Oi... If you're not going to accept truth based on facts, then tell me now because I don't want to waste my time.

I'm not disputing facts. I'm disputing whether the facts make an action morally warranted. And that fact seems to have flown way over your head. Maybe this is an issue that's beyond your abilities and you don't recognize it, because you seem to be stuck in this conventional thinking that the ends morally justify the means. That if we want less homeless people we have a moral obligation to end their suffering by sterilizing the abjectly impoverished. Or that China is morally justified in its one-child policy.

Dogs, unlike cats, evolved because of humans.

Domesticated cats are just as artificially selected as dogs are. You don't know what you're talking about.

Wolves, who were geneticaly less tempermental, trustee humans more and were fed by humans.

Grey wolves, for example, are genetically identical to domesticated dogs. So it's not like there's some "fundamental" genetic difference. You don't know what you're talking about. The difference is the domestication, not the genes. If you take a wolf today (and that's basically how it started, someone took a wolf) and started artificially selecting various traits over thousands of years, you'll end up with a domesticated dog. That's what artificial selection does.

Secondly, that "hypothetical future" is the present. Animal shelters are overun with animals. So either we spay the animals now to prevent surpopulation, or we kill them in shelters. Your choice.

What you're highlighting is a self-inflicted wound. You and people like you don't think of dogs as animals. You think of them as pets. As toys or slaves. And you treat them as such. That's why you refer to yourself as your dog's "owner". For you, the dichotomy is pet/shelter or death. And not freedom. You don't think of these animals as organisms that do or can exist outside of this humane, self-gratification. Let the dogs go and allow selection its course.

My experience growing up in a third world country tells me that dogs will form packs if left alone for months, scavenge for food, hunt down and kill goats and other animals, and dogs will become increasingly feral over time, and that poodles can definitely and do survive on their own and in packs in a metropolitan zone. Now maybe "your poodle" can't. And maybe that says more about how you've raised your poodle or how you just perceive your poodle than it does about the dog itself.

By suggesting that I want to spay the homeless human population, you admt your own ignorance.

You admit you can't read by making this point. By simply altering the subject of the proposition you made, your logic: the movement from one premise to another, to form a necessarily connected and contingent conclusion could be utilized to make the sterilizing argument for the homeless or the poor. It's an argument from analogy. According to your logic, the argument can be made that sterilizing the homeless and the poor is justified because of its end. And that is a necessary implication of your logic.

It's birth control for dogs. It's humane, not immoral.

Yeah, and China's one-child policy is also birth control. It must be humane and moral because "it's doing a good thing". Forced sterilization of another animal is not moral. constraining your consideration to pet or death is not moral. Your entire worldview on "pet" care is immoral. You just don't see. Probably can't. So, I've made my points. I'm out.