I'm not sure how you aren't getting this, 8 hour workday wasn't specific to socialist countries. I want something where socialist countries benefited from their system compared to capitalist ones.
I mean it's fairly straightforward when considering if "uncontrolled outdoor access" has dangers and harms to the cats
Uncontrolled outdoor access allows these natural behaviors, but it also poses a number of significant health and welfare risks, and the overall benefits of the performance of these behaviors is unknown.
But if you're not willing to take their word for it, there's other people talking about those dangers too
Replying to singular lines or small parts of comments makes the whole comment a disjointed mess. If you aren't even willing to accept the multitude of studies and animal welfare organisations saying there's an (obvious) increased risk from unsupervised roaming, then there's nothing much to go on from here. If you feel there's more positives and can support that with studies, I'd be interested to see that. If it's just your emotional take, I understand that, but it's just not very responsible way to handle a pet.
I mean this is the reason there are shortages. People fear shortages, so they buy extra so they wouldn't be hit with the shortages, actually causing the shortage.
according to capitalism, it is a problem that needed to be fixed.
I mean one service having a monopoly might not be that great. Good thing about capitalism could be that if the service got shit, there'd be competing alternatives. Doesn't work out that way often.
If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks. You just seem to be in denial about the whole thing and I don't blame you, it's a really emotional topic for some reason.
I mean study after study gives the obvious conclusion that of course it comes with increased risk and of course you wouldn't be there to help them, it's unsupervised and unrestricted roaming, so duh. And of course it negatively affects the surrounding wildlife, you're introducing lots of cats to places that had a lot less if any cats.
But there's such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can't understand that makes people pretend stupid or just refuse to accept the obvious conclusion.
The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.
You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren't as much of a risk?
How are you not getting that 8 hour workday isn't specific to socialist countries. Do you know what I mean by that?