About killing animals

You're right.
Nonetheless, since it is the current relationship between humans and animals, which took hundreds and thousands of years, it is not easy to change it.
I think we have no choice but to strive to coexist to the extent that each of us can.
For example, I want to make an effort not to buy and sell animals, abandon pet breeding, eat meat or fish to the point where you are fuller than necessary, or buy and discard food that you cannot eat.
Also, I want to live my life thankful for many lives.
Recently, the number of hunters has been decreasing year by year, and conversely, the number of bears living there is increasing year by year, so mountains alone will not be able to fill your stomach, and the number that descends to villages and towns will also increase year by year.
In that case, in order to prioritize human lives, we are very sorry and unfortunate, but we will have no choice but to take animal lives.
Co-existence is difficult the more you think about it, isn't it?
Even so, I would like each individual to do their part.

I read your question.

Certainly, humans kill and play with living creatures for selfish convenience.
It is important not to forget that our comfortable lives are built on various sacrifices, and to always have a sense of gratitude.

For example, we build dams to secure water from our tap. As a result, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or more creatures will lose their lives and places to live. People in the old days lived without running water or dams. In other words, dams and water supplies are not the minimum for life activity; they are human luxury goods. If you don't like this, it would be difficult to live a life without using running water.

Or, all the things around us are made in factories. There are televisions, and almost everything is made in factories, from computers, smartphones, and clothing to plastic products. Large numbers of lives have been lost due to smoke coming out of the factory and factory wastewater flowing out naturally.
People from the olden days lived even if they didn't make things in factories. In other words, these are human luxuries. If you don't like this, it would be difficult to live without using such things at all.

Also, animals are not the only living creatures on Earth. Plants also have life. However, due to human convenience, they pull out things named “weeds,” cut down mountains, and take the lives of a large number of plants.

Not limited to the case mentioned by Mr. Health Daiichi, we humans have taken many lives for our own luxury. Now it would be quite difficult to abandon all that luxury and coexist with the Earth.
So, as you said, I want to live my daily life with humility and gratitude so as not to be too arrogant.
Also, Kankodai-san, please try participating in various activities so that you can make that wonderful idea a reality and save many precious lives!

Please use something as a reference.

That's because mammals such as wild boars, mosquitoes, cockroaches, and humans all have one life.
I want to make sure I don't have to kill them.
However, I feel a contradiction when I feel sorry for dogs and cats even though they kill mosquitoes without problems.
Even when livestock diseases such as avian influenza or swine fever spread, they are slaughtered in large numbers, right?
They are domesticated animals so they can be eaten (killed) someday, but killing them without eating them is unbearable, isn't it?
However, neither animals nor humans can protect themselves without killing other living creatures.
Male cats kill children between other males being raised by females. This is to cause females that have lost their children to have estrus and give birth to their own children.
Animals, not limited to humans, do pretty terrible things.
In the end, we are being killed and killed while being reborn in the world of reincarnation.
The only way to be freed from such a terrible world and graduate from reincarnation is to attain enlightenment through Buddhist practice and attain Buddhism.

People at the extermination site have much more respect for the natural world than people who don't know the actual situation in mountainous areas.

According to the sense of people in mountainous areas, wild boars are not exterminated because they have come to remote areas. It's not about dividing crops, it's just a survival race because it's a matter of life and death that is literally eradicated. Wild animals are also gourmets. Individuals who learn that local crops taste better than mountain food will come to steal crops even if there is enough food in the mountains.
Sadly, they've been competitors since time immemorial. The relationship between living things is originally like that. Conversely, it's just that humans are now able to coexist through wisdom, and modern people are stupid, so they didn't turn animals into enemies. The natural world is a chaotic and frightening place. Facing up, learning, and respecting such characteristics of the natural world is respect for the natural world. Applying it to human beauty stories is not respectful.

There is something called “satoyama management” to draw a line between human society and the natural world. It's a concept that has finally been reviewed over the past few years.

However, there are overwhelmingly insufficient manpower to work on it. Before that, there was still not enough interest or demand at all. It can't be helped, because it's a world where only voices that make people bad people stand out for their activities in rural areas like this.

Your assertion puts people who really work to draw the line between human society and the natural world in a difficult situation not only mentally but also in terms of operation. Let's refrain from making such frivolous criticism. It's difficult to have respect for people you can't see, but at least I'll just write that it's words and actions that go against the world you want.

Also, I will add that there is a hellish vicious cycle where people are forced to do even jobs they don't want to do in the world because there are no other options, and because of that, they are exposed to selfish slander, and options are further narrowed.

The issues surrounding pets are deeply dark, but zoos are not spectators. The primary purpose is to prepare for a drastic decline in the number of individuals in the future, research know-how on species preservation from now on, and search for ways humans can cooperate. So the fact that some breeding was successful or failed at the ◯◯ zoo is big news. It is only open to the public because there is an issue with operating funds for that purpose.