3 ms·
Less violent alternatives may have unwanted consequences, while killing animals is something that actually benefits their genetic pools. It's amazing how usuall
by fedeb95 4y ago
Less violent alternatives may have unwanted consequences, while killing animals is something that actually benefits their genetic pools. It's amazing how usually animal lovers and knowledge don't intersect
- Zak 4y agoIntroducing natural predators might improve the gene pool of a wild animal population, but humans randomly selecting animals to kill does not. Of course, introducing predators is almost certain to have unwanted consequences.
- fedeb95 4y agoHow can you say that? Dogs and cattle survived to this day by being killed (or neutered) by humans. It's a win genetically
- Zak 4y agoI can say that easily; culling a population of free-roaming wild animals because people believe there are too many of them is very different from breeding a population of captive domestic animals with a goal of achieving specific results. As for whether humans are good at breeding when done intentionally, the evidence is a bit equivocal. Mixed breed dogs and cats are usually much less prone to heritable health issues than purebred, but I think that's less true for farm animals where health issues impact profits.
- fedeb95 4y agoWe probably don't have enough evidence to say something about my point, even less for culling. Let me restate "love for animals and knowledge don't intersect" as "love for animals and skepticism don't intersect"