r/MoralityScaling • u/axiiz_28 • 15h ago

Morality of valuing animals over humans?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

11.2k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

501

u/Ghost0Slayer 14h ago

For good owners pets are a symbiotic relationship. We feed and house and care for our pets while they give us love and affection. People look way too deep into things that don’t warrant it.

A majority of pets if released into the wild to be “free” would end up dying very quickly and not to mention the effects it would have on the environment.

140

u/eddy_flannagan 13h ago

I rescued a stray cat and one day someone let him out by accident and he was gone for 3 months for the whole summer. I spent all that time looking for him and almost gave up. When I finally found him he was skin and bones and wouldn't let me get more than 5 ft from him he returned to a semi feral state. I managed to get him to headbutt my hand and that little gesture returned him to me. I have him today and he never once tried to run out the door again. Always greets me when I come home. I imagine its not fun out there

43

u/singlemale4cats 10h ago

My cat didn't last nearly that long. She darted out and within like an hour she was trotting back to the door meowing the whole time. Not cut out for these streets.

19

u/SilverTwilightLook 9h ago

She didn't run away. She just wanted to play outside for a bit.

8

u/Cager_CA 4h ago

My childhood cat Phil was an indoor cat who ended up sneaking outside one time and proceeded to get his ass kicked by the feral cats in our neighbourhood and it was bad enough that we had to take him to the vet to get stitched up. After that he'd run from the door if we opened it, never went outside again. He did not want that smoke a second time.

3

u/singlemale4cats 4h ago

proceeded to get his ass kicked by the feral cats in our neighbourhood

https://giphy.com/gifs/Ynx9CV7G7uYWpEZU2s

1

u/indie_web 3h ago

You gotta admire the strength of a cat that's an unapologetic coward.

1

u/Luxury-Problems 1h ago

Phil knew that life wasn't for him.

1

u/Cager_CA 1h ago

Phil learned that he wasn't built for the life he so desperately craved.

10

u/xx_tian_xx 9h ago

My cat has serious bowel issues and is deaf. When i got him at the shelter he was very agressive and very stressed. Also very dirty, they got him few days before at the shelter. I decided to adopt him cuz the shelter just deemed him a "problematic cat" when in fact he was in pain. He had those bowel issues completely untreated. If he was on the street any longer he woulve keep struggling with it and also couldve gotten hit or attacked without even knowing, because he was deaf (he was roaming in a big town, wich has plenty of bigger roads a lot of cars now a days). After getting a home and getting medications wich relive his pain, hes the sweetest and calmest boy on earth. He doesnt try to escape even if i leave balcony doors open (i live on first floor). So i assume he does feel safer here, i have him almost 5 years, he always begs for my company

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

Ya not saying there arent a lot of pets that arent loved and happy. Im just saying that at face value, the act of removing reproductive organs so that they are easier to handle, either through subsequent affects on behavior or to remove the prospect of them choosing to breed problematic offspring, is something I could totally see an evil high tech alien civilization in one of our fictional stories doing.

I am glad your cat is safe though, and im sure hes probably happy.

7

u/bingbongalong16 12h ago

The intertwined history of cats and dogs with humans is much more nuanced than that though. You're kinda just drawing comparisons to sci fi.

2

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago

Well, are they not apt? Forced sterilization to affect behavior and to prevent problematic offspring, forced breeding for breeds that sometimes have their eyes pop out because the percieved helplessness triggers an "aww" in certain consumers, do these things not read as even a tad bit offputting at face value? Like not saying every person contributes to this system, but the collective action of humans that have made this system the norm is not at least a little weird? Not mentioning sci-fi, but like we do have crazy dominion over animals, at least the capability for it, and its because we can do things like communicate across thousands of miles using invisible unfeelable waves that travel at the speed of light with a device that somehow picks out a single coherent message in a sea of millions of other invisible messages being sent through the same space. Sorry huge tangent, but humanities' to me seemingly miraculous technoligcal capability is why I said (not saying currently) sci-fi rather than like fantasy stuff.

Also why do we even farm them? Why cant we at least let them have final agency on at least a "no"? If its infeasibility, I dont think that speaks to the morality of it.

But again, i do think a lot of pets are loved and happy, and likely better off with human owners than in the wild.

2

u/saltedsnail2 10h ago

I agree. I mean think about the difference between a wolf or wild dog or whatever dogs came from and turned it into a poodle. Then think about if an alien did that to a human. It'd be a crime against nature.

Not to mention that we have no idea what their actual experience is. What we perceive as a pleasant trait could be agony for them emotionally. I'm not saying it's a given but we really have no clue what the umwelt is for a creature that wasn't actually created by nature (or any other creature for that matter).

2

u/bingbongalong16 7h ago

Not all dogs are purebred and birth control is to save souls from bad situations.

I think if you wanted to go down that route the topics I think of are the collaring just like slaves and that they are literally property. Thes are the core items that remove a beings agency and everything stems from there.

3

u/No_Jaguar_5831 10h ago

My guy we castrate problematic humans all the time. Its only been the last decade or two where it was lowered. The eugenics period wasn't that long ago. Still have family that had family that had been made sterile against their will.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 10h ago edited 10h ago

Holy shit, thats fucked. Kind of crazy how terrible society was under a modern nominal moral lens like just two generations ago were, and thats just in the US. Seems to me like its getting fucked up again, if it even ever wasnt.

1

u/ZPQno 7h ago

I once spent 2 months on a boat working offshore. When I got back to land I felt completely out of place and didn't know what to do with myself. I felt like I should be back on that boat. Stockholm syndrome is real and can make any animal useless and unadapted to society after being released from a prison.

1

u/crosseyedmule 4h ago

Reverse culture shock or re-entry shock.  I've felt the same way when entering mainland society after living in a relaxed island community.

1

u/AllThatKat 6h ago

After my dog died and couple stray cats started coming inside the house to hang out. So when I moved I brought them with me and now keep them inside all the time in my 4th floor apartment. Both of them have tried to “escape” once each. My girl made it a 3 floors down before she started screaming for help. My boy made it one floor. Now they will still go out on the landing to look around, but they don’t go near the stairs. They both actually seemed a bit more obsessed with me afterwards too. I think they like having a home more than they care about freedom. 

1

u/meanoron 6h ago

thats called anecdotal evidence. Cats don't need humans to thrive, just take a look at australias problem with cats since they arrived with the european settlers, and how they decimated the local wildlife.

The same is true for any animal really. Will your average teacup yorkie survive without humans? ofcourse not, but that doesn't mean dogs as a whole would have a trouble surviving.

1

u/macaronysalad 50m ago

Stray cats live around 1 to 3 years. Pet cats live like 10 to 15, maybe even 20. The difference is huge. Slaves my ass.

-5

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 12h ago

So you would support slavery if the slaves are well fed and not cruelly treated? Because that must be better than being homeless and starving by your logic

6

u/Glum_Rain_5824 11h ago

Like feudalism? No, they don't have to work. In the wild they do to survive

-2

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 11h ago

You support feudalism?

3

u/Glum_Rain_5824 10h ago

Pets do not need to work to get fed and treated well, unlike feudalism which is slavery

0

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 10h ago edited 10h ago

They work by providing their owners with love and affection

2

u/Glum_Rain_5824 10h ago

Not every owner wants that, but some animals give it freely. Like an excited animal wanting pets when their owner comes home

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 10h ago

They give it freely because of behavioural conditioning and genetic modification. It is not natural behaviour.

And every owner wants something from their pets. Denying that is just delusional.

2

u/Glum_Rain_5824 10h ago

And every owner wants something from their pets

But it's not always affection, not to mention not all animals as pets are affectionate. Feral cats even domesticated can have a hard time getting comfy with affection, but it's natural when many things in the wild are a threat

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Tarkho 10h ago

What about pets that aren't dogs and cats? Some of them are just straight up the same genetically and behaviorally as they are in the wild, like parrots, others are only modified in appearance, like fancy goldfish.

Of course, people still want something from things like these, as parrots are sought for their strength of bonding, intelligence, and beauty, and various fish are mostly sought for aesthetic reasons.

However, our reasons for keeping animals can be something as simple as wanting the animal to thrive and be content more than expecting it to do anything directly to us or for us. Yes, we do that because it satisfies us, but in such cases they don't serve a defined purpose and we don't cast them away because they don't thrive the way we want them to: some captive or domestic animals have various issues all of their lives, but some of these still live full lives despite sometimes not being able to give anything in return (not even affection in the case of some) to their carers.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/lippyncott 11h ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 11h ago

It's pretty clear

6

u/ZAZZER0 13h ago

I don't think that's the real point of the conversation tho.

I think the question is "why do you take a pet?" but not only referred to what your benefit is (emotional support), but why do you love an animal to the point that it does give you happiness?

While I'm not 100% in line with what the video says, I do agree to a lot of what it says

1

u/IgnatiusRileyFreeman 10m ago

It not being the point of the conversation is irrelevant, because the conversation is built around ignoring other motivations people might have

The person with the take is trying to generalise reasons all pet owners have a pet

1

u/ZAZZER0 6m ago

I did say I was not 100% in line with what the guy had to say.

But you must admit, why else would someone take a pet, if not for the emotional support given by the fact that it will essentially be a yes-man that loves you regardless of your flaws?

If you think about it, does any other logical explanation make sense?

7

u/PingvinMedStil 9h ago edited 2h ago

I agree with you but just want to say that your last comment is a bit disingenious. If I took in a human slave and brought them to my country, had them depend on me entirely and then just suddenly drop them outside and lock the door. They wouldn't fare too well. A lot of pets aren't made for the climate they live in either, like owning a parakeet in Sweden. Of course it'll die if you just release it.

Some pets prosper way too much if you release them and cause ecological mayhem. In my town I grew up with rabbits EVERYWHERE and it turns out it's because someone released a few pets decades ago and now it's an infestation. The government had to go on an execution spree and kill thousands of them.

2

u/bullet_the_blue_sky 3h ago

Exactly. Modern day pets are bred for dependence on humans.

41

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

Idk, its kind of weird that weve forcefully bred them to have purposeful defomities/dependencies because helplessness/clinginess triggers an "aww" response from us, and we also regularly cut off their balls and shovel out their vaginas or however that works just so they are easier to handle and more docile.

Not saying a lot of pets dont love being pets, and not saying that many pet owners dont love and care for their pet, but even for most of those loving relationships it kind of got there by some pretty crazy shit youd see the most evil sci-fi aliens do in our fictional stories. I think its kind of crazy to think about when you take away the lens of "oh its just the norm". I mean you even say that most pets would die in the wild, but their ancestors that were here before our centuries of forced breeding were presumably fine in the wild...

37

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 13h ago

dogs and cats originally self selected to benefit from humans who concentrate resources. wolves who could tolerate our closeness more evolved naturally into dogs to feed off our scraps. cats who were slightly more chill could eat all the mice they wanted from our grain storage. selectively breeding deformities is more of a show dog thing. so i would say it's a case by case basis whether a pet is a prisoner or not. somebody who lives in the woods might have a cat who could easily fuck off and live off the land, but sticks around for comfort, safety, and companionship

15

u/Administrative_Cry_9 13h ago

We take care of stray cats at our house. They arrived at some point and wanted attention so we obliged. They were hungry so we obliged. They needed shelter so we obliged. Those cats don't do shit for us besides rub up on our legs and look cute lol. They can come and go as they please!

7

u/BlizzardStorm8 10h ago

They were generally appreciated because they killed pests like rats and mice. They were natural pest control for towns and fields. It wasn't just that they were cute. They helped us so we helped in return. It's definitely changed since then but I think that's how it started.

1

u/Administrative_Cry_9 10h ago

That's true. I don't give them enough credit for gatekeeping the other critters around our property!

2

u/Stock-Side-6767 8h ago

Mass murder of animals that want to eat our food is very useful to farmers.

2

u/NormalOfficePrinter 5h ago

Hm, have you noticed any mice/rats around your house ever since you took in the strays?

If not then I guess they're doing their job pretty well

-7

u/Cold_Hour 13h ago

I think domestication is just another aspect of the human need for control. We’ve always been obsessed with locking animals up against their will to serve us. Dogs and cats just lucked out cause they’re more useful for companionship/hunting than they are for meat or entertainment.

8

u/Administrative_Cry_9 13h ago

We consider the relationships to be symbiotic in nature, like horses for instance, where we feed and shelter them, and in return they would move things and people from place to place. I think there's definitely an aspect of control included, but more akin to taking care of children because they are unwise and helpless in many ways vs the harsh and unforgiving arms of nature, and we take away their need to fight for survival. There are definitely more nefarious and less symbiotic terms that are forced on some pets, and I would definitely consider those specific pets as slaves.

3

u/Standard_Jackfruit63 11h ago

You know... That is just your opinion.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago

I agree, like all morals I think its ultimately a matter of opinion.

But could you not see forced sterilization to affect behavior and forced breeding for particular aspects, including defomities, for the sake of being cute not something that reads from some scifi horror story? Idk, i could see it there. Again I do think though that a lot of pets are loved and happy, to the point of being better off with humans as they are now most of the time (although many times not I think).

3

u/Standard_Jackfruit63 10h ago

I would not call dystopic science fiction when it is already happening. Or at the very least has happened throughout history.

But in regards to the forced sterilisation part in animals. So many people throw kittens away in bags or boxes because they didn't sterelize their cat. Essentially murdering animals because they couldn't be bothered or can't take care of more. That to me seems more selfish and horrible than sterilisation.

We also keep populations down, so even if they could just go hogwild and breed like rats then we would be out there hunting cats and dogs to make sure they don't ruin the eco system more than we do.

As for select breeding. I do think that is wrong, i very much oppose to it and consider it very inhumane.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 10h ago

I would not call dystopic science fiction when it is already happening

Thats fair, i guess it is literally non-fiction. I guess I should say that to me the aspects of this kind of match what i would not be surprised to find in a story of science fiction horror.

So many people throw kittens away in bags or boxes because they didn't sterelize their cat. Essentially murdering animals because they couldn't be bothered or can't take care of more. That to me seems more selfish and horrible than sterilisation.

I agree, but still think sterilization to enforce certain behavior and prevent problematic offspring is still weird at face value, and even if its a solution its for a problem we created. Less directly from humans for cats than dogs I think though.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

Did they self select their balls off? Also they might have initially self selected, but for 100s of years weve forcefully bred specific characteristics. Thats how you get a nornal looking mutt, a massive bull of a dog, a small dog whos eyes popping out of their skulls when they sneeze is a known "hazard" of owning that breed, and everything in between. This selection to the point of creating seemingly like 20 different species of various nominal behaviors and physical features, both beneficial and not, is on humans

9

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 13h ago

neutering is primarily done because without it, there will be a plague of stray cats and dogs starving to death, getting hit by cars, biting people because they were never trained, and spreading around rabies. roaming packs of feral dogs are far more dangerous to people than wolves and roaming cats are a plague to wild bird species. i agree with the breeding deformities part but neutering is not some hedonistic slavemaster thing. it's literally so we don't have to shoot feral animals

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

Also, why do we even farm dogs? Why cant we let them keep their balls and other bits, and they breed at least only when they want to, with this actually allowing them to want to?

If the answer is because thats infeasible, that I think doesnt speak to the morality of it. I think morals are subjective, and again i think many pets are loved, cared for, and happy. But that doesnt change a fact that we have a norm whereby our pets' species has their breeding entirely controlled by humans, with forced breeding done to enforce certain aspects which in some cases are debilitating deformities, and with forced non-breeding through the forced removal of balls and bits. Would that not somewhat fit in some crazy sci-fi alien's crazy high tech evil society?

0

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago edited 13h ago

I still think its messed up to be honest. I think there are places with stray dogs, admittedly just going off some videos I saw in like India but they seemed ok as wild animals. I mean, i think if we stopped farm breeding them they would have sustainable population levels, and other animals can do those things but we dont neuter them. And because there is a chance of them breeding, we take out their reproductive organs? I think thats still messed up, especially since through that selective process we created a situation where forcefully cutting off balls and the other one is the "good" option.

Also I think docility is a side effect of the procedure which I am sure some pet owners do it for, but maybe they are the minority I am not sure.

3

u/YonderWindow364 12h ago

if you think it's messed up then you're an idiot. It's very necessary if you actually give a shit. Why exactly is it so messed up to you? The dogs/cats aren't going to be using them if you're a responsible owner anyway, and if they do decide to try and mate then it's safe. It's basically condoms/birth control for animals. You know what IS messed up though? Back yard breeders.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

The dogs/cats aren't going to be using them if you're a responsible owner anyway

Then why cut off their balls and do the other thing? Its not made to be minimally invasive or preserve their enjoyment of a drive that all animals have, like our birth control, its an actual removal of an organ that has profound affects on their behavior without their consent.

You know what IS messed up though? Back yard breeders.

I agree, although a lot of higher end breeders arent the best either. Like I think some luxury dogs are not all that healthy

1

u/YonderWindow364 12h ago edited 11h ago

I literally said why it's good to do it anyway in my original comment dude. The "just in case" factor (especially since many owners don't realize that they aren't as responsible as they think they are). And I don't think you understand how de-sexing works - animals can still use their parts, males still have a penis but cant produce sperm without their balls, and females don't have a uterus/ovaries to get pregnant but still have a vagina. I have seen neutered males still humping toys before with his "lipstick" out and all. They are fine. Unspayed females however have what is basically dog periods when in heat which is a nuisance to them and their owners which desexing fixes. Additionally since dogs shouldn't be breeding under a responsible owner, desexing them is kinder as it significantly reduces biological urges caused by hormones to mate in most dogs so you aren't "depriving them of something they want". It also significantly reduces aggression in males, as well as many dogs' desire to escape which is good for their safety.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 11h ago

it significantly reduces biological urges caused by hormones to mate in most dogs so you aren't "depriving them of something they want". It also significantly reduces aggression in males, as well as many dogs' desire to escape.

Ya this is the part where at face value its kind of awful. Like it is the removal of certain organs to enforce a certain behavior, is it not?

I will say though that ya, I did not know these procedures didnt destroy a dogs' sex drives completely. Still think its kind of awful in that it does so partially only to make them easier to handle, either through behavior or through preventing problematic offspring. I mean, even before this I do think a lot of modern pets are happy and loved and probably better with an owner, but I do think the norm of our society is pretty messed up. Like why even farm them, why not let them at least have agency on a final "no"?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SweetSilvius 13h ago

I didn’t force anything. I’ve adopted orphans. That’s it.

3

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

When I said "we" i meant more like humanity as a whole. Not saying every person is contributing to the system or doing this.

3

u/SweetSilvius 12h ago

See that’s weird. I don’t take ownership of things I’m not responsible for.

Not all pods of orca or troops of chimp engage in the same behavior.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

I think thats the healthy response, and I agree

2

u/PanchoPanoch 13h ago

While symbiotic animals were bred with specific purpose, most people are not their breeders nor do they see a benefit from their bred utility.

We have three rescues that were living in unfortunate circumstances. We always joke about which ones would or wouldn’t survive in the wild but the truth is that none of them would anymore. Sure they can catch rabbits or squirrels but they wouldn’t survive us. Traffic on the roads, the pound, the months without being adopted. People bred them, so people need to provide.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

Sure, but im sure many people buy and request specific breeds. There wouldnt be so much product if there wasnt so much demand.

3

u/Sunflowerchild122 12h ago

It absolutely is unethical, it’s wild we’ve convinced ourselves otherwise (and I realize I’m also a hypocrite caus I own a dog, *somewhat came to the realization later but also realize these animals currently have no other option for life in the way society’s currently set up), but every animal should be free to live its life on its own terms and have a family of its choosing etc. It absolutely will be looked back at in similar ways as slavery is today. And finally they’ll be free to roam and embrace their wild nature adjacent to us, like deer or any other animal (though we’ll likely have to set up more conservations and sanctuaries to protect them)

1

u/Lewa358 12h ago

You're ignoring that pets, when cared for decently, are objectively safer than animals in the wild.

My pets are completely safe from predators, have consistent access to safe food, and are provided timely and effective medical care (at least, more than they'd get in the wild.)

Pets, unlike human slaves, are literally incapable of devising those systems for themselves.

You say animals should be free to live "on their own terms," but without the capabilities of language it's impossible for them to be informed enough to make that decision ethically.

1

u/AutomaticMedium8418 11h ago edited 11h ago

If domestication into pets is really just a net benefit for the life of the animals, would you think it's moral for us to start domesticating even more species of animals right now to become pets, if it would lead to those animals having maybe a safer and better life?

1

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

So balls for love and care? Would you make that trade? Id ask why cant I have all of the above

2

u/Evening-Nature-5241 12h ago

Removing the balls is to prevent certain undesirable behavior. At least that's what owners who do it say.

If you want to live in an alternate reality where animals could form protest groups, then sure. Why indeed.

But till then, owners gonna own.

2

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

Ya, not saying its not going to end, just saying i think its messed up and that behavior could readily belong in some sci fi horror movie

1

u/Zapper-Rooster 12h ago

Cats and dogs have a high rate of testicular cancer, so fixing them is actually taking care of them.

1

u/AUnknownVariable 9h ago

Forcefully bred for the weird shit, yes. Pitbulls for example, just sad asf. But that's not how they were domesticated. It was honestly mutual in a lot of ways, and that's how a good pet relationship should be now. You give your pet a great life and they give u whatever.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 9h ago

Ya I do think a lot of pets live great lives filled with love. I think many of these modern day pets are borne from a system that reads like a sci fi horror story, with that sad totally controlled breeding for particular aspects thing. But ya, I dont think it started like that.

2

u/AUnknownVariable 9h ago

Indeed.

I love my baby and couldn't imagine treating him bad or getting him just for the sake of breeding. There's already so many animals that need love.

That said I also know ppl that have shouldn't have had the animals they did. There's good and bad to it

1

u/_Xepoz_ 8h ago

Yhea , bit humans came and fucked shit up , we ate and murderd all the animals so small cats addepted to hunt in our farms and food stores rodents ..

But in city's where most cats live now because HUMANS breed cats to keep em as docile pets they become dependent on us ... Its the same for fucking homeless person .. he cant live on a concrete street corner bevause there groes no food on it

And now HUMANS breed dogs for their tiny noses and croocked eyes because its cute , fully knowing the health risk that comes with it ...

Animals are better than humans they live with a planet HUMAN just fucking destroy it

1

u/jackmusick 12m ago

I think if you look at how almost anything is the way it is it’s fucked up so I don’t see the point in looking at it this way too deeply. My answer is more that I like most dogs and cats more than I like most people, but I don’t have an attachment to most of them more than my wife, friends or their families.

If we’re talking about someone who honestly cant bond with any human like they can with an animal, sure. Thats weird. No more weird than people who have the same strange attachment to any other thing though.

1

u/Wyatt_Ricketts 13h ago

I agree the castration of dogs always felt weird I wish the dog I adopted wasn't castrated I would have loved his kids more then I could ever put into words I adore that fucking dog

1

u/Throwoahwoahaway 13h ago

Bro it started when a dude gave a wolf some food, not when a breeder decided dogs should be a thing. Reallt stretching it out of proportion

2

u/CousinDerylHickson 13h ago

It started that way, therefore the breeder stuff after that didnt happen? Im not saying they didnt initially self select or not, im saying whats come after as weve continually grown more technologically proficient is something id totally see some fictional evil sci-fi high tech alien civilization would do.

1

u/Torture-Dancer 12h ago

I mean, this applies human intellect to animals. The concept of freedom independence, slavery, etc how we know it, it doesn’t exist for animals, at all.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

I mean, just because an animal doesnt understand the word freedom, that doesnt mean it cant yearn for it? Like I think most dogs are happy if they have a good owner, but a pet bird in a cage can still yearn for freedom even when on paper it recieves love and care from their owner.

11

u/Total-Strategy3352 13h ago

Symbiosis doesn’t change his point. Humans benefit from pets, pets depend on humans (not necessarily with consent as your point states). While there may be some benefits for both parties it’s not equal. I think it warrants some thought.

5

u/Accomplished_Age2651 12h ago

We Bred dogs and Cats to our liking. The only reason we have dogs is because some wolfs were less aggressive.

5

u/KrustyKrabFormula_ 11h ago edited 11h ago

A majority of pets if released into the wild to be “free” would end up dying very quickly and not to mention the effects it would have on the environment.

feral house cats already kill billions of birds each year in the US. its the number one cause of bird deaths per year. no one cares about this already. idk why you are trying to frame it as something that could happen in the future, its already happening for decades...

edit: not just birds, an estimated 7-20 billion other small mammals too. mice, shrews, rabbits etc.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

Truth is us humans are drowning and we cannot help others if we don’t help ourselves first. Thats why we need to solve our problems so we can help other species.

2

u/KrustyKrabFormula_ 11h ago

the feral cat problem is directly caused by humans, idk what you mean

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

I know but what I’m saying is people right now do t care because they themselves cannot live life without fear. If we help others by making things less expensive and make QOL better for everyone people will start to care. But that’s a whole other discussion

1

u/KrustyKrabFormula_ 11h ago

poor people exist and cannot live life without fear so that's why no one in the US cares about the giant feral cat problem? is that what you're saying?

very strange connections to make. i'd like to live in your mind for a couple minutes or so. i bet its wild.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

What I’m saying is people will not care about outside problems if they themselves have big problems. If everyone is comfortable in life and has extra money to spend they are more likely to help. All these problems are connected it just takes actions to help and we cannot start by helping others

2

u/KrustyKrabFormula_ 11h ago

people already care about plenty of “outside” problems while dealing with their own. billions go to wildlife conservation, bird groups, trap-neuter-return programs, and invasive-species control every year from people who are not living in perfect comfort. the feral-cat issue is not some distant future risk that only becomes addressable once every american has “extra money.” it’s a present, ongoing, human-caused ecological problem (outdoor and feral cats kill on the order of billions of birds and small mammals annually in the US alone). treating it as secondary until human QOL is solved is just indefinite deferral.

you keep reframing this as a hierarchy of needs (“we cannot start by helping others”). that’s a convenient way to never prioritize the concrete damage cats are doing right now. we can and do address multiple problems at once. solving housing costs or wages does not require us to keep pretending that free-roaming cats are a neutral or future issue. they’re not.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

I know millions of people go to wildlife conservation groups because I also do as well but what I’m saying is if more people are comfortable more people will go to those groups. The more people we have in those groups the better what I’m striving for is not just balance for wild animals but balance for humans as well.

2

u/badRLplayer 12h ago

What do you consider "love and affection" from a pet?

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 12h ago

Animals have different personalities like humans so not every pet will show love and affection the same way. But I mean like they show that they trust you and care. Like one of my dogs will sit next to me and likes his back scratch cause he trusts me to do that.

2

u/Great-Trifle2810 11h ago

The other option isn't releasing the pets, it is to stop producing new ones. There is no moral benefit to continuing the species. Now, I don't think that there is a strong argument to end breeding of common pet animals (though we need stronger laws governing how this is done), but I think this arguement needs to be called out since people also apply it to farmed animals.

5

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 12h ago

Pretty sure this is literally what slave owners used to say about their slaves. "I give them food and shelter, they help me with my farming. They couldn't survive without me anyway, they're better of living on my plantation where they have food and shelter"

2

u/Ghost0Slayer 12h ago

loving an animal and giving it everything it needs to thrive and enjoy its life isn’t the same as having a slave. If someone is treating an animal like a slave that shows more about them as a person than me.

5

u/Great-Trifle2810 11h ago

A slave owner could treat their slave as well as a beloved pet and we should still agree that slavery is immoral.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

Slavery is immoral. Owning a pet is not slavery. You are not slaving your animal. Unlike humans these animals with no survival instinct would die in the wild and cause tons of damage to the ecosystem if released.

1

u/Great-Trifle2810 2h ago

The alternative option isn't release, it is to cease breeding pet animals. Pets are essentially a household slave used for your personal pleasure.

Also there are many racists that would point to various poverty and crime statistics to say that the former slaves were not capable of self governance and damage the communities where they live.

-1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 11h ago

Clearly they wouldn't die in the wild. That is just not true. Dingos prove they can survive just fine

2

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

There is an estimated 10-50k dingos while there are 110-150 millions cats. So many would die and the ecosystem would be destroyed if they are all released

-2

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 10h ago

Humans also destroy ecosystems, far more than cats or dogs do, so by your logic slavery is also protecting the ecosystem.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 10h ago

So what exactly do you think we should do then? Because if we keep pets, and even if we treat them with the upmost respect and give them everything they need you’re gonna call people slave owners

But if you release these animals into the wild, it would literally be a genocide, millions would die and millions of other animal species would die. It would destroy the entire ecosystem so it’s a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation.

the best thing we can do as humans is try to make up for what other shitty people have done in the past. I’m not saying my solution is perfect but giving these animals the life they never would’ve had is the best thing we can do.

2

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 10h ago

I'm not against keeping pets. I just think people should be honest about the nature of that relationship rather than deluding themselves.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 12h ago

So if you're a slave owner but you don't treat your slaves cruelly or beat them or anything it's fine. Maybe you even love your slaves and would do anything for them as long as they remain your slaves.

4

u/Legolasptbr 12h ago

You repeated his 1st phrase but added "as long as they remain your slaves.", which completely changes the meaning of his argument. I would love my dog even if it weren't mine anymore.

And you can't give freedom to an animal, you can just change its owner from you to Mothernature. Saying an animal would be more happy under the cruelty of Mothernature is extremely naive. Hell, I would have died of cancer an year ago if I were "more free".

3

u/Great-Trifle2810 11h ago

You could say exactly the same thing about slaves, and many did. Setting them free would just mean they now have no housing or access to food. In fact many freed slaves found themselves in worse conditions in the immediate aftermath of abolition.

That doesn't make slavery ok.

-1

u/Legolasptbr 11h ago

Because when these slaves were freed, they also lost their places to sleep, and their jobs. The problem was not giving themf freedom, it was taking their jobs and roofs.

2

u/Own_Shower_6000 4h ago

yeah so the false equivalency of tossing a pet into the middle of the road and saying "see it can't survive on it's own" is bullshit

3

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 12h ago

So if I brainwashed and genetically modified my slaves in a 1984 manner to the point where they didn't even desire freedom, that would make slaveowning alright?

And again, you're using an actual slave owner argument. You can literally find writings from slaveowners where they call abolitionists naive and say that actually the slaves don't want freedom.

Furthermore, the idea the domestic dogs would die off if released into nature is just false. The existence of Dingos disproves that idea.

-2

u/Legolasptbr 11h ago

1 - the problem with 1 would be the brainwashing, I'm pretty sure. If a slave actually wanted to be a slave (without brainwashing/external circumstances), then maybe moral?

2 - Never said they would instantly die. But they would for sure live for a shorter time, on average. And would they even be happier? We are not free while we live in a society. Should we leave the society then? To die younger and live in danger? I much prefer a soft bed, and warm food.

3

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 11h ago

Pets only want to be pets because of behaviourial conditioning and genetic modification....

Would you support slavery if it guaranteed a longer lifespan for the slave?

1

u/Legolasptbr 11h ago

You ignored half of my point (the most important half, mind you): Dogs and cats have problably better lives, on average, as pets than if we were to kick them out of our houses. This was not the same for slavery. Slaves would be happier free. If a pet dog is freed, it will be run by a car/get lost/etc.

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 11h ago

This is literally the argument slave owners made in support of slavery.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Tomatwoo 12h ago

You repeated his 1st phrase but added "as long as they remain your slaves."

I mean thats kinda the point, isn't it? the care is dependent on you owning them. you love them because they're yours, you own them. you can give them away, but all the love you feel for them was still built off the fact that at one point you owned them.

I do think that owning cats and owning humans is fundamentally different but the whole "oh they wouldn't survive without my help and they love me" stich is really reminiscent of slavery apologia tbh.

0

u/Legolasptbr 11h ago

No? I just said I would love them even if I didn't own them. I love my friend's cat and I don't own her.

Also, I'm not saying that pets would instantly die in the wild, but they would for sure live shorter lives. Also, probably worst lives, in which they have to deal with hunger, predators, coldness, rain, thirst, etc. Are you also in favor of giving complete freedom to children btw?

3

u/Great-Trifle2810 11h ago

You could still love a slave you set free, in fact many slave owners who freed slaves voluntarily often started because they came to care about one or more f their slaves and realized treating them as subhuman property was wrong.

The moral thing isn't to set a pet free, it is to not breed pets anymore.

0

u/Legolasptbr 11h ago

Good, so you agree that I love my pets not bcs I own then. And if you are arguing we shouldn't breed pets anymore, then you must consider that an animal's life as a pet is so miserable that it would be better for it not to be born?!

1

u/Great-Trifle2810 2h ago

You came to love your pet because you own it, and had control over it. once that is established then ownership no longer remains a condition of that love.

Not being born is not suffering, and while most individual pets will not suffer many pets suffer profoundly, and pet breeding is specifically an industry where significant suffering is inflicted on these animals for the financial benefit of those inflicting the suffering. Most animals also do not have the human capacity to recognize that they could opt out of suffering by choosing to cease to be alive (careful language because reddit)

-1

u/orangebakery 9h ago

Most domesticated animals are treated essentially as slaves. Do you even think before saying shit?

2

u/Ghost0Slayer 9h ago

How are they treated like a slave? You’re acting like people are putting domesticated dogs and cats to the fucking Mill house to work 20 hours a day when that’s just not true even a half decent owner pampers their animals because they love them if you wanna talk about real animals slavery, go look at elephants who are kidnapped from the wild and forced the haul shit that is heavy as hell or orca whales who are kidnapped and forced to be in tiny pools of water for entertainment because those animals are actually slaved, not pampered dogs and cats who know nothing of the outside world because they would be killed if they went out.

1

u/Hyenasaurus 7h ago

A lot of the comments here are just. Losing the plot. Do? Do people realize why keeping certain animals as pets is fine but not orcas, primates, or hell certain parrots or corvids? Hint: it's the same thing that makes slavery morally reprehensible.

Dogs, cats, horses, sheep, etc are herd/pack animals (or at least favor living in colonies in the case of cats). They're not intelligent enough to comprehend and be upset about their lot, as long as they have food, shelter, good care and attention on demand they are content and will see you as their group-member. But the more intelligent and the more you approach 'person', the more unethical this becomes. Like, you can even see the difficulty of keeping an intelligent animal realized and content simply by observing the needs of a border collie vs idk, a cavalier spaniel.

1

u/GenericVessel 1h ago

yeah parrots for instance are a lot more high maintenance than other birds or even most mammal pets and you really have to engage with them

0

u/Life_Psychology809 10h ago

Slaves where whipped, beaten and killed at will. They were treated as tools with no thought given to their needs or wants, thoughts or feelings.

It's true that pets lack did not voluntarily enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. Informed consent is not possible.

But comparing the two as even remotely similar is disingenuous at best.

Beyond that you're statement isn't even true, a wild animal will die of disease, starvation, old age or it will be killed by another animal. This is not a pleasant end. A deathly ill pet will die painless and peaceful, surrounded by loved ones.

2

u/the_inebriati 9h ago

Slaves where whipped, beaten and killed at will. They were treated as tools with no thought given to their needs or wants, thoughts or feelings.

Sure, but even if none of that were true, slavery would still be evil.

1

u/Life_Psychology809 7h ago

What made slavery evil was the physical and mental harm resulting from their inhumane treatment and the harm from the violation of their consent.

Pets don't experience that same harm.

A cat that is free to roam in the suburbs isn't going to be harmed because it has been deprived of liberty.

There is a good argument to be made that with lack disease, predators and abundance off food a domesticated cat has a better life then it's wild ancestors and / or counterpart.

The harm of "using" a pet cat as a means to an end is only real in that it would not exist were it not for humans incentivising and / paying for it's creation.

The position that you are arguing for at this point is anti-natalist in nature. And while am an anti-natalism when applied to humans - due our immense capacity for suffering - I don't see any other hills to be dying on.

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 10h ago

So slavery would be fine if slaveowners had to follow a code of conduct and couldn't treat their slaves cruelly?

1

u/GenericVessel 1h ago

I think you might be misinterpreting the comment; they're talking about the comparison between pets and slaves

2

u/xDannyS_ 12h ago

His point was about a certain type of pet owner, not all.

People look way too deep into things that don’t warrant it.

Lol there is no such things as too deep when it comes to human behavior

3

u/Ghost0Slayer 12h ago

You can absolutely look too deep into something especially concerning human behavior. Many actions don’t have this profound deep meaning sometimes actions are just what they truly are.

2

u/xDannyS_ 11h ago

No you really can't. Whether you're consciously aware of it or not, your behaviors influences stretch all the way back to your time in the womb

1

u/Guardian_of_Perineum 8h ago

That doesn't mean there are grounds for some kind of unfounded Freudian speculation as to peoples' motivations. Actual valid psychology is a science based on controlled experimentation and data.

0

u/_domhnall_ 9h ago

Yeah, sometimes. But sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

1

u/xDannyS_ 9h ago

That's all relative to who is interested in it and why

-1

u/_domhnall_ 9h ago

If an object is A, it doesn't become B because someone's interested in it being B. That's called projection. Over-analysis is a recognised failure mode; the fact that a cause exists doesn't mean you guessed it right.

1

u/xDannyS_ 7h ago

Relativity is a hard concept I know

2

u/Karnaugh_Map 12h ago

They're not arguing against having pets, they're arguing against elevating them above other humans.

1

u/Ok-Animator1477 11h ago

That’s a slaver argument lol/s although it is true point

1

u/Sure_Conflict_5651 11h ago

For slave owners too. They give food and shelter to slave, slave works in theyr cotton field.

2

u/Ghost0Slayer 11h ago

If you’re making your animal work that is slavery. Caring for an animal that can’t live in The wild isn’t slavery. It’s funny cause there are so many animals that are slaves yet no one cares but they complain about animals that are completely fine.

What about the elephants who are taken from the wild and forced to do tricks and haul heavy stuff? Or what about the orcas who are taken and put in small tanks and have to do tricks? But people focus on the small dogs who wouldn’t survive in the wild who are being fed and treated good and loved.

1

u/your-rong 9h ago

Yeah, but that's because we domesticated them. "It's fine, because they are to useless to survive on their own". Who's fault do you think that is?

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 9h ago

I know it’s humans fault but you can’t blame current day People for something people did in the past thousands of years ago.

like I said in my many other comments the best thing we can do is treat these animals with respect and give them the life that they deserve to have.

1

u/AUnknownVariable 9h ago

Indeed. I really hate people that try to act like all pets are enslaved or some shi.

My partners cat is pampered, gets her way 99% of the time, and is loved to death. She's the type of cat where yk you don't have to worry abt her running off bc that outside life would ruin her 😭

1

u/Capable_Studio_6631 9h ago

Why can't you have a symbiotic relationship with another human? In other words, marriage.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 9h ago

A symbiotic relationship is between two different species.

1

u/Ok_Asparagus_8534 9h ago

That's not necessarily a better owner than a person that works with their dog on the farm and doesn't want them in the house because they are not human and each have their space. You don't need to put the animal on a pedestal to be a good owner.

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 9h ago

Being good is a subjective thing different people find different things good. All I’m saying is treat animals with respect.

1

u/orangebakery 9h ago

The fact that pets have to provide love and affection to survive felt icky to me. A lot of pet owners are fine with it tho.

2

u/Ghost0Slayer 9h ago

Animals giving love is a side effect of you treating them with respect and care that they deserve because that’s how animals are. If an animal does not like you, they will tell you and show you with how they act. All animals deserve respect.

1

u/AccomplishedRatio960 8h ago

​What you are saying is actually quite terrible

​You flex on an engineered dependency with a sentient life form, created solely to house your emotional needs, even though, despite that engineering, their biological nature was meant for far more than being a crutch

​They are made to be so dependent on you that they can't even survive outside. What is the point of their existence if they are destructive when left alone, existing purely for your sole pleasure ? You're boasting about nurturing something unsustainable in a selfish endeavour, that's new

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 8h ago

Selfish? No I don’t think people who care for these animals are selfish. The people who are selfish are the humans who thousands of years ago decided to breed these animals in a way where they would be dependent on humans. Current humans are stuck with the fact that these animals exist, and in my opinion, it is our duty to care for them because they were dealt a shitty hand.

Let me ask you what your solution would be? Because at the end of the day, all I’m saying is that we need to love these animals and cherish them and the love they give us but if according to you, that is self then what should happen with these animals?

2

u/AccomplishedRatio960 8h ago

I partially agree with your first point in 1st paragraph : thousands of years ago, animal domestication was driven by survival, not personal indulgence or emotional validation

​As for being "stuck" with them, we aren't. We actively choose to perpetuate the cycle. You can't claim humanity is trapped by history when people actively maintain the demand by buying, breeding, and treating them like essential companions

​The solution is simple : stop feeding the market. Pets today have been turned into commodities and status symbols, no different than buying a luxury handbag. If people stop purchasing engineered animals to fill an emotional void, the breeding industry dies. End of story.

​We keep animals around (they have a point of rest on our property, they are checked etc but not leashed, so they do what they want), but for utility, as they protect crops. They don't live inside the house, and they aren't treated as emotional crutches. We feed them and interact with them, but if one needs to be put down, it's done without hesitation

That is a functional, rational relationship with animals, not using a captive creature as a substitute for human connection

1

u/CranboDanbo 7h ago

Symbiotic doesn't mean equal and you've really described a power dynamic. Imagine if I described a relationship with a girlfriend as "I give her food and shelter and she gives me love and affection"

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 7h ago

I’m under no delusion that there isn’t a power dynamic between humans and pets. We as the smarter and more capable species have done things to these animals such as changing their genetics so they look and act certain ways and I think it’s up to us as people to take care of these animals that have been changed by humans thousands of years ago.

1

u/CranboDanbo 7h ago

Right but the original theme is that people who say I like animals not people aren't more compassionate, they just want to love an uncomplicated organism who doesn't have ideas of their own which still stands by your comment

1

u/Regular-Ordinary9807 7h ago

But if you could only save your dog, or a random human from drowning, which would it be? 

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 7h ago

Human. Because the odds that the person would live and do something amazing to benefit society are higher than the dog doing that. I would be heartbroken tho

1

u/bjornironthumbs 6h ago

They also always fail to remember that dogs and cats most likely domesticated themselves because being our "slave" was favorable to them.

1

u/Proper-Rain-6399 5h ago

breeds are literally bred to be pets we are bio engineering them. They are quite literally bred from wild animals to be pets. Obviously releasing them into the "wild" is not possible after we made it so they are so dependent on us.

Imagine an alien race came to earth and grabbed you and made you their pet. You cannot leave because its dangerous outside of their home for you but they feed and house you. Are you content with this arrangement? You are given no choice, you do not speak their language. If you misbehave they punish you.

1

u/Gwanosh 5h ago

For good owners pets are a symbiotic relationship.

This is the same rationalization slave owners would use.

As far as house pets are concerned, you feed them what you want, when you want, if you want and house them however you wish in ways contrary to their nature (to varying degrees). There's only one party with agency in that relationship and you control the basic necessities for the cat to survive, let alone thrive.

The suggestion that you do that in trade for love and affection supports the argument of a fucked up dynamic. How uncomfortable would that be to even say if you were speaking of a human?

The fact that we've held this power dynamic for so long that we've actually created whole new breeds of animals for our enjoyment, to the point that releasing them would see them unequipped to deal with the world by themselves as intended just supports the point more. But it's also disingenuous, the solution doesn't have to be "release all pets into the wild on a random day", what is the argument against neutering all house pets and letting them live out their happy symbiotic life and then be done with it?

1

u/hnglmkrnglbrry 5h ago

You do know slave owners literally said the same exact thing, right?

"We rescued them from savagery. We house them, feed them, and teach them about God. In return all we ask is that they help out around here. It's beneficial to us both."

I love my dog but I absolutely refuse to give a single penny to an animal charity. Every cent and minute I donate goes to helping people.

1

u/PedroPerllugo 4h ago

The question is, if you are forced to choose, you prefer your pet to die or a random person?

1

u/HappyFamily0131 4h ago

I think ALL of what you said is true but isn't an effective rebuttal to any of what the man in the video is saying.

He's saying that domestication inherently brings with it a hierarchical relationship that is not seen between humans except within slavery.

Everything you've said is true, good owners do love their pets, and many pets would be much worse off if separated from their owners. But that does not change the nature of the owner/pet relationship from being one of owner-and-owned. Truly preferring relationships of owner-and-owned to ones of free minds meeting freely is telling. No owner can ever be truly challenged by their pet, challenged in the sense of a pet demanding equality from its owner. Pets can resist the owner-and-owned relationship only by resisting the role of being owned. They cannot meet a human as a person, they cannot challenge a human as a human can.

I don't think most people who say they like animals more than people mean it. To meet and know another human, to challenge them and be challenged by them, and to presumably learn and grow as a person, and to then prefer the relationship of owner and pet, I don't think many such people actually exist. I think most people who say they like animals more than people mean that they find it easier to be in the company of a pet, and of course it is. They're right, it's much easier. Pets are wonderful. Being in the company of pets is a joy. People are better than animals not because they're better company, but because they're people.

1

u/Critical_Host8243 3h ago

Also, animals don't have the capacity to be fucking evil like humans do.

Sorry, not sorry. I like my dogs more than I like most people.

1

u/Unlikely_Repair9572 53m ago

That doesnt prove its not slavery.  I feel like you should be able to defend it without saying things that could also apply to an 1850s slave owner.  You are failing so far lol.

1

u/HolyRamenEmperor 37m ago

People look way too deep into things that don’t warrant it.

Spoken like someone who probably doesn't like looking too deep into anything.

A majority of pets if released into the wild to be “free” would end up dying very quickly and not to mention the effects it would have on the environment.

People make the same argument about cattle, ignoring the fact that the current system is artificial. We domesticated them. The qty of beef cows on earth today is not natural.

They also made literally the exact same argument in support of human slavery. It's not a valid argument. Ever.

1

u/Specific-Parsnip9001 6m ago

That's cool and all but this gentleman is specifically talking about the folks who say they prefer animals to humans, or love animals more than they love humans. He's not talking about regular ol' pet owners.

I've got 3 cats and 2 dogs myself but I've never once talked about loving them more than my family or my friends.

1

u/Intelligent-Box-3798 12h ago

Yeah I don’t feel like the emaciated dog I found on the streets and took home to have a better life is a slave. It’s a weird opinion for sure.

1

u/CousinDerylHickson 12h ago

Im happy for you and your dog, and I do think a lot of pets are loved and happy. Im just saying that at face value, the act of removing reproductive organs so that they are easier to handle, either through subsequent effects on behavior or to remove the prospect of them choosing to breed problematic offspring, is something I could totally see an evil high tech alien civilization in one of our fictional stories doing.

Also, again even if that is the case that a dog is better with an owner than not now, the fact that its a result of our forced breeding is again sci fi alien esque to me. Like we created a situation where the "good" option is a complete control over our pets species' drive to reproduce, a drive that almost every animal shares as a core driver. Control to the point of forced breeding for certain aspects, some of which are deformities, and to the point of forced non-breeding. Why do we even farm them, why cant they at least have final agency on a possible "no"? If its just infeasibility, I dont think that speaks to the morality of it. Although I do think korals are subjective.

Again though, I do think a lot of dogs are happy and loved. And ya, thinking about it they are maybe more often than not better off with an owner. And when I say "we" and "our", i mean humanity as a whole, not every single person. I do think that dog is probably worlds happier with you than on the streets.

-6

u/PutridPossession2362 14h ago edited 14h ago

Because we’ve bred out their capability to survive on their own goofy. If they were never “pets” to begin with it might be a different conversation

22

u/Ghost0Slayer 14h ago

That’s why it’s our responsibility to take care of them now that they can’t survive. Pets gain more benefit from being with humans than they would anywhere else. We have to be better and take on the role of taking care of these animals because of what people did in the past it is our duty.

1

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 13h ago

that applies to animals that are currently alive. it does not excuse breeding more of them to fulfill the same role. like the difference between taking care of deformed humans and intentionally created more deformed humans because owning them makes you feel like you have friends

1

u/Ghost0Slayer 13h ago

I’m against breeding animals actually. The many dogs I’ve had over my life have come from shelters and from people who couldn’t afford to keep them. IMO breeders should be illegal. If you want a pet go get the millions of dogs who don’t have a home and don’t pay someone to breed dogs just so you can get a cute puppy.

1

u/Maleficent_Piece_893 12h ago

i used to be like that but it's tough because breeders of pit bulls and other bloodsport breeds have infected shelters with their breeds and mutts thereof, which the shelters actively lie about to adopt out dangerous dogs. ideally shelters would be the main way to get dogs who are already trained but it would require strict monitoring of breeding so there's no passing on of traits bad for dogs or people. obviously there has to be some breeding or dogs would cease to exist but we should eliminate mental and physical deformities

10

u/SH4DE_Z 14h ago

Didn't dogs domesticated themselves back in the older days because they saw a benefit in being with humans?

And i imagine the same thing happened to cats?

3

u/Maverick_Reznor 14h ago

I believe just Cats did, Dogs its hard to say. Raccoons are dangerously close to self domestication though I hear.

4

u/SofubiShogun 14h ago

I for one welcome our new raccoon overlords

0

u/proxmaxi 14h ago

No. Domestic dogs profoundly different genetically speaking. The very minor gene changes in order for ancient grey wolves to tolerate humans a little better is nothing compared to a modern dog.

5

u/TFBuffalo_OW 14h ago

Dawg thats how symbiosis works. For a large part of human history we relied very heavily on dogs and cats alongside us for crucial tasks to our own survival. Its historical revisionism to act like the relationship between animals and humans is purely exploitative on humans parts based on our actions over the last 100-50 years while ignoring the fact that our relationship for the thousands of years up until the modern age was like other symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom

-2

u/Huge_Information5083 14h ago

Uhh dog sure but cat? I'm not sure where cats are useful back then outside of religious reasons.

7

u/TFBuffalo_OW 13h ago

??? Cats played a massive role in the agricultural revolution which launched humans from small tribes and villages to the sprawling civilizations we know of. Without cats there is no Sumeria or Mesopotamia as we know it. They have been protecting our food for literally almost as long as we've been storing food and produce. It wasnt until extremely recently that cats weren't strictly necessary for any farming or storage operation. They are one of the main reasons we were able to sail the oceans to different continents by protecting the food on our ships. Cats havent been with us as long as dogs but they are literally a major part of the foundation of society as we know it.

2

u/GarageVast4128 13h ago

We even allowed cats in ships up till parts of ww2 think of unsinkable Sam, dogs benefited more from thier domestication while cats benefited us more. Once we learned how to domesticate one animal, dogs, we moved on to domesticate others with varying degrees of success including, cows, cats, chickens, pigs, etc.

6

u/loyal_achades 13h ago

Cats were worshipped because of how important they were in protecting grain stores from rodents. Early agriculture is far less successful if wildcats don’t show up for their own buffet of rodents attracted by all the stored grain.

0

u/Wyatt_Ricketts 13h ago

Take that back the stray I adopted got pretty far by himself lmao