Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals
-
As a side note, I find it kind of interesting how this thread veered from ethic qualms about hunting to the subtly related controversy of re-introducing apex predators, without actually going through all the usual steps in between.
-
@acrow Right, so Finland is the same as India and in a couple of years will be in the same situation.
Sorry, we're not in the garage, there is no way I can answer that politely (and frankly, I don't care enough to make a garage thread about it).
-
@ixvedeusi The Socratic approach is conductive to enlightenment, though not always to blood pressure.
-
@remi That's okay. But if someone does make the thread, do invite me.
-
We have a few wolves around here. They aren't really a danger to humans unless they're rabid or you're a complete moron, but they will kill your livestock and your pets. But so will eagles and coyotes and mountain lions.
Mountain lions have attacked people though, and for some reason we're re-introducing them to our part of the state.
-
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@ixvedeusi The Socratic approach is conductive to enlightenment, though not always to blood pressure.
Actually, no. (And I apologize for quoting myself.) Maybe more like politics is akin to weather; it affects us all. But not quite equally, so it's easier to argue of the effects. And, face it, we like to argue.
-
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
P.S.
Approximately 50 dogs eaten by wolves annually,Approximately 10 000 sheep get killed by wolves annually in France (edit: as well as 500 or so goats, 100 cattle and 15 horses -- didn't see a number for dogs).
And still not a single attack on humans that I could find.
-
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
P.S.
Approximately 50 dogs eaten by wolves annually,Approximately 10 000 sheep get killed by wolves annually in France (edit: as well as 500 or so goats, 100 cattle and 15 horses -- didn't see a number for dogs).
And still not a single attack on humans that I could find.
Right. Just some in Russia, in 1947. Last one in Finland was in the 1800s, before they were wiped out. Wolves were shot on sight in Finland until kinda recently. Then they were "endangered", and were allowed to spread from Russia again.
Give it time.
-
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
And those 3 countries (and probably most other places in the Western world, including the US) show that, really, a managed wild wolves population is absolutely no threat to humans (again, sheep or cattle is another story -- but the argument "wolves attack humans" is totally invalid in that framework).
I think we make sure to keep the wolves away from people. They either live in Alaska or mostly only come down into the US in winter after living for most of the year in Canada.
-
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
P.S.
Approximately 50 dogs eaten by wolves annually,Approximately 10 000 sheep get killed by wolves annually in France (edit: as well as 500 or so goats, 100 cattle and 15 horses -- didn't see a number for dogs).
And still not a single attack on humans that I could find.
Okay, but what does that statistic tell you? That humans are better at running away than sheep?
-
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
On the other hand, I'm not a fan of re-introducing wolves to Finland. It's only a matter of time before they eat a kid again.
Why do you care about young goats?
Or young humans stupid enough to wander around in the woods far from their parents?
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
there’s literally like 20 wolves in the entirety of Germany.
there are definitely more since the population is doing so good they are moving east into
-
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
And those 3 countries (and probably most other places in the Western world, including the US) show that, really, a managed wild wolves population is absolutely no threat to humans (again, sheep or cattle is another story -- but the argument "wolves attack humans" is totally invalid in that framework).
Wolves usually avoid cattle. Even one cow can do a lot of damage to a group of wolves, and cattle come in herds.
-
@Luhmann said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
there’s literally like 20 wolves in the entirety of Germany.
there are definitely more since the population is doing so good they are moving east into
They took the long way around or what?
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Okay, but what does that statistic tell you?
That @acrow is spouting nonsense.
I started typing a longer answer but
the margin of this book is too smallthis isn't the garage so EOT for me.
-
@dkf said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
And those 3 countries (and probably most other places in the Western world, including the US) show that, really, a managed wild wolves population is absolutely no threat to humans (again, sheep or cattle is another story -- but the argument "wolves attack humans" is totally invalid in that framework).
Wolves usually avoid cattle. Even one cow can do a lot of damage to a group of wolves, and cattle come in herds.
https://www.drovers.com/article/oregon-approves-kill-permit-wolf-following-cattle-deaths
Also, wolves hunt buffalo.
-
@boomzilla I did say “usually”.
-
.... What the fuck is wrong with you people?
I know this community is built on harshness and sarcasm but this thread is literally (aside from the digression about the merits of European wolf populations) criticizing someone for their policy of choosing entertainment based on it's alignment with their opinions.
And the people who are doing it are the same ones constantly crowing about the supremacy of people's personal opinions over "social justice" and what not.
And then you're couching it in terms of imaginary generational politics.
Pro tip: If you're under 38 and not in undergrad or below, you're a fucking millennial. Get the fuck over it. If you're going to irrationally bitch about people, be up front about the characteristic of them you're bitching about. And in this, and basically every other case lately, it's "THEY LIKE SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE".
Assbags.
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
If you're under 38 and not in undergrad or below, you're a fucking millennial.
I'm safe! Wheee!
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I know this community is built on harshness and sarcasm but this thread is literally (aside from the digression about the merits of European wolf populations) criticizing someone for their policy of choosing entertainment based on it's alignment with their opinions.
Yes, but it's kinda ridiculous to consider playing RDR2 - a game all about killing and pillaging and other nasty stuff - but ultimately decide not to because they don't want virtual animals to suffer.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I know this community is built on harshness and sarcasm but this thread is literally (aside from the digression about the merits of European wolf populations) criticizing someone for their policy of choosing entertainment based on it's alignment with their opinions.
Yes, but it's kinda ridiculous to consider playing RDR2 - a game all about killing and pillaging and other nasty stuff - but ultimately decide not to because they don't want virtual animals to suffer.
Specifically, the poster (which I read on SO itself before this thread was posted) said something like "I'm ok with killing humans but not animals." To me, that's a pretty big .
-
@dkf said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
If you're under 38 and not in undergrad or below, you're a fucking millennial.
I'm safe! Wheee!
Not necessarily. "Did you more than trivially interact with pre broadband internet before starting a career" is a key indicator for the "xennial" transition group.
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
.... What the fuck is wrong with you people?
I know this community is built on harshness and sarcasm but this thread is literally (aside from the digression about the merits of European wolf populations) criticizing someone for their policy of choosing entertainment based on it's alignment with their opinions.
And the people who are doing it are the same ones constantly crowing about the supremacy of people's personal opinions over "social justice" and what not.
And then you're couching it in terms of imaginary generational politics.
Pro tip: If you're under 38 and not in undergrad or below, you're a fucking millennial. Get the fuck over it. If you're going to irrationally bitch about people, be up front about the characteristic of them you're bitching about. And in this, and basically every other case lately, it's "THEY LIKE SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE".
Assbags.
Flagged for off-topic
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
... What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Ain't nobody got that time for that.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I know this community is built on harshness and sarcasm but this thread is literally (aside from the digression about the merits of European wolf populations) criticizing someone for their policy of choosing entertainment based on it's alignment with their opinions.
Yes, but it's kinda ridiculous to consider playing RDR2 - a game all about killing and pillaging and other nasty stuff - but ultimately decide not to because they don't want virtual animals to suffer.
Specifically, the poster (which I read on SO itself before this thread was posted) said something like "I'm ok with killing humans but not animals." To me, that's a pretty big .
This is not new. In the SNES port of Wolfenstein 3d they replaced the dogs with mutant rats because cruelty to cute things. And on the other hand the humans were changed from Nazis to regular humans because raisins.
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@dkf said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
If you're under 38 and not in undergrad or below, you're a fucking millennial.
I'm safe! Wheee!
Not necessarily. "Did you more than trivially interact with pre broadband internet before starting a career" is a key indicator for the "xennial" transition group.
Originally wanted to make Ubuntu joke, but couldn't find any link that would work in this context.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I never understood this whole protection of endangered species thing. If they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them, so isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?
The actual fuck?!
Tigers going extinct? Well, too bad, should’ve evolved faster to kill humanity before humanity killed them.
-
@Weng said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
In the SNES port of Wolfenstein 3d they replaced the dogs with mutant rats because cruelty to cute things.
If someone considers those dogs cute, they must have more brain damage than all video games have ever done to anyone.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I never understood this whole protection of endangered species thing. If they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them, so isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?
The actual fuck?!
Tigers going extinct? Well, too bad, should’ve evolved faster to kill humanity before humanity killed them.How much time has passed between humans killing off tigers and humans reintroducing tigers? Because depending on it, it's either desperate attempts to restore ecosystem, or destroying a perfectly healthy ecosystem for the second time.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Reminds me of:
: I believe in Jesus, he is like a bro to me... but I like D&D games so when I found out the third act is about fighting demons, I felt scared and just asked my friends and family what I should do... they said I should just quit and play less demon based games! So I listened to them!
I still can't decide whether it's Poe or Noe...
I mean, I would have to vote noe... I can't imagine why a Christian would balk at killing demons.
-
@boomzilla said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
They took the long way around or what?
No are taking the long way around the Maginot Line on their way to France ... these are German wolves after all.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
I never understood this whole protection of endangered species thing. If they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them, so isn't it more of harm to keep those species alive at all cost than to just let them die off?
The actual fuck?!
Tigers going extinct? Well, too bad, should’ve evolved faster to kill humanity before humanity killed them.How much time has passed between humans killing off tigers and humans reintroducing tigers? Because depending on it, it's either desperate attempts to restore ecosystem, or destroying a perfectly healthy ecosystem for the second time.
There’s still a few alive, so maybe a negative few decades.
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them, and 2) stopping that to keep them alive is a destroying a “perfectly healthy ecosystem”.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
-
@topspin Also, an ecosystem lacking a major predator cannot be "healthy". We're seeing that in Germany - the boar and deer population is massively overinflated which leads to actual injuries of humans (due to boars), farmers having problems because their fields get literally plowed by animals (boars again) and forests having problems with their tree saplings because the deers will eat them.
-
@remi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Okay, but what does that statistic tell you?
That @acrow is spouting nonsense.
I started typing a longer answer but
the margin of this book is too smallthis isn't the garage so EOT for me.Why, or rather how, does it prove me wrong? Sheep are the easier prey, for they are not kept indoors. And?
You say that wolves have not eaten a human in Europe. I counter that recorded human-eating has happened as little as 71 years ago.My argument is that humans are not special from a wolf's point of view, so it's only a matter of time before a human child becomes the easiest prey around. The likelyhood of this is increased by:
@dkf said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:Or young humans stupid enough to wander around in the woods far from their parents?
Which is caused less by stupidity and more by necessity. School is mandatory. People live in the woods and then reproduce. Ergo, children will walk in the woods, starting at age 7, unsupervised, by necessity.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
I.e. thisIf they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them
is completely bullshit.
Or, if you prefer to be pedantically correct, then yes, we should just exterminate everything, then nothing could endanger the ecosystem of wasteland.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
Which ones? The african ones were hunted for the pelts. The indian ones keep running into the human population. In the latter case, you could say that the habitat changed, true.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska Doesn't really fit well with my sense of ethics, too anthropocentric for my taste. Can also lead to all kinds of problems because we humans are in general very bad at considering the medium to long term consequences of our actions.
Wait. You think we're actually good at considering the short term consequences of our actions?
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
But now that we've destroyed it - can it support them?
Edit: and just to make it clear - I'm talking about a situation where the tiger went (almost) extinct, but all the other animals are fine.
-
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
You say that wolves have not eaten a human in Europe. I counter that recorded human-eating has happened as little as 71 years ago.
How many cases were there actually? And if you have that number please create a chart which displays the relative risk of death for all animals.
You'd be surprised, for example, that the common cow is a rather nasty critter...
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
But now that we've destroyed it - can it support them?
Edit: and just to make it clear - I'm talking about a situation where the tiger went (almost) extinct, but all the other animals are fine.
The small population that is left? Yes. Until we destroy the rest of the habitat, too.
How does that show that them being on the edge of extinction is caused by them not being supported by the ecosystem, in which they’ve lived for eons? And also, how does that show “the ecosystem” is better of without those species because otherwise they wouldn’t be endangered in the first place?
-
@Rhywden said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
You'd be surprised, for example, that the common cow is a rather nasty critter...
And a major greenhouse gases source!
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
But now that we've destroyed it - can it support them?
Edit: and just to make it clear - I'm talking about a situation where the tiger went (almost) extinct, but all the other animals are fine.
The small population that is left? Yes. Until we destroy the rest of the habitat, too.
So if the new habitat can only support the small population that is left... And we're trying to increase that population... Wouldn't that upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem even more?
in which they’ve lived for eons?
Tigers haven't lived in an ecosystem where tigers used to live but not anymore.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't stop killing them off. I just asked why reintroduction is a good thing if it's essentially the same as introducing new, unknown (to the ecosystem in its present post-purge state) species.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
But now that we've destroyed it - can it support them?
Edit: and just to make it clear - I'm talking about a situation where the tiger went (almost) extinct, but all the other animals are fine.
The small population that is left? Yes. Until we destroy the rest of the habitat, too.
So if the new habitat can only support the small population that is left... And we're trying to increase that population... Wouldn't that upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem even more?
in which they’ve lived for eons?
Tigers haven't lived in an ecosystem where tigers used to live but not anymore.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't stop killing them off.
You said “If they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them”, which isn’t just completely wrong but post-hoc justifies killing anything, because by killing it you’re bringing it into a state where it needs to be killed.
I just asked why reintroduction is a good thing if it's essentially the same as introducing new, unknown (to the ecosystem in its present post-purge state) species.
That’s not the same thing though, and natural reproliferation is also not the same as reintroduction.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
How exactly does us destroying their natural habitat mean 1) the ecosystem (which we’re destroying) cannot support them
Are you saying a destroyed habitat can support them? Why were they going extinct then to start with?
I’m saying it could support them if we didn’t destroy it.
But now that we've destroyed it - can it support them?
Edit: and just to make it clear - I'm talking about a situation where the tiger went (almost) extinct, but all the other animals are fine.
The small population that is left? Yes. Until we destroy the rest of the habitat, too.
So if the new habitat can only support the small population that is left... And we're trying to increase that population... Wouldn't that upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem even more?
in which they’ve lived for eons?
Tigers haven't lived in an ecosystem where tigers used to live but not anymore.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't stop killing them off.
You said “If they're endangered, it means the ecosystem cannot support them”, which isn’t just completely wrong but post-hoc justifies killing anything, because by killing it you’re bringing it into a state where it needs to be killed.
- I never said killing non-endangered animals is okay.
- Let's say we stopped killing endangered species. Is it still endangered?
I just asked why reintroduction is a good thing if it's essentially the same as introducing new, unknown (to the ecosystem in its present post-purge state) species.
That’s not the same thing though, and natural reproliferation is also not the same as reintroduction.
That's what I'm asking. What's this difference, and how does it change the end result of artificially manipulating one element of the ecosystem so that instead of being catastrophic, it prevents a catastrophe instead? I'm talking about a situation where a species has been endangered/extinct long enough that the rest of the ecosystem has already changed significantly in result. Because when the ecosystem hasn't yet reacted to the change, the answer is trivial.
-
@Gąska That assumes both that this is the case and that the ecosystem is stable now (and again, desert wasteland is also stable). Just because the ecosystem has “reacted” already doesn’t mean this reaction isn’t “slipping out of control/balance”.
On the contrary, maybe the ecosystem is regaining balance naturally by the reproliferation.
-
@Rhywden said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
You say that wolves have not eaten a human in Europe. I counter that recorded human-eating has happened as little as 71 years ago.
How many cases were there actually? And if you have that number please create a chart which displays the relative risk of death for all animals.
You'd be surprised, for example, that the common cow is a rather nasty critter...
According to Wikipedia, numerous cases. Does it matter? It's a unnecessary risk anyway.
I don't live on a cow-pasture. But I have family living "in the sticks". Approximately 15% of Finnish people live in "rural areas", which is defined as having individual houses more than 200m apart. The space between is forest (personal experience), which is ideal wolf territory. Deer live in the southernmost areas (imported from the U.S.), but in most of the country the only large herbivores are moose and rabbit.
-
@topspin said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Gąska That assumes both that this is the case
If it's not the case, then the answer is simple. But I doubt that any large predator could go from tens of thousands to just tens and not leave an impact on its surrounding environment for several decades. But maybe I'm wrong.
and that the ecosystem is stable now
It never is. But large actions cause large reactions. And a large predator going (almost) extinct is a large action.
(and again, desert wasteland is also stable)
Why do you assume the goal is to have stability? The goal is to have lots and lots and lots and lots of resources - including wild animals. It's just that the best way to have lots of wild animals is to not touch anything. At least that's my understanding.
Just because the ecosystem has “reacted” already doesn’t mean this reaction isn’t “slipping out of control/balance”.
On the contrary, maybe the ecosystem is regaining balance naturally by the reproliferation.I suspect you might have messed up a few words and a couple negations here, but I think I know where you're getting at. The change is ongoing, and it's possible the change is going towards total extinction of everything. And doing something, like restoring a species that has used to live there in the past, might prevent that outcome. But how do we know whether the ecosystem is going that way? And how do we know whether reintroduction of species won't cause the already-changed-a-little environment to go even worse? Serious questions.
-
@Gąska said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
Tigers haven't lived in an ecosystem where tigers used to live but not anymore.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't stop killing them off. I just asked why reintroduction is a good thing if it's essentially the same as introducing new, unknown (to the ecosystem in its present post-purge state) species.Introduce them to farms.
-
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@Rhywden said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
@acrow said in Millennial wants to play Red Dead 2, but doesn't want to hurt the poor little animals:
You say that wolves have not eaten a human in Europe. I counter that recorded human-eating has happened as little as 71 years ago.
How many cases were there actually? And if you have that number please create a chart which displays the relative risk of death for all animals.
You'd be surprised, for example, that the common cow is a rather nasty critter...
According to Wikipedia, numerous cases. Does it matter? It's a unnecessary risk anyway.
I don't live on a cow-pasture. But I have family living "in the sticks". Approximately 15% of Finnish people live in "rural areas", which is defined as having individual houses more than 200m apart. The space between is forest (personal experience), which is ideal wolf territory. Deer live in the southernmost areas (imported from the U.S.), but in most of the country the only large herbivores are moose and rabbit.
Then you should be in even less of a danger because wolves only really become dangerous when they become accustomed to humans (and by that I mean: forced to live in close proximity to humans regularly).
And please don't talk of "unnecessary risks". By that yardstick we all should stop driving cars immediately. And stop doing plenty of other things. No red meat for you!