you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Captive animals don't always do well being released in the wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why not let the rules of nature decide? Unlike human society, that lets the weak rule the strong, only the strong may survive in the wild. That is natural selection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's not natural selection if we yanked them out of the natural order and kept them from acquiring the skills necessary to survive in the wild in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you consider people as part of the natural order, then it is in fact natural selection. This isn't a commendation of our place in nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    People always say this as some sort of "gotcha" statement, but what we do to them is clearly very different from their normal life cycle and something we have the will to stop doing or somehow make up for the damage unlike other natural events like volcanoes erupting or meteors striking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    How different is it than ladybugs and aphids, except for we (think we) have the will to do better than our nature demands? Also, I think I made it pretty clear that I don't think that stance does our species credit. But I would say the outcome is very natural, even if natural isn't exactly desirable.

  • source
  • parent