I’ve actually been quite clear in the definition of life span I’m using. You appear to be intentionally misunderstanding my point.
The limits of the life span of each species appear to be determined ultimately by heredity. Locked within the code of the genetic material are instructions that specify the age beyond which a species cannot live given even the most favourable conditions.
Can you at least be consistent in your argument? On the one hand, you say that a species’ lifespan in captivity can’t be an indicator of their natural lifespan, because they wouldn’t survive as long in the wild. On the other hand, you say that a livestock species’ lifespan is dictated by when humans choose to slaughter them. Can you explain how these arguments don’t contradict each other?
I’m happy to engage in a good faith conversation with you on this if you’re interested.
I’ve actually been quite clear in the definition of life span I’m using. You appear to be intentionally misunderstanding my point.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life-span
Can you at least be consistent in your argument? On the one hand, you say that a species’ lifespan in captivity can’t be an indicator of their natural lifespan, because they wouldn’t survive as long in the wild. On the other hand, you say that a livestock species’ lifespan is dictated by when humans choose to slaughter them. Can you explain how these arguments don’t contradict each other?
I’m happy to engage in a good faith conversation with you on this if you’re interested.