h a l f b a k e r y
Ambivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
This program would have two prongs. One side would be
massive breeding program for large animals captured in
the wild. The other side would set up human-like bait
kill anything that attacks it. As animals who attack the
bait are less likely to breed hopefully an instinctive fear
people could be bred into them.
breeding animals caught in the wild would replace the
population with animals more likely to breed in captivity,
easier for people to capture, and otherwise pretty much
the generic animal.
Bonus: certified "killer bear" rugs.
other animal bi-products.
Bonus: public awareness of
natural selection and animal attack risk
||// public awareness of natural selection and
animal attack risk //
||That's a disadvantage. Much better to let
selection pressures continue to weed out the
less fit specimens of the human population
particularly in those jurisdictions where the
teaching of evolution theory is prohibited.
||Many wild animals will not breed in captivity. It's a major
frustration for those trying to rebuild endangered species
||The bait and kill portion of this idea is just really bad, not
just poorly thought out but downright unethical. All (read:
all) predator mammals are naturally wary of humans. Those
attacks that do occur are invariably the result of human
incursion. The widespread wildlife awareness programs
combined with live trapping and relocation already
practiced are more effective and humane. If you don't think
they're working it's a matter of underfunding rather than
||An immodest proposal: use this method targeted at criminals to