I’ve been thinking how interesting it is that we label the efforts of certain hunters as ‘apropriate’ and ‘acceptable’, while the efforts of those same hunters would be disgraceful to most civilized populations if you changed the tool in his hands. 

Rather than set off some war amongst the factions, I’ll avoid using modern day terms and instead concoct a story to illustrate my point.

There was once a brave young lad who lived in the far-off land of Meer and had three young sisters at home.  His mother was ill and his father away for the week, so he went out alone to find food.  He took with him his sling and sharp rock, and after many weary setbacks he killed a young ratkin.  He was very pleased, as he knew the ratkin was not only fleshy enough to feed his sisters and mother, but also possesed of sharp teeth that he could trade, thus further helping his family.  The boy went home happy.

Okay, now the alternate story.

There was once a brave young lad who lived in the far-off land of Meer and had three young sisters at home.  His mother was ill and his father away for the week, so he went out alone to find food.  He took with him his laser-gun and stinging net, and after many weary set backs he killed a young ratkin.  He was very pleased, as he knew the ratkin was not only fleshy enough to feed his sisters and mother, but also possesed of sharp teeth that he could trade, thus further helping his family.  The boy went home happy.

Now, you and I know there is very little difference between these two stories; yet many people who would not object in the least to the first would find the second offensive.  It is as if, in the eyes of some, people should not be allowed to use the advantages we can claim over animals.  As if, by walking out of the sphere that animals hold to we are now required to behave as if we do not get hungry, and our family does not have needs. 

The first story would be dubbed a story of native survival, while the second is a young boy already firmly walking down the path of the gory trophy hunt.  It is my view that the tool did not change the intent of the young boy in the story.  It merely changed the detail of how he provided for his family.  If the boy’s actions appeared more morally right or wrong in the first story vs. the second, that judgment was made in the eyes of the reader alone.