There's something I need to get out of the way in my sci-fi. Do the aliens also possess medical technology or is it a science exclusive to humans? Because in this scenario the aliens are the more advanced space-age civilisation which makes humans the underdogs (technologically speaking). So I need to know wether the two races can complement each other or if it's one-sided.

The aliens are basically a different shade of human. Nothing about their anatomy is that outlandish aside from some adaptations to their respective planet (a harsh desert planet). A notable difference however is that unlike humans they lack that 'malice' that humanity is known for. They don't wage war. They don't have petty conflicts. That sort of thing. An "innocent by nature" race.

What I noticed is that the "scientifically advanced" and "innocent by nature" traits clash with one another. The early days of medical science were... brutal to say the least. So I was asking myself if the aliens would develop advanced medical science without losing that innocence of theirs.

Hunter-gatherer societies would have the equivalent of herbal medicine. However they would be unsanitary at that stage eg. the egyptians included faeces in their treatments. Other than that they would have a very basic understanding of anatomy through the animals they hunt.

An early agricultural civilisation would form near the oases of the planet. Since water contamination is a risk, this is where hygiene would become more prevalent. For example: Louis Pasteur's flask experiment would give them early knowledge of the existence of bacteria. Glass production would allow microscopes and flasks for chemistry, both important for medicine.

I don't know wether or not they would get past that. Dissections seem a little too morbid for this species. Is there another way to improve their medical knowledge or would it stop here?

  • $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    Aug 4, 2022 at 3:50
  • $\begingroup$ If you JUST want low medical science, you can turn to irrational religion. IRL Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Followers of Christ all reject medicine and rely on faith healing (in multiple cases letting their children die). They believe the Bible mandates prayer and faith, and if you die, that was God's will and for the best. To do otherwise is to defy God's wishes, and will damage your eternal soul. You don't need all this ethics folderol, just an irrational "faith" in their God. And they can get angry and label challengers as blasphemers. $\endgroup$
    – Amadeus
    Aug 4, 2022 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Amadeus Everyone has their own reasons to refuse certain treatments but that doesn’t mean you should paint a negative picture of these groups as a whole. For example, refusing blood in treatments has pushed doctors to find safer alternatives. In many countries, any patient can now choose to avoid blood-transfusion risks, such as blood-borne diseases and immune-system reactions. Again, try not to lump people in a group. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2022 at 22:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amadeus Yes. People are messed up. $\endgroup$ Aug 5, 2022 at 9:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LiveInAmbeR Please don't do this kind of editing. Sure it's valid to improve your question, but you've changed the entire question to ask a completely different question. This has left you with existing answers that don't now relate to the new question, which is a Bad Thing. If you're going to ask a new question, ask a new question. $\endgroup$
    – Graham
    Aug 9, 2022 at 13:24

10 Answers 10


These rules are deeply flawed and contradictory. You say they can defend themselves violently; then how can "do no harm" possibly be encoded in their DNA?

If ALL physical and emotional harm is bad, then they will be ruled by the first mentally deranged psychopath that comes along, because they cannot harm or even hurt the feelings of a criminal stealing from them, raping them, or enslaving them by force.

Are you compelled to help people in need even if it endangers your chldren? If my neighbor and I are both starving, and all I have found is two days worth of food for my daughter, must I give the neighbor half my daughter's food, and let her go hungry tomorrow?

Absolute rules make no sense. All of morality is a trade off.

In the real world, right here on Earth, if I took all my assets and just helped feed the hungry people in my own city, I wouldn't make a dent for more than a day or two, and I'd also condemn my own severely mentally disabled grandson to a life of misery after I am gone, because he is the sole inheritor of all the assets my wife and I have.

I do help people, but I have to choose which people to help, I can't help everyone.

Having said that, medical science does not involve involuntary harm. Microscopes were invented without harming anyone; a bacterial theory of infection was easy to develop afterward. Testing plants and materials (like soap) for an antibiotic effect doesn't harm anyone.

Studying blood, and doing experiments with it, doesn't harm anyone.

You say they can kill when necessary: Well, self-defense qualifies, if an infection is going to kill you, or your children, as they often did, then killing the bacteria that are going to kill you seems justifiable.

Medical science advance just fine, anesthetics and pain relief in your world is positively moral, they prevent pain. And with that, surgery can advance.

Without killing anybody, or any animals. Somebody volunteering for something that may be painful but ultimately beneficial to them, even life-saving, surely cannot be off limits; even if they do die in the experiment. An accidental death is not an intentional murder, and "Freedom" which you claim they value must include being free to take lethal risks.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You can't even nourish yourself unless you are a primary producer organism. But even then your immune system is screwed too. $\endgroup$
    – DKNguyen
    Aug 2, 2022 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ @DKNguyen Well, scavengers that eat the dead. Termites eat dead wood, vultures eat dead animals. But +1 anyway, in these rules it isn't clear if "respect for the dead" includes dead animals and plants, or just dead humans. $\endgroup$
    – Amadeus
    Aug 2, 2022 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ Ahhhh, yes. Rule #1 we can hunt invasive species and predators (aka things deemed to be a threat to ourselves or our surroundings). Rule #2 we are scavengers. There's only one logical conclusion to this for a large society that can't acquire food any other way... $\endgroup$
    – DKNguyen
    Aug 2, 2022 at 14:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "medical science does not involve involuntary harm" That seems to ignore all the animal testing (and even involuntary human testing throughout history). The progress of medical science would be hampered a bit if you avoid animal testing, until you discover alternatives (cell cultures, simulation). And of course there's self-experimentation, if that's allowed. $\endgroup$
    – towr
    Aug 4, 2022 at 5:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @towr +1 that is indeed a hurdle to take.. I agree.. Luckily, this is about aliens and alien culture. They may be less afraid for risk and costs and test their developed medicin on themselves, they could derive social status and prestige from participating in tests.. or find ways to virtually model their own body more accurate, so elaborate tests are not needed. Put an answer I would say.. I'd vote for it $\endgroup$
    – Goodies
    Aug 4, 2022 at 6:06

Frame challenge: You can't get to your rules from your starting assumptions, and you can't tell a good story with it anyway.

In our world, all hunter-gatherer societies (without exception) live and have always lived in conditions of extreme scarcity. There is no such thing as "abundant resources" until you can develop industrialised farming, and even "barely adequate resources" needs arable farming, fishing with nets, or animal husbandry.

You're correct that hunter-gatherer societies within the group are highly cooperative. However that contrasts with them almost universally being highly hostile to anyone outside their group. You use the phrase "selfish gene" in a way which clearly indicates you have misunderstood the entire concept of that phrase. The point of the "selfish gene" is that it rewards cooperation only amongst the group of people you're related to. For everyone else, the evolutionary pressure is to force hostility to others who aren't genetically linked to you, to deny them resources and support your own family. And the biggest threat to your resources always comes from other non-kinship members of your species who inherently need the same resources as you.

You're also committing a major fallacy of linking a highly-codified moral system with genetics/DNA. This is simply impossible. Sure you can evolve hereditary personality traits (whether with artificial or natural selection processes), but not something as highly structured as what you propose.

But worse than any of this, the whole idea of moral traits hardcoded in DNA is a lazy, hackneyed trope which was considered cheesy nonsense back in the 1960s with Star Trek. Worldbuilding can certainly play fast and loose with science in the service of interesting plot concepts - but your concept has no rewarding features which would let you do anything interesting with it.

  • $\begingroup$ The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:18

The biggest challenge seems to be learning about the internals of the body without dissecting corpses or doing very risky experimental surgery just to explore the body. But we have a real-world solution: medical imaging. X-rays were discovered in 1895 and very quickly turned into a medical diagnostic tool. While it took a long time to fine-tune them - and to lower the level of radiation to minimize harmful side-effects - they helped numerous medical advances of the twentieth century.

MRI, CT scans, etc. are far more advanced, but the technology behind those could certainly be acquired as a side effect of non-medical research and then applied to study of the body.

It would definitely be easier to figure it all out starting with corpses, but not impossible by any means.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:18

If they can't touch a corpse except for burial, that limits their ability to study organs and tissues. If they can't harm animals, that limits their ability to perform experiments that may be necessary before doing safer experiments on theirselves.

If they can use an anesthetic and the patient is kept conscious, they could could perform medical experiments to test effects of procedures, but those procedures might endanger the patient's life or ability to live life regularly.

They might develop the technology to test blood samples and grow organs in a vat. Since organs that aren't connected to a brain don't feel pain, then no harm done. But to get to that level of biotechnology, it would most likely require a lot of medical experimentation that the aliens would consider unethical.

Maybe they could benefit from medical technology developed by other intelligent species, but there could be anatomical compatibility problems.

  • $\begingroup$ This was a problem at some point in christendom, people weren't allowed to touch corpses so had to guess what went on inside, or compare us to the animals that looked closest. $\endgroup$
    – WendyG
    Aug 4, 2022 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ Does the updated question do away with the rules that were previously there? $\endgroup$
    – Rob S
    Aug 9, 2022 at 22:42

the aliens are the more advanced space-age civilisation

Considering how little can a civilization advance when a simple cut can kill, if they are the more advanced species we must infer they have pretty good medical science.

With a bit of relativism one can balance the harm done to a single with the benefit that the done harm will bring to many. Or it can also be seen as complying to the good Samaritan law the fact that one donates their corpse to science after death or willingly makes it available for science while in life, because it helps other.

  • $\begingroup$ As an interesting historical side-note, Burke & Hare collected bodies for such a purpose, but with a deal less care for life's worth except their own. $\endgroup$ Aug 2, 2022 at 13:29
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:19

(Ignoring all of the other evolutionary details and other background that need to be better ironed out...)

4. The good samaritan law. They are compelled to help those in need.

This is the only thing you need for medicine to develop in this society.

"Brother was ill with The Sand Sickness so I made him some of his favorite Scorpion Soup... but now he is somehow better! Maybe we should give Scorpion Soup to everyone with The Sand Sickness?"

Really, that's it; that's all you need. Random chance and time will provide enough opportunities for therapeutic and medicinal discoveries to be made, and your society's proactive-helper mentality will basically mandate the utilization of those discoveries.

This should be enough for the idea of "medical intervention" being accepted as an ethical imperative (even if it leaves some specific forms of intervention off the table).

If I had to guess, I'd assume that you are somehow assuming your rules 2. Do No Harm or 5. Respect The Dead are block your society's ability to develop the very concept of medical intervention. But really, that need not be the case.

Firstly, various therapeutics and medicines can be discovered (as in my example above) without any form of "Medical Experimentation" that your species would likely find crass on Rule-2 grounds.

Secondly, although Rule-2 strongly limits the idea of "battlefield chirurgeon" and Rule-5 would bar "dissecting cadavers" neither of these obstacles need impede the field of physiology absolutely or permanently. Once again, time and random chance will mean that freak-accidents will happen - be they wild-animal related, war related, farm-implement related, or machinery related - and every now and then one of those freak-accidents will glean some small new sliver of medical knowledge. Yes, your species' societies will accumulate surgical knowledge much slower than typical of other species, but no they aren't barred from it.

Amputation probably seems even more barbaric to your species' sensibilities than it does to us humans... but if you see enough mangled appendages leading to slow agonizing death versus a better differential survival rate for those whose appendages were accidentally/naturally amputated, then you just might find that amputation becomes ethically necessary on Rule-1 and Rule-4 grounds. Similar goes for dislocated shoulders and broken bones (and they may in fact be earlier discoveries).

All this is to say, I do not believe that your species instincts prevent the discovery and/or development of medical intervention.

  • $\begingroup$ amputation can't develop with the OP's rules, remember rule 2 insulting someone one or giving them a papercut is just as bad as brutally murdering them. there is no lesser of two harms for this species. And the species is more likely to accrue nonsense then actual medical knowledge, it chicken soup, ear candles, and prayer for medical ailments since they can't do blind studies and risk upsetting or harming someone. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 4, 2022 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ @John The OP's original premise was worded in such a way that some axioms seemed to directly contradict other axioms. Rather than treating all of the axioms at face-value and then deciding that logical rigor would dictate the only valid answer is "Frame Challenge: Axiomatic Contradictions" I decided to make some different assumptions (like adding some wiggle room for moral relativism) and provided an answer that I felt was a more helpful to the worldbuilding exercise. $\endgroup$
    – DotCounter
    Aug 5, 2022 at 16:51

If there is great suffering among them, individuals may sacrifice their selves or health for the good of everyone else.

That's what many did when they participated in vaccine experiments knowing there was a chance that they only received the placebo. People died for science, medicine, and society.


In Larry Niven's Ringworld universe, the Pierson’s Puppeteers develop advanced technology despite being profoundly risk averse.

Partially, this was possible due to people like one Puppeteer in the cast of the story, Nessus, who is considered insane by his people because he has not only dared to leave home, but is taking a group of aliens (two humans and a Kzin) on a dangerous expedition.

Technological innovation, more generally, is often the work of a tiny number of extreme outlier individuals who are far outside the norms of the rest of the population.

Temple Grandin, an autistic agricultural scientist, made advances others did not, because she was neurodiverse and didn't perceive what animals were experiencing in the same way that "normal" people did.

Similarly, J. Marion Sims, the so called "Father of Gynecology" made many advances in highly unethical and almost surely criminal experiments on slaves, and passed on his knowledge widely in a way that saved lives long before the horrors of the means by which he made his discoveries were widely known.

Many advances in medicine were also made by using animals models first, an approach still used today. Also, many early medical advances were made using illegally stolen corpses.

It takes only a handful of unethical medical discovery-makers, literally, one in a million individuals, to save lots of lives in perpetuity thereafter.

Many medical advances are also made in war-time and in natural disasters and pandemics when medical researchers face choice of evil situations to ease their ethical dilemmas. If people will suffer or die no matter what in the face of inaction, and no one knows what form of action is best, experimentation that would otherwise be unethical becomes ethically tolerable.

Further, lots of lives can be saved without surgery or other obvious kinds of harm simply by careful observation.

For example, the wide dissemination of the germ theory of disease started saving large number of lives well before any actual antibiotics or mass produced vaccines were available, through methods of quarantines, social distancing, the use of masks, and hand washing.

Likewise, the key to reducing deaths from cholera was reached by using primitive epidemiology to isolate the source of the disease to a contaminated water well, using what amounted to statistical analysis of the people afflicted.

The 1854 Broad Street Cholera outbreak in London ended after the physician John Snow identified a neighborhood Broad Street pump as contaminated and convinced officials to remove its handle to prevent people from drawing water there. His study proved contaminated water was the main agent spreading cholera, although he did not identify the contaminant. It would take many years for this message to be believed and fully acted upon.

Similarly, the case of Phineas Gage, a man who suffered a brain injury due to a completely unintentional accident, or the study of other people who have suffered unintentional brain traumas, have been a lynch pin of neuroscience. By carefully documenting cause and effect, we came to understand how injuries to different parts of the brain had different effects, and hence, how the brain works.

But, if a society more readily accepted the legitimacy of the scientific method as a source of truth and pivoted their opinions more quickly, medical science and other sciences could advance more quickly, even without very many questionable research methods at all.

And, keep in mind that ethical and moral codes are conditional on knowledge. Until people are aware of the cause of illness or disease, they don't know that they are harming others.

Science emerges from a fog of superstition or ignorance. Once one soundly determines that stepping on a crack won't break your mother's back, the field is open to try to figure out without guilt what does break your mother's back, through accident and happenstance and trying out various different worldviews until you come upon the right one. When you don't know what causes injury and illness at all, trying things that would be morally wrong if you did know aren't nearly so suspect.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ worth noting Niven shows that the puppeteers were not always so risk averse, given the hind foot strike instinct, but became so through cultural influence enabled by their technology. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 4, 2022 at 4:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ohwilleke The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:20

I want to address this first:

I have trouble putting my thoughts into words (partially due to anxiety) and it really shows.

It happens. We might not always be the most friendly bunch (well, except for me. I'm hella friendly, I swear!), but we do try to discourage outright hostile behavior. Tell your anxieties to chill while you're here. We're just some randoms on the internet, no need for your anxieties to flip out over us.

That said, we can be pretty critical of what we see as bad ideas. You say the question is badly written, by which I infer that you don't think you got across what you wanted to convey. If that's the case, you can always try again.

Now, on to the bit where I'm being a critical a$$-hat...

This heavily contrasts with the harsh environment of their desert planet. While humans live on a paradise world and fight over abundant resources, the aliens didn't have that luxury. Competition with other species was so harsh that there was no room at all for the "selfish-genes". You either cooperated or you died.

I'm pretty sure you have that backwards. Hyper-competitive environments don't lead to cooperation, they lead to competition. The harder it is to find a meal the harder you have to be to survive. Scarce resources means no herds, probably no packs, etc. You might get swarms or hives, but so far there's no indication that they are able to develop into social species.

To put it bluntly, if you're not selfish in that environment then your species goes extinct... and that means no friendly, altruistic aliens. Not that way.

If you want instinctive altruism you'll need it to develop much later during times of peace and plenty. Middle of a semi-permanent resource shortage? Not likely.

So what are their ethics like?

Ethics and morality is a really deep subject, so I'm not going to beat you up over this. I think you need a bit more time to consider what those rules mean and the ramifications of them, how they affect daily life and so on. And how they conflict with the willingness to deal harshly with invasive species and predators.

Any moral system starts with a set of values, metrics against which you will judge the morality of actions and states of affairs. Let's say you define the basis of your morality as "human well-being." Good is anything that improves the lives of humans in whole or in part, bad (or evil if you prefer) is anything that decreases human well-being. Murder, theft, assault etc. are bad because they decrease well-being for the victims and for society (and thus humans) in general. Altruism, caring, eating well, working hard... all good things by that metric. But then killing the stray dog that keeps crapping in your yard is also good because it increases human well-being (yours at least) and doesn't decrease it for you or others... so beware of simplistic moral foundations and rules.

So what are the value statements for your aliens? What do they care about? How do they interpret their duties and obligations to those basic values? How varied are their morals... do they have different groups with different value sets, like we humans do? What drives them to improve, both morally and technically?

All interesting questions that can lead you to think more deeply about this. And once you resolve the issues with their morality, we can get on to the big question...

So given these "restrictions" which are deeply encoded in their DNA, how would the aliens medical technology develop? Would it even develop at all?

In your moral rule set you have two concepts "do no harm" and "help those in need" that combine to form a moral imperative to develop medical technology. Unfortunately you've made it hard by making them unable to handle cadavers.

So let's do a little end-run around these things using the "crazy genius" trope.

In this case, "crazy" is defined not just as thinking very differently to others but to being genetically and/or neurologically distinct from the norm such that you aren't locked into the same instinctive moral position. You just don't instinctively shy away from cutting up dead bodies. And of course you're able to twist the rules slightly to justify what your peers can't even start thinking about. After all, dissecting corpses gives you knowledge that lets you help millions have better lives. You can even bring yourself to harm other in pursuit of the Greater Good! And if you can just get enough brains to dissect, maybe you can solve that deadly disease that killed your whole family.

Of course the neurotypical masses don't understand, but that's OK. Even if they think you're a monster - which they do - they'll benefit from your studies in the long run. Besides, you're so close. One more juvenile vivisection will give you everything you need to finish your master work. Maybe two. Three at the outside. Then they'll worship you as a hero!! A hero I say!!!


Never underestimate the power of insanity to throw the wrench of change into the gears of society. All it takes are a few mad outliers doing strange (and sometimes unpleasant) things and next thing you know you've got reams and reams of data on how to blow up your neighbors. Or stitch them back together after the predators breach the wall.

  • $\begingroup$ The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ @LiveInAmbeR First, it's bad form to replace your badly-received question with one that is similar but differs in almost every detail. Next time, post your new question as a new question. $\endgroup$
    – Corey
    Aug 8, 2022 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ I did exactly that, then got criticized for doing so. I’m very sorry. $\endgroup$ Aug 8, 2022 at 7:43

You are specifying criteria that presents numerous challenges to a race developing intelligence, much less science, much less medical science. The primary issue is that, not being a predator, they could not be an apex predator. This means that they would suffer from predation from animals and parasites that they ethically couldn't defend themselves against. It is irrational to think that an ecology could develop without predation and parasites.

The primary obstacle to them developing medical science is that they would be banned from any form of experimentation that might possibly result in harm, even as small as causing rashes. All medical experimentation would be done on volunteers, or it would remain hypothetical.

This is similar to the problem we currently have with string theory. We can theorize all we want, but we have no way to test it. This makes progress nearly impossible. The best we can do is suggest numerous formulas that fit the evidence.

Volunteerism would help this, but your concept of "harm" has to be addressed. Is it harmful to provide people with pain killers? That's an oddity of our culture where we feel that relief of suffering is the same as doing harm, so maybe not. Given your "reverence for the dead" criteria, I suspect that they may think this.

The biggest obstacle is their passive nature. The way you describe them, they try to work with their environment instead of against it. They might consider illness to be just a natural part of the cycle of life. I think that would be their greatest obstacle.

Here are a few areas where these philosophies would also prevent them from becoming the dominant life form on a planet.

All life is sacred. They do not kill unless they must. This sounds good when presented, but it means that they can't eat. All eating requires killing, whether your killing cows or broccoli or bacteria. Every society draws a line on the "close to us" scale where we no longer consider the creature to be worthy of consideration. For humans, it's usually other humans. If a creature is a house pet, they get included. Vegans include all animals, but happily kill plants and bacteria.

The plant/animal divide is something that's specific to Earth. They might have something similar, so you're going to have to figure out how far back in their ancestry the "don't kill" applies to.

If they're purely vegetarian, this means that they have very inefficient digestive systems. It's really hard to derive calories from eating just plants. We had to advance our agriculture, transportation, tool use, and organization to 1900's level before being a vegetarian was an option that wouldn't kill you. Paleolithic humans would never have survived, much less flourished, if they were restricted to eating plants.

Do no harm. Even if no one dies, doing physical or emotional harm is just as bad. Now you're telling me that they aren't allowed to hurt each others' feelings. Can you imagine a world where we can't disagree with other people?

Humans are memetic duplication engines. If your alien race is capable of learning then they are, too. We copy things we see, and we innovate from them. This includes clothing styles, culture, tool use, language, etc. When we take these ideas as part of our functional knowledge base, they become part of our identity. This is why Identity Politics is so destructive. You can't tell a person that they're wrong without hurting them because their ideas are a part of who and what they are.

Freedom is precious. They do not keep their pets in cages or pens, much less each other. Literally or metaphorically. There are a lot of problems with this, but let's combine it with the previous rule. Now you've made it impossible to present logic that boxes people's minds in, forcing them to realize that what they've been doing is horribly, terribly harmful to others. If you creatures never make mistakes, you might be able to get away with this.

Let's combine this with "all life is sacred." If we tried to implement this here, does this mean that we aren't allowed to tell our pets that they can't destroy our stuff? That we can't build houses to keep animals out? Can't put fences around our crops?

The good samaritan law. They are compelled to help those in need. I think the other answers have adequately covered this one. The failing of communism was its essential tenant: Work to be done by the capable, aid to be provided to the needy. This means that the best strategy is to be the least capable and most needy, causing the collapse of society instead of making a utopia.

Respecting the dead. The only time they touch a corpse is when burying them. This one is nonsensical. Are they required to either bury every dead animal they find, or leave it to rot? Where do they get all the land required to bury these people and animals? Can you imagine the burial process for an elephant?

Can you plant crops over the corpses, or would that also be abuse? Are mass graves disrespectful? If not, how far apart do the bodies need to be placed?

I spend a lot of my time dealing with the overflow of cats in our city. Cats will expand to consume all resources in an area. There are people who complain that it wouldn't be a problem if everyone loved the kitties, but if they did so, there would just be more cats, and there would still be a feral cat problem. All animal populations will expand to the size of its environment, including consuming all of the love you can give, and they come back for more.

  • $\begingroup$ While all good arguments, there is no answer here. If it meant to be a frame challenge you need to specify that. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 4, 2022 at 2:05
  • $\begingroup$ The question has been updated, you might want to edit your answer if necessary. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2022 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ I'm perplexed by the response here. This person's answer seems at least as on-topic, and more eloquent, than the one with currently 22 votes (which has no magic phrase "frame challenge" in it either). The two answers are quite similar in approach. What makes people say this one is bad but that one is great? $\endgroup$ Aug 8, 2022 at 1:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .