Dangers Of Overpopulation Effects Future Pets

Nuclear vs climate change: the clash of the alarmists

Last autumn, when the German government said it would extend the life of some of its old nuclear reactors, it fell back on fear of climate change to justify maintaining this ‘clean’ form of energy. This argument resonated with many people whose concern over planetary destruction at the hands of climate change outweighs their opposition to nuclear energy. And yet, competitive scaremongers rarely win a permanent or unalterable victory. And when faced with the question, ‘Which calamity scares you the most?’, the prospect of being fried by nuclear radiation in the here and now has a greater capacity to overwhelm the mind than the more unspecific harms that will apparently be inflicted on future generations as a result of global warming.

After the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in tsunami-hit Japan, fear appeals based on the alleged threat from nuclear reactors successfully – at least for now – trumped the climate alarmists’ predictions of planetary apocalypse. The German shift shows that even in the midst of a titanic clash of competing calamities, scaremongering can be surprisingly pragmatic.

Historic experience tells us that the success or otherwise of competitive scaremongering has little to with the actual intensity of the alleged threat. Rather its success usually depends on the ability of the scaremonger to resonate with contemporary cultural values. So a couple of weeks ago, when the American evangelist preacher Harold Camping predicted the imminent arrival of Judgment Day, not many people took him seriously. In previous times, however, millennial apprehensions about End Times could unleash major panics. When religious fanatics prophesied that the world would come to an end, followed by the Last Judgment, it really had a major impact on everyday life. The flames of terror impacted on the imagination of hundreds of thousands of people who waited for the coming Apocalypse (1).

This time around, many people joked about Camping’s ‘Rapture’ and carried on with life as normal. Yet some of the same people who made fun of the Rapture had been caught up, only a few months earlier, in a wave of panic-buying of stocks of potassium iodine, which is used to protect the body from the effects of nuclear fallout. In the US, stocks completely sold out following the crippling of the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan. Many Americans believed that radioactive particles from Japan posed a threat to their health. Yet on balance, the threat to Americans from the fallout in Japan was about as significant as Camping’s fantasy Rapture. As the German government has subsequently discovered, scaremongering about radiation is likely to frighten people far more than old-fashioned warnings about Judgment Day.

Spaying/Neutering, do the benefits always outweigh the risks? (Not ...

But for the dog)?

I know alot of people are going to disagree with me on this, but I would avoid spaying/neutering if you can. Especially if the dog is already an adult. Before my dog got spayed she was energetic and fun, but since I had it done she has put on weight and hardly ever wants to play. She just isn’t the same dog. It probably wouldn’t have been such a drastic change if I had had it done when she was little.

From personal experience I definitely feel that the of spay/neuter is well worth the risk. There is very little medical risk during the surgery if the dog is in good health, but for the male he is much less aggressive and not prone to developing prostrate cancer later in his life, plus he makes a much more well behaved pet.

For the female, spaying prevents the cycle every 6 months and the chance she will be caught by a male and have unwanted puppies, plus as she gets older she is less likely to develop cancer in her milk ducts.

Good question. The truth is that spaying/neutering isn’t the healthiest thing for dogs. But the truth that tops that one is that 98% of the population isn’t nearly responsible enough to prevent their intact dogs from breeding. That’s why people on here preach spaying and neutering. Hang out here for a while and read the dozens of questions daily by backyard breeders who haven’t a clue how to do anything breeding related, yet they blithely put their b1tch’s life at risk.

For a responsible dog owner, there’s no reason to spay/neuter. The only dogs I’ve ever owned who’ve been spayed/neutered have been rescues who came that way. I’ve also spayed older b1tches because it does cut down on the chances of cancer and pyometra.

I’ve never neutered any of my males and have also never had an accidental litter.

your research seems to have conflicting info. i guess if you research anything enough you will find evidence for and against (which is probab why you turned to Yahoo Answers)- trusted vet told us that neutering male dog reduced risk of cancer.

The only instance when I would keep an intact dog is if the dog was a show-quality animal and/or breeding stock. That’s my personal decision.

Yes everyone thinks they’re responsible pet owners. Some are and some aren’t, and accidents happen. And when dogs feel the urge to mate strongly enough, there’s only so much you can do. I’ve heard of male dogs breaking through doors and windows to get to a female. You can’t automatically dismiss unwanted litters as a consideration, sorry.

Voices for the future, essays on major science fiction writers

U.S. news & world report

Systemic management, sustainable human interactions with ecosystems and the biosphere

The Magazine of fantasy & science fiction

Disposable animals, ending the tragedy of throwaway pets