5 ms·

I don't get it. Why not just euthanize them? Surely that would be cheaper than sterilizing and vaccinating them all, and the benefits would be seen sooner.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
Bhutan is deeply buddhist
- martopix 3y ago
  Hopefully you don't have to be a Buddhist for that. Also I don't really see the advantage compared to sterilization.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Even though in certain Buddhist countries animals get slaughtered for food, taking lives of animals is a big thing in Buddhism. There is fundamentally no difference between animal consciousness and human in the buddhist view. But to take it to a human level: you dont see a difference in (chemical) castration of people with mental disability and killing them?
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Why is forcibly sterilizing animals better than forcibly sterilizing humans, in such a view? Or in their own framework, did Bhutan just engage in genocide against an unwanted demographic?
      - dncornholio 3y ago
        If we believe that animals were created by someone for men, it would follow that men were also created for animals since some animals do eat human flesh.
        shiroiuma 3y ago
        The problem I see here is that dogs are not just "animals". They're artificial creations of humans, and an invasive species when they're not kept as pets inside homes. There's a good reason that, for instance, in the Australian outback they kill, on sight, and feral cat they find: they're invasive species that predate the local native animal species to extinction. Animals do not have a right to live when they don't belong in a particular ecosystem, especially when those animals aren't even natural to begin with. If we were talking about a native species of bear, things would be entirely different.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      taking lives of animals is a big thing in Buddhism How do explain (South) Korea and Japan that eat plenty of meat and have a Buddhist majority? Sri Lanka also has lots of Buddhists, and also eats lots of meat. This seems like nonsense to me.
      - dncornholio 3y ago
        Animal welfare is a thing in Buddhism though. India has animal welfare in their constitution. Buddhism is also the only religion that notes animal rights. I think you can compare it with Christians, there are plenty of sinners.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        The first precept of Buddhism is not to kill humans or animals. Not everybody is going to be crazy strict about it, but that core value of not taking life is there. Personally, I eat meat too, and I'm also not a huge fan of needlessly killing dogs, and I'm not even Buddhist! I feel like there's a middle ground where I can care about animals, respect life, and also have a cheeseburger. I'm certain some people will find that to be hypocritical, but it's really not a huge gotcha to me.
      - theonemind 3y ago
        Buddhism in Bhutan is different. I think it's the state religion, has monarchy support, it's Vajrayana (very few countries have Vajrayana as their major Buddhism), and religion is less "background noise" in Bhutan than somewhere like Japan, a kind of Buddhist-Shinto mash-up dissolving into atheism. I think Buddhism in Bhutan likely did influence this course of action.
      - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
        Yeah I put that caveat in there. The himalayas they also traditionally kill animals for food. They basically consumed 3 things barley, yak products (meat and milk) and tea. They didn't have much choice; was hard to grow anything else up in the mountains.But they were conscious about it and still careful but other animal lives. It's not only because they care about the animal, but also very much about they are afraid of the karma they create for themselves. Now in the refugee areas they prefer to buy their meat from the Islamic community ironically enough.
    - martopix 3y ago
      I think you misread my comment.
striking 3y ago
You actually want the sterilized strays to remain so that they put pressure on the resources that would otherwise feed the unsterilized strays. That suppresses the stray population even further. Also, wtf?
- cnity 3y ago
  To play devil's advocate here, I do think that human sensibilities about life preservation can be inconsistent and illogical. Your comment itself is contradictory is it not? If I am to understand "Also, wtf?" to mean something like "euthanising dogs is immoral because it shortens their life", your other argument is that sterilisation is superior because it essentially starves the other dogs. How is starvation morally superior to euthanasia? Caveat: I actually also have the same emotional knee-jerk response. I own and love a dog very dearly, and the idea of just "getting rid of all the dogs" doesn't sit well with me.
  - striking 3y ago
    It doesn't necessarily directly starve the other dogs, they'll have less energy to attempt to reproduce with. It's not an attempt to increase the death rate as much as it is an attempt to decrease the birth rate. My "also, wtf" stands.
    - cnity 3y ago
      I think these things usually come down to perceptions of human intervention as basically bad. If you actually witnessed the death of every individual dog in your scenario as compared with euthanasia, it's not clear that it would be more pleasant at all. These dogs will die diseased and malnourished by the roadside. Again, I am not really at odds with your emotional position, I'm just interested in the moral foundations on which we sit, if that makes sense at all. If I may make an attempt at the moral underpinning, it is something like "survival as intrinsic worth". There are flaws to this position, as with any.
      - striking 3y ago
pvaldes 3y ago
Is a solution, but not the best one. Would guarantee to propagate any disease much far away in no time. Street dogs provide also some services that are valuable like rodent control or cleaning roadkills
krowek 3y ago
This is a very good question because it touches many grounds. What's the humanist position on this? What's the (many) religion's position on this? And I'd also say, economically speaking, what's more viable? To euthanize them or to sterilize them? I'm totally biased in that euthanizing animals isn't a decision humans are meant to take unless you do have a responsibility for the animal (it's your pet, and it's ill, for instance). But in this specific case, no single human or humans have a direct responsibility for hundreds or thousands of dogs. The proposition on euthanizing stray animals looks just like a temporal, quick and dirty solution that teaches nothing to humans more than hiding the dirty under the carpet. Nothing after this will prevent stray animals to grow in number after some are reintroduced. Moreover, it isn't surprising that such points of view like yours are shared as of today, if we stop to think how all those animals ended sick, malnourished, and unprotected. There are people that still think that animals shouldn't be sterilized because of their "will" to reproduce themselves, or are just too lazy to do so.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

Bhutan is deeply buddhist

martopix 3y ago
Hopefully you don't have to be a Buddhist for that. Also I don't really see the advantage compared to sterilization.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Even though in certain Buddhist countries animals get slaughtered for food, taking lives of animals is a big thing in Buddhism. There is fundamentally no difference between animal consciousness and human in the buddhist view. But to take it to a human level: you dont see a difference in (chemical) castration of people with mental disability and killing them?
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Why is forcibly sterilizing animals better than forcibly sterilizing humans, in such a view? Or in their own framework, did Bhutan just engage in genocide against an unwanted demographic?
    - dncornholio 3y ago
      If we believe that animals were created by someone for men, it would follow that men were also created for animals since some animals do eat human flesh.
      - shiroiuma 3y ago
        The problem I see here is that dogs are not just "animals". They're artificial creations of humans, and an invasive species when they're not kept as pets inside homes. There's a good reason that, for instance, in the Australian outback they kill, on sight, and feral cat they find: they're invasive species that predate the local native animal species to extinction. Animals do not have a right to live when they don't belong in a particular ecosystem, especially when those animals aren't even natural to begin with. If we were talking about a native species of bear, things would be entirely different.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    taking lives of animals is a big thing in Buddhism How do explain (South) Korea and Japan that eat plenty of meat and have a Buddhist majority? Sri Lanka also has lots of Buddhists, and also eats lots of meat. This seems like nonsense to me.
    - dncornholio 3y ago
      Animal welfare is a thing in Buddhism though. India has animal welfare in their constitution. Buddhism is also the only religion that notes animal rights. I think you can compare it with Christians, there are plenty of sinners.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      The first precept of Buddhism is not to kill humans or animals. Not everybody is going to be crazy strict about it, but that core value of not taking life is there. Personally, I eat meat too, and I'm also not a huge fan of needlessly killing dogs, and I'm not even Buddhist! I feel like there's a middle ground where I can care about animals, respect life, and also have a cheeseburger. I'm certain some people will find that to be hypocritical, but it's really not a huge gotcha to me.
    - theonemind 3y ago
      Buddhism in Bhutan is different. I think it's the state religion, has monarchy support, it's Vajrayana (very few countries have Vajrayana as their major Buddhism), and religion is less "background noise" in Bhutan than somewhere like Japan, a kind of Buddhist-Shinto mash-up dissolving into atheism. I think Buddhism in Bhutan likely did influence this course of action.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      Yeah I put that caveat in there. The himalayas they also traditionally kill animals for food. They basically consumed 3 things barley, yak products (meat and milk) and tea. They didn't have much choice; was hard to grow anything else up in the mountains.But they were conscious about it and still careful but other animal lives. It's not only because they care about the animal, but also very much about they are afraid of the karma they create for themselves. Now in the refugee areas they prefer to buy their meat from the Islamic community ironically enough.
  - martopix 3y ago
    I think you misread my comment.

striking 3y ago

You actually want the sterilized strays to remain so that they put pressure on the resources that would otherwise feed the unsterilized strays. That suppresses the stray population even further. Also, wtf?

cnity 3y ago
To play devil's advocate here, I do think that human sensibilities about life preservation can be inconsistent and illogical. Your comment itself is contradictory is it not? If I am to understand "Also, wtf?" to mean something like "euthanising dogs is immoral because it shortens their life", your other argument is that sterilisation is superior because it essentially starves the other dogs. How is starvation morally superior to euthanasia? Caveat: I actually also have the same emotional knee-jerk response. I own and love a dog very dearly, and the idea of just "getting rid of all the dogs" doesn't sit well with me.
- striking 3y ago
  It doesn't necessarily directly starve the other dogs, they'll have less energy to attempt to reproduce with. It's not an attempt to increase the death rate as much as it is an attempt to decrease the birth rate. My "also, wtf" stands.
  - cnity 3y ago
    I think these things usually come down to perceptions of human intervention as basically bad. If you actually witnessed the death of every individual dog in your scenario as compared with euthanasia, it's not clear that it would be more pleasant at all. These dogs will die diseased and malnourished by the roadside. Again, I am not really at odds with your emotional position, I'm just interested in the moral foundations on which we sit, if that makes sense at all. If I may make an attempt at the moral underpinning, it is something like "survival as intrinsic worth". There are flaws to this position, as with any.
    - striking 3y ago

pvaldes 3y ago

Is a solution, but not the best one. Would guarantee to propagate any disease much far away in no time. Street dogs provide also some services that are valuable like rodent control or cleaning roadkills

krowek 3y ago

This is a very good question because it touches many grounds. What's the humanist position on this? What's the (many) religion's position on this? And I'd also say, economically speaking, what's more viable? To euthanize them or to sterilize them? I'm totally biased in that euthanizing animals isn't a decision humans are meant to take unless you do have a responsibility for the animal (it's your pet, and it's ill, for instance). But in this specific case, no single human or humans have a direct responsibility for hundreds or thousands of dogs. The proposition on euthanizing stray animals looks just like a temporal, quick and dirty solution that teaches nothing to humans more than hiding the dirty under the carpet. Nothing after this will prevent stray animals to grow in number after some are reintroduced. Moreover, it isn't surprising that such points of view like yours are shared as of today, if we stop to think how all those animals ended sick, malnourished, and unprotected. There are people that still think that animals shouldn't be sterilized because of their "will" to reproduce themselves, or are just too lazy to do so.