Precise may not be precisely the right word--and the book is translated from Spanish, so may not be precisely what Ortega y Gasset meant. It would depend on the animal and terrain, as well as the range.
Yes, humans have always used technology to defeat animal's survival, which I thought was obviously a part of my post, where I mentioned using a club instead of a rock. If we wanted to get even more picky, we'd use a hand-held rock as an example of technology, instead of choking or biting an animal to death.
But that's not the point. If humans have to kill and eat animals to survive, we've always found ways to do it, ranging from digging pits, making snares, driving them over cliffs or into lakes, or whatever else works.
However, Ortega y Gasset's essay isn't about subsistence hunting. Instead it's about is generally called "sport" or "recreational" hunting, even though we often eat the meat and it may even help us get by economically. If I had to get some meat to avoid starving to death, then I'd use whatever means possible. But that's not what we're discussing, so claiming using technology is OK, because humans have always used technology for obtaining meat, is irrelevant.
Of course we've always used technology, since the use of technology is one of the definitions of being human. Instead we're talking about the essence of modern hunting, which is not basic survival.
And discussing it all not around a campfire but on computers linked to the internet, I think that is unethical.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
