Wouldn’t the world be better if all creatures were herbivores? Herbivores eat plants to live. There would be no killing. No animals would prey on another animal. I am looking at this very simplistically but as there would be no killing there would be a lot more animals. The planet wouldn’t be able to sustain them so their lifespan would have to be much shorter. We’d all live for five years maximum and eat grass 😉
That includes cats. But what if everything is as it is now but cats were herbivores. You know what would happen, no one would like cats anymore. One reason that we like cats is because they are such impressive predators. We admire them for their skills. They have developed superbly athletic anatomy and skills to hunt efficiently.
If cats were herbivores they would not have these skills. Society has a schizophrenic attitude towards the cat. On the one hand we love the lythe, powerful and athletic abilities and on the other we moan and complain bitterly about cats preying on birds and not being native species. What do we want? One of the other?
But if cats were herbivores and had some how developed athletic skills, no one would moan anymore about cats killing birds. The moaners would leave the cat alone.
And what if cats had one litter every five years with a maximum of two kittens per litter. No one could moan about cats breeding like flies, which by the way it a misrepresentation. You wouldn’t even need spaying and neutering.
Personally, I would prefer it if all animals including the human animal were herbivores. It would be a better word. No killing to eat for a start. I think shorter lives would be an improvement too We’d probably live for about a year! It would be a very happy year, though.
Are herbivores more gentle creatures? They appear to be. Deer are gentle, aren’t they? Cows are benign and passive. Think how unaggressive the world would be if all animals were obligate vegetarians.
Carnivorism = agressivity. Vegetarianism = passivity. Is that right?
An animal has to have an aggressive streak to be an effective carnivore as (s)he has to hunt. The more aggressive a hunter the more effective the hunter is (as long as it is accompanied by guile).
So, the obligate vegetarian cat would be super passive. He’s probably have no claws and small teeth. No canine teeth (the long ones at the either side of the upper jaw, at the front). He’d be a passive pudding, a blob. That would suit some people. The people who like to modify their cat to make the cat a fluff ball.
People would not be fearful of the herbivore cat. This would mean they would treat the cat better. Or would they? If humans remained as they are they’d find some way to hurt the cat whether the cat was a vegetarian or a carnivore. But if people were also herbivores, they’d be more passive and leave cats alone.
If people were herbivores and cats carnivores we’d be in danger of being eaten by our domestic cat ;).
Conclusion: If cats were herbivores, they’d no longer be cats. Cats can’t be herbivores because being a carnivore is what makes the cat a cat.
Associated: Cat that eats vegetation.
Wow, that’s unexpected. Thanks Connie.
FYI, I recently read an article about dear eating birds.. so the idea of dears being gentle, not so much.
http://io9.com/field-cameras-catch-deer-eating-birds-wait-why-do-deer-1689440870
Agreed. I was just asking the question.
do you think plants alone can sustain all the creatures man and animal?It is a good point but impossible, God created both herbivorous and carnivorous..he had a reason for all this
Yes, I do want to start all over again. I realise you can’t just change one thing because everything is joined together. But it doesn’t look that good does it – the planet. It looks good from space when you can’t see what is going on.
I think the truth is we are animals (of course) and we pretend to place value on human life when in fact we place no higher value on each other than a predator does on prey. We are deceiving ourselves when we say we place value on human lives beyond the concept of survival of the species. We behave like our animal brethren. We just think we are different.
Reply to Sarah, and to Michael’s comment as well, albeit a quick one.
Sarah, I absolutely agree with what you say in your comment. I’m not meaning to say that I knew all the info you mention, very educational, but that what you say makes total sense.
Michael, you say
~~Don’t you think, though, that the planet could be a little bit less bloody and more in balance?~~
Maybe it’s wrong to take this comment out of all that you said, but I would have to say, as far as the animal world is concerned, and that is what Sarah was addressing, but NO, unless you want to undo evolution and start again, it would not be more “in balance” if all animals were herbivores.
Not sure how to address the comments about rabbits, but I think this needs more explication. Not sure about Sarah’s comment re: cats = rabbits. Meaning, a bit too cryptic for me to understand the meaning. But I will take a guess at that. It would be something like “it’s good that cats aren’t vegetarians”.
for a history of the rabbit in Australia, I resort to wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
~~Since their introduction from Europe in the 19th century, the effect of rabbits on the ecology of Australia has been devastating. They are suspected of being the most significant known factor in species loss in Australia. The extent of plant species’ loss is unknown at this time though it is known that rabbits often kill young trees in orchards, forests, and on properties by ringbarking them.
Rabbits are also responsible for serious erosion problems, as they eat native plants, leaving the topsoil exposed and vulnerable to sheet, gully, and wind erosion. The removal of this topsoil is devastating to the land, as it takes many hundreds of years to regenerate.~~~
Michael, you say
~~Perhaps humans place too high a value on life.~~
This is a really complicated statement for me to absorb. So I may be totally off base with the following.
In one way it implies that animals apart from humans don’t place a high value on life. Depends on how one parses the words and the evidence, but “value” is a human word. But, if you want to use it in the animal world (as I will do) what animals “value” is the continuation of the species. That can include nurturing young, who will carry their genes forward, or at the other extreme, carnivores killing predators.
I actually think that humans place too low a value on life. “We” are happy or driven to destroy the natural world for the sake of human greed and human hubris. “We” (I will limit this to mean the US military/ industrial/ warmongering government) kill, bomb, and maim all over the world. “We” have no second thoughts about bombing Fallujah with white phosphorus and causing a decade of birth defects. etc., etc. Yes, I am speaking as an “American”, and don’t mean to imply that all humans around the world do the same. But, still, there is the essence of greed everywhere.
Animals in the natural world are innocents compared with the human species.