Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

**SmokenScion** · 01-23-12, 06:05 PM

Jesus?

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 07:51 PM

The problem with cats is that we created them through synthetic selection. Normally a feline is a top predator and exists in very small numbers. But we miniaturized and bred them to the point where there are cities filled with feral cats. And they decimate wildlife populations.

There are some species known as "keystone species." They have been determined to be those that have a profound effect on their local ecology. Other animals and systems rely on them existing. Honeybees and mice are good examples. Alligators are too; they stash kills on the bottom of the swamps pinned under logs and roots. This feeds the local bacteria and smaller fish. This is important because swamps are one of the best air & water-treatment systems on Earth. Honeybees are responsible for pollinating most of our crops; and there is not a substitute in many cases.

Now back to the cats: cats are a top tier predator. Many things they prey on are important; not honeybees or alligators, but certain birds and mice. Google keystone species and you will see why mice are important to many critical ecosystems. Normally, one cat exists for many prey; but we have changed that. Feral cats are pretty big problem as it turns out.

I did not watch the video, but I have textbooks that discuss this topic specifically. I do like cats quite a bit though.

It is worth noting glass buildings kill a huge number of birds too though.

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Yeah i know its about a book and they made sure that was clear in the video. The video was pointing out how absurd the book is. Just for starters say you get rid of your cat because of what was said. Well are you hurting the environment more then your helping? I mean they did say the basic amount of animals eatin by said cat. So is the cats output more or less the the animals it eats in a year?

Unless they have greater than perfect efficiency, any animal is going to use more energy than the sum of its prey, so the answer to your question is, always more. And that's ignoring the fact that cats and dogs aren't hunting wild animals, they're eating farmed animals, which wouldn't be raised if the demand were not there.

Worrying about what the animals are doing to damage the enviroment is fucking stupid all the way around no matter how you slice it. There are very few that should even be considered in a study like this and that is what we are using a a food source. The reason being is we are manipulating the animals exsistance.

No, what's stupid is ignoring the fact that everything that we do, including keeping pets, has an environmental impact. This impact exists whether or not you ignore it.

In any case who is to say what the animal population would be if we weren't here. So yeah i would agree the news most likely picked and choosed what it wanted to discuss and dumbed it down a bit but that doesnt change what a stupid ass waste of time the book is. Only a brain washed dipshit would buy into its contents.

The dog and cat population is absolutely higher than naturally sustainable populations.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Unless they have greater than perfect efficiency, any animal is going to use more energy than the sum of its prey

Yes.
sunlight (1000kilocal)->grass (100kilocal)->cow(10kilocal)->human(1kilocal)
sunlight -> grass -> mouse -> feral housecat

An order of magnitude of energy is lost for each stage typically in any trophic chain. Obviously the number of calories used in the initial consumption varies with the size of the organism (but not much from cell to cell except where eukaryotic versus prokaryotic cellular metabolism is examined).

And as well all know, energy moves one way through a system.

The trophic chain, people.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The dog and cat population is absolutely higher than naturally sustainable populations.

Dogs and cats would not exist if we had not created them. Wolves, coyotes and the other "naturally selected" animals would. And in some cases in large populations ... usually until they eat a lot of the rabbits, then a die-off happens.

Predator-prey modelling is very well understood at the moment.

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Pretty good write up on why this book is full of crap.

Actually, this article isn't very good:

[EDIT, Feb 17 2010: I've been informed that this paragraph is not accurate: the .84 hectares represents an estimate of the ecological footprint of a dog---which is a very different thing than the amount of land required to raise food for a dog. So for the time being, consider the cropland comparison moot.]

It's almost been a year, when can we expect to see some non-"moot" numbers in this pretty good writeup?

**WickedTribe** · 01-23-12, 08:19 PM

I think that we're getting a little caught up on this cat and dog book. Whether or not their point was over the top, their message along with the message shared by environmentalists - that our lifestyles have an impact which should be considered - is perfectly valid.

**SapiensErus** · 01-23-12, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

lol you brought captain planet to the conversation. My point was nothing more then a post was made about antienvironment when no one said anything about being antienvironement. The only thing that was said is some people go to far with it. If you watched the video youwould clearly see what was said was completely accurate.

If I invoke Captain Planet, it is a good sign I am goofing around (a bit).

I was mostly responding to the concept of not caring about one's impact on the environment.

Its like saying "I don't care if I clean up after the raw-chicken" or "I don't care about using toilets." There are undeniable negative repercussions if a mess goes untended.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Actually, this article isn't very good:

It's almost been a year, when can we expect to see some non-"moot" numbers in this pretty good writeup?

I guess first you would have to actually think its worth another write up to worry about it. Other then that point his points remain perfectly valid.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-23-12, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

If I invoke Captain Planet, it is a good sign I am goofing around (a bit).

I was mostly responding to the concept of not caring about one's impact on the environment.

Its like saying "I don't care if I clean up after the raw-chicken" or "I don't care about using toilets." There are undeniable negative repercussions if a mess goes untended.

I thought you were goofing around with the mention of capt planet. The rest was just an explanation for the prior post.