I'm not sure what's confusing about it. A species represents a line of genetics, and you clearly see yourself as a moral authority on what genetics do and don't get to continue to reproduce themselves. For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with this on principle - negative genetic traits that cause pain in animals can and should be bred out of them - I just believe that the type of eugenics you are invoking is a morally unjustifiable type.

what really is the material reason for keeping in existence animals who have been selectively bred solely for selfish human means?

There is no "material" reason. It should be done because it is the right thing to do. If you want a moral justification, I would say that life is valuable in all of its forms, and that domesticated animals represent just as valid of a form of life as wild ones. Their existence makes the world a better place and extinguishing them would be morally reprehensible no matter how nice you are about it or how slowly you do it, so establishing a new paradigm where they continue to exist in a way that balances environmental costs and ethical concerns is better than the alternative of sterilizing them and letting them all die out.

I believe that you have succumbed to a kind of "animal ownership realism", where you can only imagine animals living alongside humans through the lens of exploitation that they are currently subject to. What I would advocate is an advancement of humanity's relationship with its domesticated animals to a kind of non-exploitative symbiosis. Dogs cannot live in the wild, and that's okay. Cats are specialized to live in human domiciles, and that's okay. There is no reason to assume that we cannot still share companionship with dogs or live alongside cats or any of the hundreds of other human-pet relationships in a future that has abolished all forms of exploitation, human or otherwise.

[–] SnakeEyes@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Wait this is a rerun of outdoor cats, like it has the same points

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

Much like 2016, some things never end

[+] Angel@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Please read my full comment before replying. I specifically said:

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with this on principle

by which I was referring to applying eugenics to animals. I simply draw a distinction between getting rid of genetic diseases and committing genocide.

the abolitionist position is to selflessly care for these animals until they are fazed out

And what does "fazed out" entail? I can see that you care for individual animal lives, but I view letting the species die out as morally equivalent to killing them, while it seems that you attach no moral weight to the existence of the species itself at all. Which is fine, but if you're going to argue that species in themselves don't have a right to exist then argue that point, don't dance around it like you're currently doing.

Letting a genetic line fade by refusing forcible breeding

This is a shift of the goalposts. Earlier you specifically mentioned mass sterilization to prevent feral animals from continuing to breed, justifying it by the bad conditions they live in rather than advocating for an improvement of those conditions.

at the complete cost of their autonomy

This is what I mean when I said you have succumbed to "animal ownership realism." It's a deliberate invocation of the phrase "capitalist realism", which refers to the tendency of people under capitalism to have difficulty imagining non-capitalist systems. You are having difficulty imagining a paradigm where animals simultaneously have autonomy and are cared for by the people they live around/with. I want to imagine it is possible to have a world where animals live with humans not as property.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

I want to imagine it is possible to have a world where animals live with humans not as property.

the befriending crows people kinda do this

[–] AF_R@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

So animals cannot consent to being in a safe environment where they literally live longer, receive healthy diets and medical care, and form loving bonds with people, but sterilizing them is fine?

I’m gonna be honest there are about 3,000,000 steps towards leftism that need to be taken before this can even remotely be considered a hill to die on which I am sure you would be more than glad to filter and purge leftists by