We will not change.

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.

Originally posted by Dasa
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.

I sense envy for others with a Ph.D.

What happened? Did you flunk your B.A in Vedic studies?

-m.

This will cause many animals to get eaten.

Originally posted by SmittyTime
This will cause many animals to get eaten.

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.....

This style of posting reveals how you are simply defeated in every respect by your own devices.

I'm a poor college student. I was going to eat a baked potato for dinner. Now I'm going to eat a baked potato with bacon bits.

Thanks for livening up my meal, Dasa.

At least that's one less spud for Dasa.

Maybe we could all eat veg imported from Oz. If we consume quickly, we could deplete the Brisbane stock.

I bet he'd then eat meat! ..😀

-m.

Originally posted by amolv06
I'm a poor college student. I was going to eat a baked potato for dinner. Now I'm going to eat a baked potato with bacon bits.

Thanks for livening up my meal, Dasa.

This got a chuckle out of me. Thumbs up.

Originally posted by mikelom
I bet he'd then eat meat! ..😀

Oh, no. Never. He would then live, Vedically, off nothing but the air. Because that's what the Sanskrits did, when the Earth was made of gold.

Or so he would claim.

Richard

Originally posted by googlefudge
There seem to be an awful lot of them and they do an awful lot of damage to the local ecosystem....

Can you support that claim with data?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you support that claim with data?

No, but then I was joking...

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.

Originally posted by googlefudge
However there is some (disputed) scientific research on cat's killing wildlife,
along with lots of supportive anecdotal evidence.

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 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.

Originally posted by googlefudge
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.....

Perhaps a bit of sage and rosemary ? 🙂

It would certainly be fun for youth to hunt wild cats on the weekends ,lol

Originally posted by twhitehead
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]

A place like Townsville, in North Queensland could do with a reduction in feral cats.
But I haven't seen it that bad anywhere else I've been.

I bet your a cat person🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

I 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.
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