It's good to know that in the midst of our political upheaval, day-to-day progressive idiocy continues unabated.

Here we have a proposal to change the behavior of predator species, using our alleged "ubiquitous control" of their lives, so antelope can live antelope lives instead of becoming food.

But what does it mean to live a cheetah's life if we could somehow change their fundamental nature?

And what would then stop overpopulation of antelope, which would stress the ecosystem and harm the lives of other, more easily overlooked - because less aesthetically compelling - species?

How do we enable wolves to live wolf lives without them destroying antelope lives.

And in what fantasy world do we actually have "ubiquitous control" over the actual behaviors of these animals?

I may be misremembering but...I know Mike Huemer argues for ethical vegetarianism and I think I've seen one reductio used against his position to the effect that if he's right we have an obligation to stop animals from eating other animals. IIRC, I don't think Mike took that as a serious counter, but now we have this...