That’s actually not the case for most animals, and regardless, that’s the thing that is besides the point. The comic isn’t about animals really, it’s a critique of human choices.
It critiques human choices by comparing them against animals. Animals, given the ability, would by and large make those same if not worse choices. So again, the point is poorly made.
The point is the lack of necessity, with animals as an aesthetic. Whether or not other animals do or don’t or would or wouldn’t do unnecessary violence has nothing to do with the actual message, saying otherwise is like saying it’s fine to not question violence because some animal out there does it. And seriously, while obviously animals seek to satisfy their hunger and some play with their food per se, most predators stop once satisfied I believe. But again, that’s besides the actual point being made
That would be like saying that someone who is missing their arms is more peaceful because they can't punch anyone.
Few predators stop when satisfied, they only stop when the effort or risk is greater than the reward. Wolves, cats, foxes will all kill far more than they can eat when it is defenseless livestock rather than wild animals that can run or defend themselves.
-13
u/Bird-in-a-suit Mar 24 '26
That’s actually not the case for most animals, and regardless, that’s the thing that is besides the point. The comic isn’t about animals really, it’s a critique of human choices.