3 ms·

Probably there's a certain cat population level that the local ecosystem would support, but not a artifically high population level enable by humans feeding the

Probably there's a certain cat population level that the local ecosystem would support, but not a artifically high population level enable by humans feeding the cats. But our culture and modern views relating to nature and cats would never allow the idea of having a population of feral cats fending for themselves in a unhabited island.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> our culture and modern views relating to nature and cats would never allow the idea of having a population of feral cats fending for themselves in a unhabited island …national parks exist.
GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
Cats pretty much decimated the native bird population of most Hawaiian islands which has had a pretty big impact down the food chain. House cats are definitely cute but they’re also a manmade ecological abomination as an invasive/introduced species.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Nah, that's natural selection at work. It is not like we are a kind of metaphysical entity floating above the aether like some kind of demiurge. We are part of the nature, there's no morals on evolution, no preferred steady state. If we protect an species we are playing god, if we don't, the same.
  - freilanzer 2y ago
    That's the opposite of "natural selection". Invasive species ruin ecosystems.
  - birksherty 2y ago
    Nope you are wrong. Cats are brought by humans everywhere where they are not native. Humans already destroyed ecosystem by many ways. This was just trying to reducing that harm.
    - Euphorbium 2y ago
      This is going to blow your mind, but humans are part of nature. The view that are not nature is religious.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        Species purposely introduced by humans would be considered artificial not 'natural' selection. If the cats swam over to the island of their own volition as a survival strategy though, that would blow my mind.
        elzbardico 2y ago
        So, would ticks brought to a new prairie by bisons. So, would seed brough by the feces of migrant birds. Yes, we can CHOOSE any moral framework, including one where we introduce this arbitrary notion of artificiality to treat the impact of homo sapiens as a distinct category. But let's not treat this as science. I wouldn't go so far to call it as a religion, but it is still on the realm of ethics and philosophy. We can even have pragmatical reasons for choosing so, like the need for a particular eco-system to stay in a given state for our own confort, health and economic reasons. But it is still an arbitrary choice. Species migrate by themselves in the nature, sometimes they play havoc on the existing biome they migrate themselves into. This was, it is, and it will be a significant driver of evolution long after we are gone from earth. And on this particular case, it is not even like we are restoring the island to some idealized, pristine steady state. Cats are not the only species that piggyback on our civilization to spread, we also have the domestic mouse. If anything, completely eliminating the cat from those islands will serve only to ensure that the domestic mouse will be the dominant species there.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Sure, "we broke it so we should try to help maintain it" is entirely an ethical question and not a scientific one. Are you satisfied now? Can we go back to talking about the problem instead of arguing about the definition of "natural"? ...but wait, you're the one that introduced the word "natural" to this conversation, using it as a reason to do nothing. That's ridiculous. If everything is natural, then your argument would say we should never do anything ever. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use such a wide-reaching definition of natural, then you can't also use "natural" as a motivation to not intervene.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    The trouble here is that this is a minor, technical nitpick, which I can't really support. "Natural" as a layman's term doesn't just mean "thing from nature" but also means "thing undisturbed by human activity". People here clearly mean this latter thing when talking about "natural". Which is pretty confusing, I agree. Languages should have a word for this, as it is clearly needed. Also, observe that many humans don't like natural selection either. There are efforts, for example, to conserve species that are going extinct, no matter how natural or man-made the cause.
    - elzbardico 2y ago
      Why natural should mean "things undisturbed by human activity". This is just an arbitrary moral choice.
      - npteljes 2y ago
        Natural already means "things undisturbed by human activity", among a good lot of other things. As long as there's a clear need for such a word, it would do us good to have a separate word for that, like notmanmade or whatever, because that would make discussions clearer.
addicted 2y ago
The problem is that the domestic cat has literally been domesticated and isn’t really intended to live in the wild. Wild cats already exist in the wild. The problem there is we’re killing them through deforestation and poaching.
defrost 2y ago
> a population of feral cats fending for themselves in a unhabited island. There were numerous examples of this around Australia, there still are some - it's damn hard, nigh impossible, work to remove them via traditional trapping means w/out motivated local inhabitants. These days we have the Felixer: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/feral-cat-management-device-felixer-tested-at-animal-reserve/12296874 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/feral-cat-management-... https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/felixer,-the-grooming-trap,-works-to-control-feral-cats https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/felixer,-the-grooming-trap,-... Even so, it's unlikely feral cats will be eradicated from Australia anytime soon.
- howard941 2y ago
  Calling the Felixer a groomer is either vernacular in the feral-control community or a terrible euphemism.
  - defrost 2y ago
    It's a self grooming behaviour trap - the cat ingests a poison because it grooms to remove gel stuck to its fur.
elzbardico 2y ago
Let's also not forget that cats are not the only species that piggyback in our civilization to spread. Far more successful than even the cats in doing so, is the domestic mouse. If anything, once there are no more humans and cats on this island we can rest pretty assured that our friendly rodents will become the dominant species.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> our culture and modern views relating to nature and cats would never allow the idea of having a population of feral cats fending for themselves in a unhabited island …national parks exist.

GuinansEyebrows 2y ago

Cats pretty much decimated the native bird population of most Hawaiian islands which has had a pretty big impact down the food chain. House cats are definitely cute but they’re also a manmade ecological abomination as an invasive/introduced species.

elzbardico 2y ago
Nah, that's natural selection at work. It is not like we are a kind of metaphysical entity floating above the aether like some kind of demiurge. We are part of the nature, there's no morals on evolution, no preferred steady state. If we protect an species we are playing god, if we don't, the same.
- freilanzer 2y ago
  That's the opposite of "natural selection". Invasive species ruin ecosystems.
- birksherty 2y ago
  Nope you are wrong. Cats are brought by humans everywhere where they are not native. Humans already destroyed ecosystem by many ways. This was just trying to reducing that harm.
  - Euphorbium 2y ago
    This is going to blow your mind, but humans are part of nature. The view that are not nature is religious.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      Species purposely introduced by humans would be considered artificial not 'natural' selection. If the cats swam over to the island of their own volition as a survival strategy though, that would blow my mind.
      - elzbardico 2y ago
        So, would ticks brought to a new prairie by bisons. So, would seed brough by the feces of migrant birds. Yes, we can CHOOSE any moral framework, including one where we introduce this arbitrary notion of artificiality to treat the impact of homo sapiens as a distinct category. But let's not treat this as science. I wouldn't go so far to call it as a religion, but it is still on the realm of ethics and philosophy. We can even have pragmatical reasons for choosing so, like the need for a particular eco-system to stay in a given state for our own confort, health and economic reasons. But it is still an arbitrary choice. Species migrate by themselves in the nature, sometimes they play havoc on the existing biome they migrate themselves into. This was, it is, and it will be a significant driver of evolution long after we are gone from earth. And on this particular case, it is not even like we are restoring the island to some idealized, pristine steady state. Cats are not the only species that piggyback on our civilization to spread, we also have the domestic mouse. If anything, completely eliminating the cat from those islands will serve only to ensure that the domestic mouse will be the dominant species there.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Sure, "we broke it so we should try to help maintain it" is entirely an ethical question and not a scientific one. Are you satisfied now? Can we go back to talking about the problem instead of arguing about the definition of "natural"? ...but wait, you're the one that introduced the word "natural" to this conversation, using it as a reason to do nothing. That's ridiculous. If everything is natural, then your argument would say we should never do anything ever. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use such a wide-reaching definition of natural, then you can't also use "natural" as a motivation to not intervene.
- npteljes 2y ago
  The trouble here is that this is a minor, technical nitpick, which I can't really support. "Natural" as a layman's term doesn't just mean "thing from nature" but also means "thing undisturbed by human activity". People here clearly mean this latter thing when talking about "natural". Which is pretty confusing, I agree. Languages should have a word for this, as it is clearly needed. Also, observe that many humans don't like natural selection either. There are efforts, for example, to conserve species that are going extinct, no matter how natural or man-made the cause.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    Why natural should mean "things undisturbed by human activity". This is just an arbitrary moral choice.
    - npteljes 2y ago
      Natural already means "things undisturbed by human activity", among a good lot of other things. As long as there's a clear need for such a word, it would do us good to have a separate word for that, like notmanmade or whatever, because that would make discussions clearer.

addicted 2y ago

The problem is that the domestic cat has literally been domesticated and isn’t really intended to live in the wild. Wild cats already exist in the wild. The problem there is we’re killing them through deforestation and poaching.

defrost 2y ago

> a population of feral cats fending for themselves in a unhabited island. There were numerous examples of this around Australia, there still are some - it's damn hard, nigh impossible, work to remove them via traditional trapping means w/out motivated local inhabitants. These days we have the Felixer: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/feral-cat-management-device-felixer-tested-at-animal-reserve/12296874 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/feral-cat-management-... https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/felixer,-the-grooming-trap,-works-to-control-feral-cats https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/felixer,-the-grooming-trap,-... Even so, it's unlikely feral cats will be eradicated from Australia anytime soon.

howard941 2y ago
Calling the Felixer a groomer is either vernacular in the feral-control community or a terrible euphemism.
- defrost 2y ago
  It's a self grooming behaviour trap - the cat ingests a poison because it grooms to remove gel stuck to its fur.

elzbardico 2y ago

Let's also not forget that cats are not the only species that piggyback in our civilization to spread. Far more successful than even the cats in doing so, is the domestic mouse. If anything, once there are no more humans and cats on this island we can rest pretty assured that our friendly rodents will become the dominant species.