Kilkis wrote:Someone who worked for a vet told me that her landlord adopted a cat and fed it. She offered to take it to the vet and have it neutered. The landlord declined because, like you and the vast majority of Greeks, he believed it wasn't natural.
I know what you mean, but I've never put it like that. Pain killers during dental work are not natural either. Rather, I think giving birth is something important to the cat, a major part of her life, and I wouldn't want to take that away.
A few years later they were plagued by over 100 cats.
Yes. I'm sure it can happen - although I couldn't be sure in this case of cause and effect. Maybe other cats moved into the neighbourhood. I did write in the original post there are factors which encourage, and factors which discourage, and in the end you get what you get. It can be the ecosystem in which cats now live supports a huge cat population, and one much greater than that humans would wish for. I could also then say humans are responsible for this environment. I could also say removing from an animal such an important part of its life *for our convenience because we don't like lots of cats* is, possibly, incredibly selfish - even evil. Animals are not objects.
Fortunately, since I'm in a position where I don't have the option to neuter the mother, I don't have to really work out if it's the right thing to do or not.
In my 20+ years in Greece if I have learned one thing it is that in the psychology of a large number of Greeks, I would say a majority but I cannot produce evidence to support that, neutering dogs and cats is regarded as not natural but drowning kittens/puppies or poisoning adults is regarded as totally natural. If I had to choose between a long, safe, comfortable life in which I cannot breed and one in which I had a high probability of being killed I know which I would vote for.
I may be wrong, but this seems to be a fake choice.
You are arguing that death by humans is very common. That's a very serious claim, and I do not think I can accept it just as is, because it does not fit with what I see around me. I had a conversation recently with an old Greek chap living here. He said once his life, he found some puppies which had been thrown in a bag to drown. It was for him a remarkable event. I see also here enough cats that I find it hard to imagine poison is being used - I would expect far fewer cats, or none.
Then, based on the assertion that death at the hands of a human is highly likely, the argument is that it's been to ensure the animals are not born in the first place.
So because other humans are cruel enough to kill animals, we should step in earlier, and kill those animals before they've even had the life they would have had? and also deprive the mother of the experience of birth and raising children? and this anyway based on the claim that death by humans is so very common?
I may be completely wrong, but this feels like rationalization. This reason, and the earlier reason, both feel like the justification is being blown up to be something bigger and absolute, as so to so much more strongly justify.
"We must neuter cats, or they'll live appallingly painful lives!"
"We must neuter cats, or humans will poison them and they'll die horribly!!"
It may well be cats *do* need to be generally neutered, but I've not come to this view from the arguments presented.