Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Natural selection would probably see cow, chicken and pig populations explode without human intervention, they're just genetically nearly bullet proof at this point in time.
Its like introducing domesticated rabbits, once they get past that first generation and their survival instincts return to the surface, they'll probably squeeze out any similar wild life .
Out of curiousity does your pro natural selection no human intervention stance extent to humans?
|
It's possible that if we flipped the switch tomorrow and everyone stopped eating meat that these animals populations could further explode but they live very sheltered lives in fences/cages, with something providing all the food/water they require, surviving in the wild, finding their own food are significant obstacles that not all of the population are likely to survive. Their populations are so large not just because we support them but because we specifically breed more and more of them.
Not sure what your question is looking for, if its "Do I think if a person is weaker we should we not help them out because of natural selection", then no obliviously not. Just because I believe in natural section doesn't mean I don't believe in ethics or anything else, the pro natural selection no human intervention statements were made to a specific existential question. Further, I don't see how a no human intervention stance can be applied to humans.