3 ms·
There are animals living freely without humans growing them. In my area there are boars, horses, rabbits, badgers, mice, rats, gebrils, wolves, and all sorts of
by euccastro 17y ago
There are animals living freely without humans growing them. In my area there are boars, horses, rabbits, badgers, mice, rats, gebrils, wolves, and all sorts of birds large and small. Not very far away (like 200km), deers and bears. Don't get me started on sea life.
Oh, and cows too, in natural reserves (we have zoos too, but I'd rather shut them down.)
Some of the abovementioned animals are hunted, but that's not the reason they are there.
What country are you from, that you don't have room for a little wildlife? Luxembourg, Holland?
That said, it's not all black and white. Between having animals spend all their lives in a cage and leaving them free and wild forever in their natural habitat, there is the option of free range herding. I have recently seen a herd of cows go to the beach in Wales, and take a bath amongst amused surfers and tourists (e-mail me for pics). In these times I count those cows relatively lucky, even if they are eventually killed for food.
While I don't support the guys who broke into MIT, I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates.
After having accusing the OP of simplism, one would expect more cohesion and rigor in your counterarguments.
- Tichy 17y agoThe cow thing was not a counter argument. Anyway, we do have wild animals, just not cows. That wild cows exist is news to me - I almost suspected that they are a human creation and not fit for survival of their own (unlike buffaloes). " I don't think their goal was to reduce birth rates." Their goal was to feed the hungry. I mentioned that even feeding the hungry is not as simple a mechanism as it sounds, for example because of rising birth rates. In short if you think about eliminating hunger, you should probably think about birth rates. Is that really so uncohesive a line of thought?