled in a post-revolutionary society? I would imagine that game hunting would be abolished which hunting go back to it's original purpose is for food (meat), clothing (from fur), tool making (from horns, teeth, etc) and decorations etc like how Native Americans used to do it but I'm not so sure about slaughterhouses though. Although would be still farms though somewhat with people raising animals to slaughter them and we eat their meat?

What's your stance on this?

[Nox]

Let's be honest here, nobody hunts just for the food.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It would depend, most likely, on the decision of workers councils.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Everyone has a different stance on it so it is hard to say for sure what will happen.

I myself wouldn't have a problem with "game hunting" being discontinued but at the same time have a hard time seeing how that would improve the lives of the proletariat.

[ClearlyChrist]

At Face Value, I Doubt The Abolition Of Game Hunting Would Contribute To The Livelyhood Of The People, But I Don't Consider It A Bad Thing. Hunting For Survival Is Completely Acceptable, In My Eyes, And I'd Prefer Hunting To Be Saved For That Purpose Alone, But That's Just My Personal Stance On The Matter.

[EvilRedGuy]

Game hunting is cruel and unnecessary. Hunting = Bourgeois sport. Furcoats = Bourgeois luxury.

Furfarming wouldn't be there because we have synthetic better fur.
Meat harvesting would be replaced by VAT-produced better-tasting synthetic meat.

[Zukunftsmusik]

What about hunting for controlling animal populations?

[EvilRedGuy]

Sorry, but ecological collapse is pseudo-science bullshit. Animals come from one place to another and it and nature adapts, naturally no problem. Its a capitalist lie. Period.


Its called evolution, nature doesn't need help from us. Let it and us do whatever we want to. Now stop using that excuse.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Its a capitalist lie. Period.


Really?

[EvilRedGuy]

Really?

Yes.

[RED DAVE]

I think we could retain hunting as a sport so long as the animals are also armed with rifles and trained to use them.

RED DAVE

[Aleenik]

I would hope hunting and killing animals for meat would be done away with in a post-revolutionary society. However, I doubt it. Both are cruel and wrong in my view. Animals have as much a right to life as we do.

[thriller]

Let's be honest here, nobody hunts just for the food.

Have you ever seen an Inuit wear a blubber coat? Yeah exactly.

@EvilRedGuy In Wisconsin and the Midwest US there is a disease called CWD (chronic-wasting disease) which eats away the brain of deer. It is contracted through deer mainly by contact. Should we just let this disease kill all deer in Wisconsin? No, people have hunted deer with CWD symptoms and the disease is much less wide spread now.

As far as my opinion, no slaughterhouses or fur coats. However, Humans are more evolved than other animals (sorry primitivists!) so we have the right to hunt them. Many cultures regard hunting as a sacred tradition between the animals and humans. I'm not about to tell a culture that has over 1000 years that their religious and ancient tradition should be abolished because animals are just as important as humans.

[thriller]

I would hope hunting and killing animals for meat would be done away with in a post-revolutionary society. However, I doubt it. Both are cruel and wrong in my view. Animals have as much a right to life as we do.

Then we should forbid tigers, wolves and sharks from eating meat and what? Give them soy?

[piet11111]

I am not against hunting but it should only be done if it doesn't negatively affect the number of animals.

Breeding animals for food is something i strongly support.
Breeding animals for their furs is something i do not really care about as long as they are kept in humane conditions.

Using animals for testing medicine is something i strongly support.

[tir1944]

Hunting was legal and hunter's societies existed in all Socialist countries...

[Aleenik]

Then we should forbid tigers, wolves and sharks from eating meat and what? Give them soy?So are you comparing your intelligence to that of a tiger, wolf, or a shark?

The argument you raise is one I have seen brought up before. It seems to be fairly common.

We are smarter than those animals though. We are intelligent beings. Those animals are driven by instinct to kill certain things and eat. We, as humans, don't need to do that nor should we do that imo.

[thriller]

So are you comparing your intelligence to that of a tiger, wolf, or a shark?

The argument you raise is one I have seen brought up before. It seems to be fairly common.

We are smarter than those animals though. We are intelligent beings. Those animals are driven by instinct to kill certain things and eat. We, as humans, don't need to do that nor should we do that imo.

I'm comparing my survival to that of a tiger and shark and wolf. No one should be allowed to tell me what I can and can't put into my own body. If animals and humans are to be treated equally, you can't give certain animals rights and not others. IMO opinion we should be able to eat animals, after all, how did we get to our present status anyways? Some people have iron deficiencies and NEED meat to help get their iron levels up. I also, as said before, think it is ignorant to tell certain cultures that their way of life is wrong because it is not 'civilized' enough. Inuits completely rely on whale and seal blubber and meat to survive. So we have the right to tell them their entire history and way of life us wrong because the food chain doesn't apply anymore? I don't agree with that.
EDIT: Animals also fight each other because, well they just don't like each other. Not all fights between animals are because of food, sometimes they just get pissed off. Which is a FEELING, not an instinct.

[Tommy4ever]

I don't understand why there would be any change to hunting laws at all.

[Aleenik]

I'm comparing my survival to that of a tiger and shark and wolf. If animals and humans are to be treated equally, you can't give certain animals rights and not others. IMO opinion we should be able to eat animals, after all, how did we get to our present status anyways? Some people have iron deficiencies and NEED meat to help get their iron levels up. I also, as said before, think it is ignorant to tell certain cultures that their way of life is wrong because it is not 'civilized' enough. Inuits completely rely on whale and seal blubber and meat to survive. So we have the right to tell them their entire history and way of life us wrong because the food chain doesn't apply anymore? I don't agree with that.So if we get to Communism should we allow people to also live under Capitalism because that is how we got to our present status? That argument doesn't really make much sense in both cases. Also, no one needs meat. Iron can be found in non meat products. I think it is wrong to kill animals and I will continue to tell others about it even if they don't like it. It doesn't matter to me that humans have a long history of being meat eaters. Humans also had a long history of living in tribes. Yet we evolved beyond that (Well, the vast majority have). I believe Humanity should evolve beyond unnecessary killing and that includes against animals.

[thriller]

I don't understand why there would be any change to hunting laws at all.

I could see stricter enviormental laws. Also with the abolition of private property, 'hunting grounds' would probably vanish.

[Tablo]

What is wrong with hunting? I think hunting would be left alone. As long as we aren't killing off species then I see no problem.

[Aleenik]

What is wrong with hunting? I think hunting would be left alone. As long as we aren't killing off species then I see no problem.You are killing another animal that has as much a right to life as you do. You are denying it the existence it had. Not to mention the pain and suffering it goes through when dieing.

If you are ok with hunting animals, would you be ok with hunting people? The answer is probably no. Yet I find the two to be very similar. In both cases living beings are being killed.

I would have a hard time accepting a Communist society that allows the unneeded killing of other beings.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Let's be honest here, nobody hunts just for the food.

"I like to kill."-Hunter Thompson.

With this being said, I think that's too generalized of a statement. When I have gone hunting, I will admit and be blunt that I did like the excitement of the hunt, all of it but I also went hunting for the food and other parts of the animal such as it's fur and all that. As for hunting in a post-revolutionary I'm not entirely sure but it should be pointed out that not all of us are vegans who believe the killing of an animal is inherently wrong. I would hope I could still hunt and (more importantly) fish in a Socialist society.

[Tablo]

You are killing another animal that has as much a right to life as you do. You are denying it the existence it had. Not to mention the pain and suffering it goes through when dieing.

If you are ok with hunting animals, would you be ok with hunting people? The answer is probably no. Yet I find the two to be very similar. In both cases living beings are being killed.
Except I value humans more than other animals. I don't care if they are living beings. Trees are alive too. While some animals can feel pain and emotion, I really just don't care. Maybe it is because I've been hunting since I was 6 or that I've been eating meat since my first solid food meal. I guess I'm just a speciest or whatever.

[Aleenik]

Except I value humans more than other animals. I don't care if they are living beings. Trees are alive too. While some animals can feel pain and emotion, I really just don't care. Maybe it is because I've been hunting since I was 6 or that I've been eating meat since my first solid food meal. I guess I'm just a speciest or whatever.If I had to choose between saving an animal or a human, I would of course save the human.

I went hunting a few times when I was younger, but I never enjoyed it and felt somewhat bad even then about killing other beings for pleasure. I also use to be a big meat eater. I became a vegetarian around 2 months ago though.

[Art Vandelay]

I would like to think that in a communist society hunting would be treated a lot like the native americans used to treat it; with the understanding that nothing can be wasted, maybe minus a few bones, and that there is not a infinite supply of animals. However all this discussion I find to be necessary as ultimately it will be up to the workers councils to decide. There will most likely be some communities and areas that allow hunting regulations to continue similarly to as they do now and others who radically change things.

[EvilRedGuy]

I'm sure you guys would have no problem killing another Intelligent-Life animal as long as it wasn't human. :rolleyes:


Pathetic arguments, still waiting for some real counter-arguments. :thumbdown:

[Tablo]

If I had to choose between saving an animal or a human, I would of course save the human.

I went hunting a few times when I was younger, but I never enjoyed it and felt somewhat bad even then about killing other beings for pleasure. I also use to be a big meat eater. I became a vegetarian around 2 months ago though.
I understand. I am opposed to the awful conditions in factory farms and want animals to be treated in a more humane fashion when appropriate. I just don't see anything wrong with hunting and whenever I have shot dear I always had the meat packaged so I could eat it. It isn't like I'm shooting random animals and leaving them there... except when I'm shooting squirrels.

[Tifosi]

Sorry, but ecological collapse is pseudo-science bullshit. Animals come from one place to another and it and nature adapts, naturally no problem. Its a capitalist lie. Period.

So where are the new wolfs and bears naturally coming from then?

Since the last wolf in Scotland was killed a couple of hundred years ago red deer have had no natural preditors. This has meant the red deer population has exploded, reaching upwords of 400,000 in Scotland, three times the number it was only 40 years ago.

The huge numbers of red deer mean that overgrazing is a big problem. Overgrazing as well as bark-stripping has prevented new woodlands from taking hold, and stops the regeneration of other areas of woodland. These woodland areas provide important habit from many other animal species. Overgrazing and trampling is a major problem for native plants and Scotlands large areas of peat land. These areas again provide habit for other animals.

Culling (as well as other measures such as stoping game keepers feeding deer) is needed to protect the enviroment now, as we can't wait for the next Ice Age so wolfs can move back in. It is in the long term good of humans, other animals and the red deer (who will sooner or later eat themselves out of a habit). You may be correct in saying that natural will adapt, but this process will take a very long time, by which time it could be to late for many other animals and plant life. There is nothing wrong with humans helping this process along.

Do you have a problem with people burning last years heather to help the new heather come through?

[Rodrigo]

Nutritional studies show that humans, and laboratory animals as well, do very well on diets that are free from flesh foods but which contain milk, milk products, and some eggs.

From an article I read now:


So, why do we keep eating it? Because it's so darned tasty. Don't give me that hippie shtick about how McDonald's or Western society foisted beef on us. McDonald's didn't invent the appendix. McDonald's didn't invent all the genes we've acquired—at least eight, according to a 2004 article in the Quarterly Review of Biology—that help us, but not chimps, manage a meat diet (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB/journal/issues/v79n1/790101/brief/790101.abstract.html). Look at the fossil evidence recently published in Nature. About 5,000 years ago, when people in Britain figured out how to domesticate cattle, sheep, and pigs, they promptly switched from fish-eating to meat-eating (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/425366a.html). A similar revolution swept North America (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20031012/ai_n10915190) about 700 years ago. My daughter has been demanding meat ever since she tasted it in baby food. I've seen vegetarian friends lust at the thought of a burger. We're carnivores. We evolved that way.

If we were just beasts, that would end the discussion. But we're not. Evolution didn't stop with our lusts; it started there. Food gave us brain power. Technology lifted us above survival and gave us time to think. We began to understand the operation of living things, even ourselves. We saw what we were, and we saw what we could be. That's the paradox of humanity: Our aspirations transcend our nature, but they have to respect it. To become what we must become, we have to work with what we are.

Anyone familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous understands this duality. It's the heart of the Serenity Prayer (http://www.aahistory.com/prayer.html): "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." Many alcoholics take this to mean that addiction can't be changed, but behavior can, with God's help. But prayers often mean more than we understand. In the case of meat, maybe we don't have to go cold no-turkey. Maybe what we're asking for, what God is giving us, is the wisdom to see that we can't change our craving for meat, but we can change the way we satisfy it.
How? By growing meat in labs (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/ten.2005.11.659)*, the way we grow tissue from stem cells. That's the great thing about cells: They're programmed to multiply. You just have to figure out what chemical and structural environment they need to do their thing. Researchers in Holland and the United States are working on the problem (http://www.new-harvest.org/substitutes.htm). They've grown and sautéed fish (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-meatlab22may22,1,426755.story) that smelled like dinner, though FDA rules didn't allow them to taste it. Now they're working on pork (http://www.new-harvest.org/article09102005.htm). The short-term goal is sausage, ground beef, and chicken nuggets. Steaks will be more difficult. Three Dutch universities (http://www.new-harvest.org/article09102005.htm) and a nonprofit consortium called New Harvest (http://www.new-harvest.org/default.php) are involved. They need money. A fraction of what we spend on cattle subsidies would help.

Growing meat like this will be good for us in lots of ways. We'll be able to make beef with no fat, or with good fat transplanted from fish. We'll avoid bird flu, mad-cow disease, and salmonella (http://www.new-harvest.org/cultured_problems.htm). We'll scale back the land consumption and pollution involved in cattle farming. But 300 years from now, when our descendants look back at slaughterhouses the way we look back at slavery, they won't remember the benefits to us, any more than they'll remember our dried-up tears for a horse. They'll want to know whether we saw the moral calling of our age. If we do, it's time to pony up.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/05/the_conscience_of_a_carnivore.html

:lol:

* www.new-harvest.org/img/files/Invitro.pdf

[OHumanista]

Game hunting is cruel and unnecessary. Hunting = Bourgeois sport. Furcoats = Bourgeois luxury.

Furfarming wouldn't be there because we have synthetic better fur.
Meat harvesting would be replaced by VAT-produced better-tasting synthetic meat.

I totally agree with EvilRedGuy on this. Tech will end the need to kill animals for meat, and only tribal societies would have have any need to hunt.(and nowadays it's true as well, who the heck hunts for survival outside a tribal society? :confused:)

[thriller]

You are killing another animal that has as much a right to life as you do. You are denying it the existence it had. Not to mention the pain and suffering it goes through when dieing.

If you are ok with hunting animals, would you be ok with hunting people? The answer is probably no. Yet I find the two to be very similar. In both cases living beings are being killed.

I would have a hard time accepting a Communist society that allows the unneeded killing of other beings.

Human rights are not animal rights. Quit equating the two. If you find those two similar, why do animals get the right to hunt yet we don't? I still don't get that argument. Humans have as much right to the Earth as animals, and that includes our choice for food source.

[thriller]

So if we get to Communism should we allow people to also live under Capitalism because that is how we got to our present status? That argument doesn't really make much sense in both cases. Also, no one needs meat. Iron can be found in non meat products. I think it is wrong to kill animals and I will continue to tell others about it even if they don't like it. It doesn't matter to me that humans have a long history of being meat eaters. Humans also had a long history of living in tribes. Yet we evolved beyond that (Well, the vast majority have). I believe Humanity should evolve beyond unnecessary killing and that includes against animals.

No we shouldn't allow capitalism, but most Native tribes are not capitalist so that doesn't make sense. Actually some people do need meat. Unless you are a nutritional expert in dietary habits for people with low protein and iron levels, I don't see how your argument makes much sense. I guess we are two different odds of the argument. As stated before, I think someone is speciesist if they allow animals to hunt, but not humans.

[Aleenik]

No we shouldn't allow capitalism, but most Native tribes are not capitalist so that doesn't make sense. Actually some people do need meat. Unless you are a nutritional expert in dietary habits for people with low protein and iron levels, I don't see how your argument makes much sense. I guess we are two different odds of the argument. As stated before, I think someone is speciesist if they allow animals to hunt, but not humans.Are you a nutritional expert either? Why would someone have to eat meat? Everything important in meat can be found in other sources. I researched the stuff before I became a Vegetarian.

As for being a speciest... lol.

Animals follow their instincts. We can't change their instincts. There are animals that eat other animals because that is their instinct. We as humans don't need to follow some primitive instinct. We don't need to eat meat. We are much more intelligent than those animals. It can even be argued that humans were originally herbivores, though that can't be proven and it doesn't really matter what humans originally were I suppose. The point is we are an intelligent species and can make a choice to kill and eat other living beings or not. Seeing as how we don't need meat, I choose the latter. I see vegetarianism as something all of humanity should work towards.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Game hunting is cruel and unnecessary.

How?


Hunting = Bourgeois sport. Furcoats = Bourgeois luxury.

That's bullshit, I own many guns, I have sufficient ammo, I could drive to the nearest forestry during hunting season, shoot an animal, gut it, skin it and then fashion a coat out of it and I'm poor as shit.



Furfarming wouldn't be there because we have synthetic better fur.


Meh.


Meat harvesting would be replaced by VAT-produced better-tasting synthetic meat.

I have yet to taste any synthetic meat that hasn't tasted like shit.

[Fopeos]

I see no problem with eating meat. In industrial nations, we are eating far too much of it. We're omnivores but our ancestors consumed more grains, fruits and veggies, and suplemented their diets with the meat they could catch. I believe our modern "meat-heavy" diets are causing many of our current health issues.
I find today's slaughterhouses to be a crime against both human and animal. The ever-increasing line speed leads to workers being injured, as well as more inhumane treatment of the animals.
I hope, without the profit motive, the animals can be treated well, given healthy food and pastures to develope and grow in. Most importantly, they deserve a quick, humane death.

[hatzel]

I have yet to taste any synthetic meat that hasn't tasted like shit.

I assume he wasn't talking about meat substitutes, in the sense you understood it, but in the sense of 'real' meat, produced unnaturally. That is to say, through using stem cells or whatever it is people do when they grow organs in the lab, but instead of making a new trachea for that Spanish woman, they'll just make loads of chicken breast or something, without any complete chicken coming into being (not a proposition I'm all that keen on, by the way). I can only assume you haven't tasted much of this...

[EvilRedGuy]

So where are the new wolfs and bears naturally coming from then?

Since the last wolf in Scotland was killed a couple of hundred years ago red deer have had no natural preditors. This has meant the red deer population has exploded, reaching upwords of 400,000 in Scotland, three times the number it was only 40 years ago.

The huge numbers of red deer mean that overgrazing is a big problem. Overgrazing as well as bark-stripping has prevented new woodlands from taking hold, and stops the regeneration of other areas of woodland. These woodland areas provide important habit from many other animal species. Overgrazing and trampling is a major problem for native plants and Scotlands large areas of peat land. These areas again provide habit for other animals.

Culling (as well as other measures such as stoping game keepers feeding deer) is needed to protect the enviroment now, as we can't wait for the next Ice Age so wolfs can move back in. It is in the long term good of humans, other animals and the red deer (who will sooner or later eat themselves out of a habit). You may be correct in saying that natural will adapt, but this process will take a very long time, by which time it could be to late for many other animals and plant life. There is nothing wrong with humans helping this process along.

Do you have a problem with people burning last years heather to help the new heather come through?

Let nature figure it out, we have better things to do than securing all kinds of crap. Besides who gives a shit if some psecies will get extinct, that will naturally happen anyway we aren't here to control evolution or shit like that, there is no way we can manipulate or change this.


How?



That's bullshit, I own many guns, I have sufficient ammo, I could drive to the nearest forestry during hunting season, shoot an animal, gut it, skin it and then fashion a coat out of it and I'm poor as shit.



Meh.



I have yet to taste any synthetic meat that hasn't tasted like shit.

No arguments out of this post, only opinions. Useless post. :rolleyes:

Bourgeois hunter-hobbyist.

[Art Vandelay]

It is funny seeing an anarchist so keen on telling others what to do. Get your pompous opinions out of here and quit acting like some moral superior cause you do not eat meat. Guess what? People like meat as well as others who like hunting and that is not going to change post revolution. Secondly it is not up to you or anyone else to govern what is going to happen post revolution it will be decided democratically and you can sure as hell predict what will be decided.

[deLarge]

/spreads braunschweiger on some rye bread
/laughs at the anti-meat folk in this thread

You've never lived until you've eaten deer jerky from a deer that you yourself shot. And it isn't just a bourgeoisie sport -- when I was younger, we sometimes needed game for food because we couldn't afford it otherwise. Bullets were cheaper than meat. Go figure.

[thriller]

Are you a nutritional expert either? Why would someone have to eat meat? Everything important in meat can be found in other sources. I researched the stuff before I became a Vegetarian.

As for being a speciest... lol.

Animals follow their instincts. We can't change their instincts. There are animals that eat other animals because that is their instinct. We as humans don't need to follow some primitive instinct. We don't need to eat meat. We are much more intelligent than those animals. It can even be argued that humans were originally herbivores, though that can't be proven and it doesn't really matter what humans originally were I suppose. The point is we are an intelligent species and can make a choice to kill and eat other living beings or not. Seeing as how we don't need meat, I choose the latter. I see vegetarianism as something all of humanity should work towards.

Why would someone have to eat meat? Well when it's really fucking cold out, snow everywhere and no vegetation to be found, hmm starve? No kill a deer and live. I know we are talking about post-revolutionary society, but that means people have complete control over their own bodies. I'm not sure how physically active you are, but if you have ever hauled 6 tons of rocks in day, your body is going to need the fuel that meat gives, at least mine does (I know, anecdotal, just using my own experience here). No I'm not a nutritional expert either, but my father's side of the family has history of iron deficiency. The doctor recommend to my father and uncle to eat meat, but who knows maybe the doctor was payed off by Oscar-Meyer :rolleyes:. As for instincts, humans don't need to follow them? So I guess sex is out of the question, since we don't NEED to have sex to have children, considering the advancement of stem-cells. Again, not all animals kill because of instinct for food. If you ever lived in a house with more than two of the same (or even opposite) animals, you know that animals fight each other because they get angry/jealous/whatever the reason may be. I just don't see how eating meat is completely wrong when humans have obviously been eating it for thousands of years.

[Tifosi]

Let nature figure it out we have better things to do than securing all kinds of crap.

OK we have better things to do, like lets say farming and feeding ourselfs.

While huge numbers of red deer are more of a problem for forestry than agriculture (rabbits and geese cause more damage), they still pose a problem for farming. They come out of woodland to graze on crops such as rape, kurnips and beans and at the same time they are trampling on and flattening crops. Some deer also like to lie in corn, so trampling it all down. Overgrazing by deer of early grasses can lead to a drop in dairy production.

Deer have also been known to come into peoples gardens and allotments to feed on fruits, vegetables and flowers grown there. Also Red Deer damage fencing and walls, which is bad if you have sheep or cows. This is also bad for drivers around fields, with sheep darting out into that road in front of passing drivers.



Besides who gives a shit if some psecies will get extinct

Me.


that will naturally happen anyway we aren't here to control evolution or shit like that, there is no way we can manipulate or change this.

Not really, the Red Squirrel isn't naturally going extinct in the UK. It is going extinct because people artificially introducted the Grey Squirrel. It's the same for hundreds of over creatures all over the world.

If we can act to save a species or improve the life of a species why shouldn't we? If we can do a better, quicker job than nature why shouldn't we? Because Bambi's mother might die?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

No arguments out of this post, only opinions. Useless post. :rolleyes:

Bourgeois hunter-hobbyist.

:lol:

Like you offered any legitimate arguments in the posts I quoted.

Bourgeois vegan lifestylist.



I assume he wasn't talking about meat substitutes, in the sense you understood it, but in the sense of 'real' meat, produced unnaturally. That is to say, through using stem cells or whatever it is people do when they grow organs in the lab, but instead of making a new trachea for that Spanish woman, they'll just make loads of chicken breast or something, without any complete chicken coming into being (not a proposition I'm all that keen on, by the way). I can only assume you haven't tasted much of this...

No, I have not and this could perhaps be beneficial for the species however I don't see anything morally wrong with hunting or the killing of animals for food in general so I will still be eating my real meats along with the fake meats.

[Quail]

As for instincts, humans don't need to follow them? So I guess sex is out of the question, since we don't NEED to have sex to have children, considering the advancement of stem-cells.
The difference here is that consensual sex doesn't involve causing anyone/anything unnecessary suffering.

[Red Future]

Comrade Erich was a keen hunter in the DDR.I don't know the Soviet policy on it though.