From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:48:38 +0100, Helen Hall   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > In message <1muab2n39j9j8$.1thrcwqcjqc09$.dlg@40tude.net>, Brian M.   
   > Scott  writes   
      
   >>There's nothing particularly euphemistic about the use of   
   >> to mean 'reduce a population by killing off some of   
   >>its members'.  Indeed, it's a natural development from the   
   >>sense 'select for quality', which in turn was a natural   
   >>development from 'gather together, collect' (as in Latin   
   >>, from which  derives via Old French   
   >> and Middle English ).  The intended result   
   >>of culling a herd or other animal population is often to   
   >>improve its overall quality, and a shift of focus from those   
   >>positively selected to those negatively selected is rather   
   >>natural in that context.   
      
   > It's euphemistic in the sense that the proposed badger   
   > "cull" involves the slaughter of *all* badgers in the   
   > target area. Also, though deer culls on a well-managed   
   > estate will indeed be targeting old, frail or sickly   
   > beasts, culling of pests involves indiscriminate   
   > slaughter.   
      
   There is nothing here to support your claim that it's   
   euphemistic.  The passage from 'kill off the weak'   
   (selective slaughter) to 'kill off enough to make the   
   population as a whole better off' (indiscriminate slaughter   
   up to some limit) to 'kill off enough to make our   
   environment better off for us' (indiscriminate slaughter   
   possibly up to and including all of the critters) is all   
   perfectly natural, as is the generalization to your 'reduce   
   the numbers of by killing'.   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)