10 Oct 11
Some one has posted up that anything I say will not convince them of the opposite.
In other words we will defend our falsity to the last breath.
Or in other words we will remain dishonest to the end.
Dumb science.
Their crowning achievement is - Life comes from non-life. and they have a Phd to prove it.
10 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaI sense envy for others with a Ph.D.
Some one has posted up that anything I say will not convince them of the opposite.
In other words we will defend our falsity to the last breath.
Or in other words we will remain dishonest to the end.
Dumb science.
Their crowning achievement is - Life comes from non-life. and they have a Phd to prove it.
What happened? Did you flunk your B.A in Vedic studies?
-m.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Oct 11
Originally posted by SmittyTimeI am considering the edibility of [domestic] cats as a solution to world hunger.
This will cause many animals to get eaten.
There seem to be an awful lot of them and they do an awful lot of damage to the local ecosystem....
So far I haven't spotted any downside....
But I don't know what they taste like.....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, but then I was joking...
Can you support that claim with data?
However there is some (disputed) scientific research on cat's killing wildlife,
along with lots of supportive anecdotal evidence.
Also maintaining animals that hunt and kill (whether they are otherwise fed or not)
in densities far far higher than they would achieve in the wild suggests that they will
cause far more wildlife deaths than they would if we didn't maintain them as pets.
And there is no natural regulatory mechanism that stops them from wiping something
out as they get fed by us and so don't need the kill as food.
13 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was mostly interested in any scientific data because I know it is disputed.
However there is some (disputed) scientific research on cat's killing wildlife,
along with lots of supportive anecdotal evidence.
Also maintaining animals that hunt and kill (whether they are otherwise fed or not) in densities far far higher than they would achieve in the wild suggests that they will cause far more wildlife deaths than they would if we didn't maintain them as pets.
I am not convinced by that argument. I think that in most cases, cats simply replace other predators. So sure, we give them an upper hand over other predators, but I am not convinced that they, kill more wildlife than those other predators would.
And there is no natural regulatory mechanism that stops them from wiping something
out as they get fed by us and so don't need the kill as food.
Natural regulatory mechanisms don't stop extinctions either. As long as there is more than one food source, one can go extinct.
What I do know (from anecdotal evidence) is that if you have cats, you get less snakes. Which in a residential area - is a good thing.
Finally, your plan to reduce hunger by eating cats thus helping the environment is doomed to failure. Either the cats will be wiped out very quickly (and thus not serve to help with hunger any more), or we will breed them in even greater quantities to serve demand (thus harming the environment even more). You can't kill two birds with one stone in this case, but you can kill two birds with one cat!
My cat catches birds, snakes, moles, mole rats, insects and lizards.
14 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgePerhaps a bit of sage and rosemary ? 🙂
I am considering the edibility of [domestic] cats as a solution to world hunger.
There seem to be an awful lot of them and they do an awful lot of damage to the local ecosystem....
So far I haven't spotted any downside....
But I don't know what they taste like.....
It would certainly be fun for youth to hunt wild cats on the weekends ,lol
14 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadA place like Townsville, in North Queensland could do with a reduction in feral cats.
I was mostly interested in any scientific data because I know it is disputed.
[b]Also maintaining animals that hunt and kill (whether they are otherwise fed or not) in densities far far higher than they would achieve in the wild suggests that they will cause far more wildlife deaths than they would if we didn't maintain them as pets.
I am not con birds with one cat!
My cat catches birds, snakes, moles, mole rats, insects and lizards.[/b]
But I haven't seen it that bad anywhere else I've been.
I bet your a cat person🙂
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am. Cats have been bred to kill for fun. Cats will murder, and then leave their victim's body without eating. And then they'll murder again. We've bred them that way. And in a granary, with a mouse infestation, that's a good thing, because the mouse infestation itself is a human creation. Outside, it's a very, very bad thing.
I was mostly interested in any scientific data because I know it is disputed.
Also maintaining animals that hunt and kill (whether they are otherwise fed or not) in densities far far higher than they would achieve in the wild suggests that they will cause far more wildlife deaths than they would if we didn't maintain them as pets.
I am not con ...[text shortened]... edators, but I am not convinced that they, kill more wildlife than those other predators would.
A real predator, by contrast, will kill, eat, and then sleep it off. And won't risk his health going for the kill again until he needs to. You don't see a lion trying to catch a buffalo, or closer to house cat size, a serval plucking a bird out of the air, just because it's there and he could. It's too dangerous. A wild animal can't afford to risk injury just for sport, he only does it for food. This restraint has been bred out of house cats.
What I do know (from anecdotal evidence) is that if you have cats, you get less snakes. Which in a residential area - is a good thing.
You also get fewer birds, which is a bad thing. Most birds do more good than most snakes do harm - especially the kind of snake a cat could take out.
My cat catches birds, snakes, moles, mole rats, insects and lizards.
Yeah... is that disputed, too? It in itself seems quite strong evidence for the harm your cat does to the local wildlife, coming from your own keyboard.
Richard