[coldtea]

Yes, let's make the life of a pet miserable so we can have urban/suburban birds...

As if the problem is the loss of birds in Manhattan or Queens, and not the loss of birds in millions of acres of rural USA (where cats are not really the problem), for example...

[lawlessone]

>Yes, let's make the life of a pet miserable so we can have urban/suburban birds...

Responsible people don't let their dogs roam the streets as they can be a threat to strangers, children etc.

why should we treat cat's any differently especially when cats kill far more.

[Buttons840]

The reason you gave for not allowing dogs to roam does not apply to cats.

[Angostura]

We shouldn't be making like for pets more miserable. We should be explaining to people the damage that cats to to the local ecology and dissuading them from having them. A fun talk I had with my kids.

[icebraining]

Kids are far more destructive for the environment than cats, though.

[simonh]

Allowing one damaging thing isn't a good enough reason for allowing another damaging thing. In both cases the costs and benefits need to stand on their own merits.

[icebraining]

Actually, no, I don't agree with that. It's more of a balancing act than a piecemeal analysis. Being generally frugal leaves you more space to waste a few resources on specific things. Now, some things are over the limit regardless of how frugal you are generally, and pet cats may or may not be one of those.

[simonh]

It seems like here you’re arguing that banning some damaging things might make some others allowable. That’s the inverse of the argument I was discussing.

I understand the argument and it’s reasonable, but in the case if each activity under consideration, they have to be assessed relative to the total harm to the environment, not to directly against each other individually. But there could be a hierarchy of comparison.

Still, as I said this is the inverse case to the one I was replying to, which I still think is completely unreasonable.

[icebraining]

Sure, but it still reads like a guy idling his Hummer so he can explain the environmental effects of someone's bicycle.

[PhasmaFelis]

Source on that? Most kids don't make a habit of killing local wildlife. Or are you using "kids" as a proxy for "habitat loss from rising human population"?

[icebraining]

I'm including indirect kills over their lifetime, not just direct kills over the childhood (kittens aren't capable of killing that much either), but otherwise, it's a fairly 1:1 comparison, nothing to do with whether the human population is rising or not.

[PhasmaFelis]

What are you calling "indirect kills"?

[icebraining]

Anything that we consume and whose production method kills some number of birds. The number is immense, and it includes all kinds of stuff that most people do, particularly those in wealthier areas of the world.

[Angostura]

And nuclear weapons are more destructive than my 16 year old. So that's all good then.

Sorry, what point were you trying to make?

[icebraining]

If you were a producer of nuclear weapons and were warning people of the destructiveness dangers of having 16 year olds, I'd find it absurd. Wouldn't you?

Essentially, it's hypocritical to talk about environmental dangers on one activity when performing a much more environmentally destructive activity.

[coldtea]

Well, an urban centre doesn't have much "local ecology" to begin with...

[Kaiyou]

The only birds in my city are pidgeons (that defecate everywhere), sparrows and crows. At least the only ones I actually see.

[Angostura]

Which city would that be? Because I suspect you would be surprised by the levels of diversity that are clinging on.

[Kaiyou]

I'm pretty sure there are more birds in the parks, where there are trees and stuff. But in my street I don't see those kind of birds.

[wavefunction]

I guess if those are our options then better for all if your cat is inside safe from cars and predators and yay we get birds!

[Ensorceled]

Or, you know, don't enslave cats in miserable settings.

[nradov]

I am fine with cats being miserable. That is an acceptable outcome.