Okay. This makes horrible sense to me. I posted a thread the other day on this subject, as 'morphed axolotls' being sold as 'salamanders' seem to be getting increasingly common in Oz, along with the idea that there is no cruelty involved in the process. Accordingly to the arithmetic above, it seems the best that can be said is that the morphed axolotls may live half the lifespan of a normal water-dwelling axie, so I find it hard to see how that can be considered to involve no cruelty. Also, I'm not sure that not being allowed to keep tiger salamanders is a good enough reason to 'create' a version through morphing axolotls. Instead, we Aussies could just suck it up, live without captive terrestrial salamanders and struggle on with some similar hobby. We'd probably survive that experience better than the forced-morph axies survive theirs.
I'm also wondering what the forced morphing process actually involves - the person who was recently advising me to do it gave instructions on providing terrestrial spaces and raising water temperatures - seemingly, the idea being to make the water so unbearable that the poor axie takes refuge on land. Is there any circumstance in which this is not cruel? With 'the drug', is it less cruel, or is the warmer water bit unnecessary? Are there in fact some axies who are genetically predisposed to handle metamorphosis without dropping dead? Are the people doing this in Australia using juveniles?
I think I'm with the OP here. It seems we would both really appreciate a clearer understanding of the process (minus info about 'the drug', in case of DIY types) and an objective assessment of its cruelty or otherwise. Personally, I don't want to be prejudiced on the basis of ignorance, but I would hate to condone a growing acceptance in this country of any process that is cruel to axies and halves their lifespans. Which is it? Or, as with most things in life, does the truth lie somewhere in between? I'm confused.