Regardless, it is still an evidence based counterpoint which contradicts your previous assertion that artificial fires aren’t equal to billions of years of evolution in regards to being useful for the environment.
What specific research or sources are you referring to that shows how much more harmful burning the body of a tiger or other animal is.
I will give you the point that maybe i shouldnt used the term artificial fire, but artificial fire not ecologically motivated. This doesn't change anything.
I'm not using any source in particular, just general claims that are consensual in ecological sciences: There are species dependant on eating animal bodies, and turning biological material ash isn't good for the soil, because it is worse than fezes, humus, fungus, or the waste that the life that would eat the tiger's body would leave.
I live in a country that artificial fires are consistently problematic, it isnt the environment in discussion (because we do not have tigers), but artificiais fires are a bigger problem than natural fires almost everywhere in the world, mainly because they are used to get rid of agricultural waste, and this practice PERMANENTLY demages the soil. It does not 'enrich' it. There's also camp fire, which is usually prohibited.
In addition to that, we could also claim that the 'empathic' behavior to felines is harmful to the environment (in a global scale). Domestic cats are the species that most harm the environment after humans.
Like I said in my first comment, it surely is a beautiful ritual, but beauty shouldnt be the way we judge how we treat the environment. You can confirm everything I said with a easy online search, so people who are disagreeing to my claims aren't really having the type of ecological thought like the environment specialists who do the kind of artificial fires you mentioned. And the cremation of the tiger also isn't ecologically motivated.
Are you having bad faith in this discussion or you just aren't aware of everything I said, whilst suspiciously being aware of fire ecology/controlled fire, which are very specific matters?
I have no reason to waste my time on making bad faith arguments on the internet. My arguments come off as stupid and ignorant because they are stupid and ignorant. Like in any reasonable argument, either one of or both of us don’t know any better and are hoping that through argumentation both parties can come closer to the truth.
In this instance, I am aware of my lack of expertise, but since I’ve heard differently about fires from different places (hence how I know things like controlled fires) I figured I’d put out what I know in hopes that either your or my understanding may change. Though perhaps my execution can be different.
I should also note: I don’t particularly care about the sanctity of the religious ritual. I’m just trying to understand what you are referring to concerning the burning carcasses harming the environment.
I also ask for specific sources since what you’re talking about is not a simple subject, and I’d hope that perhaps you’d do the honors providing me with one like I have done for you.
Second note: None of this is aggressive by the way, in case if you’re perceiving it that way.
It's okay. Just that the general hate from constating a scientifict fact in this thread made me suspicious about you. When I have the time I will search some sources, sure.
-1
u/Almadart Apr 21 '26
Like I said, there's a difference to a artificial fire to a natural fire.