Greedy breeders already “produce” more dogs than there are loving families for and as a result dog shelters are constantly full with sad dogs who don´t have a home. This drug will result in shelters getting even more overcrowded.
My dog lives longer and shelters get more crowded? That’s a complete non-sequitor. Much like my choice of lunch doesn’t impact your lunch situation.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is poor, but the article seems to indicate that the pill will give a dog more “active years” and not necessarily more years. I guess we’ll find out in four years when it’s done.
Accepting death as a part of life is in no way cynical, it´s logical.
My dog lives longer and shelters get more crowded?
Don´t think only of yourself, try to see the bigger picture. Not just your dog will live longer, a lot of dogs will with that drug, resulting in less adoptions. Since commercial breeders are not going to “produce” less dogs just because of the new drug, the result of dogs living longer will be a higher population of dogs. Now considering the number of people who want to adopt a dog will decrease while the number of dogs available will increase, this will necessarily result in more dogs who don´t find/have a home. It´s really quite obvious if you think about it.
the article seems to indicate that the pill will give a dog more “active years” and not necessarily more years
The article indicates both as far as I comprehend it:
“Biotech company Loyal is developing an injectable drug, LOY-001, designed to help large breed dogs not only live longer, but stay healthy longer”
Not all breeders are puppy mills, or producing brachycephalic breeds, but they are out there, and there’s other breeders putting longer noses on pugs and Frenchies.
Artificial insemination is common with the breeders I am familiar with. Though I’m not sure breeding racks are necessarily animal abuse, dogs in heat are fucking horny.
That is not what I meant to say. I argued against artificially increasing life expectancy, which does not equal arguing for decreasing natural life expectancy.
I’m pretty cynical, but this is a new level.
My dog lives longer and shelters get more crowded? That’s a complete non-sequitor. Much like my choice of lunch doesn’t impact your lunch situation.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is poor, but the article seems to indicate that the pill will give a dog more “active years” and not necessarily more years. I guess we’ll find out in four years when it’s done.
Accepting death as a part of life is in no way cynical, it´s logical.
Don´t think only of yourself, try to see the bigger picture. Not just your dog will live longer, a lot of dogs will with that drug, resulting in less adoptions. Since commercial breeders are not going to “produce” less dogs just because of the new drug, the result of dogs living longer will be a higher population of dogs. Now considering the number of people who want to adopt a dog will decrease while the number of dogs available will increase, this will necessarily result in more dogs who don´t find/have a home. It´s really quite obvious if you think about it.
The article indicates both as far as I comprehend it:
“Biotech company Loyal is developing an injectable drug, LOY-001, designed to help large breed dogs not only live longer, but stay healthy longer”
deleted by creator
Not all breeders are puppy mills, or producing brachycephalic breeds, but they are out there, and there’s other breeders putting longer noses on pugs and Frenchies.
deleted by creator
Artificial insemination is common with the breeders I am familiar with. Though I’m not sure breeding racks are necessarily animal abuse, dogs in heat are fucking horny.
That is not what I meant to say. I argued against artificially increasing life expectancy, which does not equal arguing for decreasing natural life expectancy.
If people stop paying for dogs, they will stop breeding them to sell.
Also, I accept death as part of life, but I still look both ways before crossing the street. I’m not getting off this ride any sooner than I have to.