> But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery
Absolute statements are not useful in this context. Vultures are obligate scavengers who eat the flesh of already dead animals as a practice. The dead animal could be due to death from natural causes (diseases, old age, injury, poisoning, starvation) or hunting by other animals. So there are some versions.
Also, as a couple of examples, the animal world is not one that has consent to sexual intercourse or empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own. So your (or our) morals cannot be absolute for one purpose (killing an animal to eat the flesh) while being considerate for other aspects. In other words, we don’t gain much by pointing to the non-human world as a justification or excuse for our actions.
> empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own
As well as their own: "numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression (PPD) and lack of social support or indicators of possible infant health and development problems. PPD may be an adaptation that informs mothers that they are suffering or have suffered a fitness cost, which motivates them to reduce or eliminate investment in offspring under certain circumstances, and that may help them negotiate greater levels of investment from other [1].
More broadly, "the analytical rumination (AR) hypothesis proposes that depression is an adaptation that evolved as a response to complex problems and whose function is to minimize disruption of rumination and sustain analysis of complex problems" [2].
Focusing on edge cases doesn't change the overall tendency of nature being savage and cruel. Even herbivores like cows or horses will sometimes eat small animals given the chance. Even the humble mold, fungus, and bacteria will happily eat you alive given the chance.
Surviving in nature is outcompeting others, regardless of how fair it seems to our current culture.
Interpret my statement as a contrast to the disconnect the usual person has from bloodshed and killing, vs one who experiences it first hand or is aware of it.
Not to justify humans eating meat or killing, just to say "wow, there's a lot of it". That's the stage I'm at.
I thought that would be obvious when I went on to talk about how things are "better" because we kill them quickly vs wolves who disregard the feelings of their food, which I think is a good thing. Humans attempt (for the most part), to inflict minimal suffering when killing. We probably also drive off predators. We also try to abstain from killing young animals (at least before industrialized farming).
One can care about the anthropomorphized "feelings" of animals whether or not they are subject to any of our "morals".
But, life on earth evolved with predators in the mix. I’d be curious to know what life would look like without the presence of predators during evolution. Or, which set of life would be more evolutionarily successful: creatures from evolution w/ predators vs. creatures evolution w/o predators. Sounds like a great topic for Primer [0].
Last, to push back, I don’t think the parent comment was using the brutality of nature as an excuse for their actions. They said it helped them understand/come to terms with their hunting behavior, of which is totally natural.
Absolute statements are not useful in this context. Vultures are obligate scavengers who eat the flesh of already dead animals as a practice. The dead animal could be due to death from natural causes (diseases, old age, injury, poisoning, starvation) or hunting by other animals. So there are some versions.
Also, as a couple of examples, the animal world is not one that has consent to sexual intercourse or empathy in killing an offspring who’s not their own. So your (or our) morals cannot be absolute for one purpose (killing an animal to eat the flesh) while being considerate for other aspects. In other words, we don’t gain much by pointing to the non-human world as a justification or excuse for our actions.