As a result, these individuals hope to identify âecologically inertâ interventions that donât affect population dynamics or have cascading effects. Corporate welfare campaigns might be one sort of intervention that clears this bar.
I think chicken welfare reforms may impact soil ants and termites much more than chickens.
I (and several others) think we could reasonably view a handful of [âecologically inertâ] interventions as worth pursuing under this mindset. Mostly, these sorts of interventions change how humans kill animals or control populations, such that suffering is decreased without changing the net population outcome. Examples might include stunning wild-caught fish before slaughter or replacing rodenticides with fertility control on islands.
I believe controlling the fertility of rodents instead of killing them may impact soil ants and termites much more than rodents even if the population of rodents remains constant.
Hi Mal.
I think chicken welfare reforms may impact soil ants and termites much more than chickens.
I believe controlling the fertility of rodents instead of killing them may impact soil ants and termites much more than rodents even if the population of rodents remains constant.