by BlisteredWhippet » Thu 08 Mar 2007, 15:10:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '[')b]BlisteredWhippet thanks so much for the laugh!
n/p. BTW, I don't "hate"
Canis lupus familiaris. The "Hater" invective is the defense anyone holding any number of popular "status quo" opinions, and impotent in any logical sense. Yet, its used, simply because logic isn't needed in the spheres of personal affectation, politics, religion, rhetoric, etc. The lack of logic in personal decision making vis a vis dogs is evident by the number of
Canis lupus familiaris getting euthanized every day in shelters. If people actually did the mental exercises necessary to cognate the ramifications of "owning"
Canis lupus familiaris, less euthanizations would take place, but
only if you assumed that those people were sufficiently ethical to make a moral judgement of that type.
Of course, most people do what pleases them and then justify their actions
post hoc. Clearly a logical value system is not needed to enjoy ice cream. I argue that dogs are in fact enjoyed, much like ice cream. Ice cream requires a certain amount of commitment and provides a simplistic, animal sense of pleasure, much like dog ownership. Go to the mall, to a pet shop. What is the qualitative difference between people reviewing the selection of dogs arranged in cages along the wall and selection of books on the bookseller's shelves, or ice cream in a vendor's cooler?
When something is bought, or owned, it is a qualitatively distinct thing. No one wants to lease dogs, or ice cream. If it was true that the company of
Canis lupus familiaris was
sufficient to enjoy the company of an animal, you would expect some service would pop up to
lease dogs. But the most people
own the animal. I don't "Hate" dogs, I enjoy them. I also don't "own" them, and I consider that an aesthetic and morally superior position.
Lets assume everyone likes (to own) dogs, like cars. Then lets assume all 6 billion people on the planet eventually come to own dogs. You could argue any one dog has a negligible affect on environment. But the fact is that the mass of dogs do in fact have an effect. The pet food industry is huge. You could use similar logic to argue that personal ownership of (a) car isi similarly negligible. People who are overly enthused by their cars might similarly dismiss the community of people on this message board as "haters" of cars, and you can be sure they definitely do.
So without logic, humanity is essentially a conglomeration of special interest groups. I am a proponent of a different value scale, thats all. In the way the NASCAR message board's opinion on the impact and virtues of their hobby is arguably inferior to, say, a PO.com communal values surrounding the car, your argument for dog ownership shares a similar relationship to an argument against it.
My argument against dog ownership is part of a larger value system which places the constellation of nature on a balance. If it is the case that massive losses in biodiversity have and are occurring, the justifications for a specialized relationship with nature probably have a negative impact. For example, my observation is that most people have cats, or dogs (or birds, fish, reptiles, etc.) If you were to examine any individual's relationship with nature, by any objective standard you would be struck by the limited and concentrated nature of that relationship to a distinctly small number of species. Just as the "Modern Diet" is in fact dominated by a handful of species, the modern individual's relationship to the community or web of life as represented by its
members is similarly concentrated.
It is my opinion that all these concentrations have distinctly negative effects on a person. The real reason for pet ownership, the invented justifications of their owners notwithstanding, is exactly the
servicing of their own desires. The origin of these desires is a connection to nature and our animal cousins. In short, people get dogs (or other pets), because this essentially ancient connection has been alienated, truncated, severed, and denied. It is much like a sailor who purchases the services of a prostitute when at sea for months at a time. The disaffection and alienation that dog owners' feel alleviated by ownership is real, but it is also a epistemologically incorrect to assume that ownership cured anything. The original relationship, between human and nature, remains critically breached. The affect of dog ownership, over time, is the
entrenchment of this extant alienation in biospheric terms, simply because their real need, a connection to animal nature, is supplanted by simplistic operant conditioning that a dog's presence works on the brain of a
homo sapiens sapiens.
Like a meth addict who, for the sake of being unable to deal with reality, snorts more meth, the essential problem gets worse and the addict less able to ameliorate the original problem. How does a human being reconnect to the essential experience of animalia and nature? It involves physically going out and being a part of it.
Consider the qualitative difference of going for a walk in the woods alone, and then with a dog. Many dog owners, oblivious of their own ability to commune in the multi folded ways our naturally evolved senses allow, "relearn" the "joy" of walking in the woods,
through the dog. Without the dog, these "lost" humans feel alone, vulnerable, bored in their dulled senses. Only through the dog do these people have a
clue to a greater awareness. Ironically, this is as far as they
get because of the qualitative difference of being
with the dog. It is
not a meditative state, it is an
ownership mode, with the leash apparatus, the continual interruption of the dog's reactions, its poop, etc. It is a
task. As much as the dog owner might want to commune with nature, the existence of the dog is a barrier. Any dog owner will dispute this, and I will reply that any dog owner probably doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Nature is being systematically destroyed by a thousand tiny cuts. Advocacy has been failing for years. Humans, incapable of the subtleties their power requires for continued existence within the living matrix of the biosphere, are eliminating themselves from the matrix of relationships that stood for millenia. It is in that spirit that I make a
choice to not own a dog or any other "pet". When I walk in nature I hear my animal brothers and sisters and their voices of concern. They are scared and repulsed by the mutant creature created by contact with humanity,
Canis lupus familiaris. The Dog and Humans that own them are part of a unitized biological entity, that has trampled and destroyed much of the planet, and shows no sign of trampling and destroying the what is left.
The despair, the depression, whatever you call the malaise that you experienced, was the sine qua non of your journey from "Human" to "Dog-Human". Creatures, with their sensitive antennae, will now recognize this difference. Even now, your immunological system is co-creating with the animal a sympathetic connection. What you call symbiosis is in fact sympathetic, at best. In many ways, the relationship is parasitic, something most dog owners can scarcely imagine since they tend to intensively anthropomorphize the dogs' reality. Your life, as a human being is now coming to an end. The depression you feel lifting is the cessation of your position as noble, wild, and free aspect of nature and its transformation into bipedal poop-scooper.
Everything we think and do changes us. And nothing more profoundly than what we "own". Since these changes occur outside the range of the typically dulled sensate and mental abilities of most people, the affect is transparent, and the effects are incorrectly identified. Dog-Humans give birth to and raise other Dog-Humans. Dog-Human society tolerates things like fecal coliform pollution, barking, dog food factories, euthanization, and are characterized by an alienation from nature, a radiating, destructive civilizational pattern, overpopulation, decimation of resources and habitat, declining biodiversity, changing climates, etc., but especially non-logical quasi-religions of personal affectation and thought.
In the maelstrom of cascading destructive affects are the voices of individuals drowning in the mass. Unconnected to their own humanity, unable to connect to animalia or nature, or each other, they gradually adopt more and more the prejudice and attitudes of the personal religion of self-gratification.
Therefore, I oppose it. I suggest that the ownership of animals for the sake of a human's "self-gratification" is simply symptomatic of a larger cultural movement. And where is the larger culture, the dominant culture, replete with "ownership" headed? Annihilation, in my opinion and observation. If not for humans and dogs, certainly many countless other species and niches. So is there an ethical or moral dimension to the question of ownership? Certainly. But I am realistic. What I am certain of is that people that own dogs will raise children that own dogs. In this way the alienation will continue down through human generations. They will pass on their alienation and the cultural disease vector like an heirloom.
My position is simply that there should be no "ownership" of animals. No "Dominion" in the Classical Judeo-Christian sense. That the alienation expressed in people be addressed in respect to original causes. Humans more than ever need each other, and real, authentic connections to nature. We do not need "stand-ins" for other humans, surrogates for nature. We need authentic and vital lives, and we need to let go of and diminish our exclusive and reductionist practices of interaction with animalia, a new respect and perspective. Once you attain that, the alienation goes away.
Canis lupus familiaris can be released from bandage back into the wild to live their meaningful lives as members of a community, without an emotionally retarded quasi-human chaperone who selfishly abuses its sensibility by burdening it as the object of a parasitic, unnatural relationship.
