Why do animals abandon/disregard their offspring after they become sick or injured?
I'm just wondering because I think this is sorta mean of them.
- OcimomLv 76 months agoFavorite Answer
Yes they would. Its called "survival of the fittest". Any animal that is sick or injured will be left behind as they are not "fit".
- Anonymous6 months ago
In the animal mind, there is no love. Just survival. You, they may accept as their feeder, protector & comforter. But, they'd be just as happy to eat you.
- J CLv 76 months ago
In the wild, sick or injured offspring attract predators. It's not mean or cruel, it's a survival technique. We as humans do not have this issue - if we have a sickly baby, there is health insurance, and we have doctors. No predators will come after us. If we have allowed out pet to have a litter, and the cat/dog abandons a pup or kitten, then we have a moral responsibility to get vet care for that pup or kitten, and spay the female so that she can no longer breed. That does not apply to the wild. Any animal that has a litter provides food for animals higher up on the food chain. Cats eat mice, and foxes, coyotes, and birds of prey will eat kittens. Lions and wolves eat baby deer. The idea is that enough mice or kittens survive to carry on with the law of Nature. We find it repulsive, but the animals do it to survive.
- 6 months ago
Because they aren't human and dont have morals.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BeverlyLv 66 months ago
That's nature taking its course, the sick and injured can also attract large prey animals.
- daniel gLv 76 months ago
Sadly that is how nature works. It is about survival and some animals will even kil or eat an unhealthy offspring just so that sickly gene is not passed on.
Nature can seem so cruel to us humans, but all we can do is accept it.
- Anonymous6 months ago
Survival of the fittest. Why would a mother struggle to feed her litter of six with each barley having enough to keep them alive let alone enough to stay healthy or grow. Let's say one offspring gets too weak to eat and is cold and shivering. Are you suggesting it's better for momma to kill the whole litter off by ignoring them and to spend the time and effort to feed the weakest one and stop hunting to give it the encouragement and warmth it needs to survive and ignore the other 5. Then when the other 5 have not eaten for several days and they in turn become too weak and shake and shiver she now ignores the pup she spent days feeding everything to and keeping warm to now abandon that one to take care of the others? Now all 6 are suffering again from lack of food and lack of warmth because moms busting butt to feed them but can't keep up on such a large litter and once again there's not enough food to keep all 6 and herself going.
Or does this make more sense. Momma has a litter if 6 she cannot possibly keep up and feed on her own. Normal litters are 3 offspring but by some fluke if nature she has to deal with the 6 so instead of raising 6 weak offspring she offers food and attention to the strongest ones that have the life and energy to fight for the most food and the warmest place and they make themselves stronger and stronger while the smallest and the weakest waste away because they don't have the strength to fight continually to be the number one in the litter and eventialli die off giving the remaining offspring an excellent chance to live vs barley a chance to live.
Is it better to raise 3 to 4 healthy offspring that have strong immune systems, strong bodies and will be able to reproduce when they are old enough, or is it better to raise 6 that are weakly sickly offspring that have compromised immune systems, don't make it to sexual maturity and die off from parasites or just the elements because they are too weak to take care of themselves and are too small to fight off others.?
Nature made it so the strongest of the litters survive, it does no good saving an animal that will never hunt, fly or reproduce and will die because internally somethings wrong. It makes better sense to support the strongest, biggest and most healthy that will live and pass on the healthiest genes.
It's been that way for millions of years and we still have animals. They don't have the morals we have, they cannot put their babies in nurserys or send them to institutions to get better and stronger. It's an eat or get eaten life, if they cannot fight for their lives then they perish and support someone else that needs food and then become Part of natures food chain.
- TKLv 76 months ago
Animals do not have a welfare system. They deal with the currency of energy. If an ill or injured one in the litter or nest is going to take more energy than the parent can afford, then it has to go. To keep it could harm the others in the nest, others that are healthy and have a chance to grow to their reproductive age.
Nature does not like wasting energy.
- ZotsRuleLv 76 months ago
Survival of the Fittest. Animals need to put their attention, milk into raising the healthy young. It's "natural selection" to insure survival of the species as well.
If this happens with pet animals then YOU need to step in and care for the sick or runty kitten/puppy. But I do hope you're not breeding?
- Pearl LLv 76 months ago
rnaybe they dont want to be bothered with thern, i think its rnean too