> I don't accept the premise that whatever man touches is somehow automatically tainted or corrupted.
That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it.
> There is no problem with man changing the course of nature.
Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death.
> Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.
That is not what the author is pointing to at all! Nothing even remotely close to it.
> There is no problem with man changing the course of nature.
Of course not, look at all the dogs we have. Not many have issues with it. But some of the breeds are just bred for humans to go "awww", that we do not consider how many of these breeds have high risk of disease and death.
> Why not release some white tigers and actually see how they evolve, instead of simply assuming that they won't thrive?
There are already 4000 tigers in the wild. The author is not asking for planned execution, but to put an end to the inbreeding programs disguised as "conservation efforts". Also the gene in the wild for thousands of years before humans started breeding them selectively. And that gene did not win out the evolutionary race.