Siberia: 18,000-year-old frozen 'dog' stumps scientists

I do eat meat. And I understand where it comes from.

I should not be judging hunters, live stock growers, or breeders culling unsuccessful breeds, or wale hunters...

I guess part of me was thinking why could not they just relocate the other foxes like 500 miles away and let them live. Russia (even without USSR) still has like 11 time zones of land. It is enormous.

Perhaps, for a moment, I assumed that I had a know-how and was asked to be a 'moral authority', 'ethics luminary' and a re-born principles activist (especially when it affects others, but not me)

I am probably not the only one who fell into that mind set, even momentarily.

But @saya-jin you are right,

there is nothing that indicated that animals were tortured, and I should not have judged how they were 'culled'.

(I work for the government, and I'm here to help...)

If you breed for muscularity and athleticism everyone is physically fit but you no longer have smart people that spend most of their time studying. Too much intellect and you suddenly are in shortage of people that spend most of their time getting fit like firefighters and soldiers.

Ethically, there is this concept of self determination for humans, that our existence especially with flaws is what gives us individual traits. Previous generations should not amplify any trait on purpose because that implies we are bread for a purpose. We are not purpose built machines or animals, we get to decide what purpose suits us best which is individual self determination.

There is a difference though between a person finding a mate because they find a feature attractive (reproductive selection) and selecting a mate because that mate will amplify that feature in their offspring.

Yes, that is what I am saying. In your example, of course if there were tests you could have done to prevent the outcome you're at fault. But that aside, the outcome is the same but human editing of a gene means you are causing a specific change in a complicated code bypassing natural adaptations and rejections that might be needed for a trait to be amplified. So you're responsible for the outcome even if there was no testing you could have done to ensure it won't cause cancer on some consumers. You are responsible for any deviations caused by your editing,good or bad. With selective breeding you are forcing breeding between animals that would have bred anyways. It is not impossible for the natural course of things to force breeding between those same pairs of animals. The outcome is the same but since you did not do something that could not have happened anyways in the natural course of things you are not responsible for all deviations.

What I meant though was more like deformations and other flaws that would be cruel to the animal. For example selective breeding of dogs has resulted in some breeds where the brees itself is illegal. Some breeds have skulls that become torturesome and painful once the brain grows to a full size. These breeds would die off if it were not for humans that insist on breeding them.

Mistakes are inevitable and az such the question of "is even one mistake acceptable?" must be asked to which I say no it is not. Trial and error are not acceptable because one error is not acceptable. Ends don't justify means.

Maybe someday computing will be powerful enough to model how editing of genetic material will affect the grown animal (100% accounting of unintended consequences).