Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

I want a dog.

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
Post a reply

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby dinopello » Thu 15 Mar 2007, 17:46:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'A') pet, euthanized and stuffed, will make an attractive conversation piece, mounted on a stick or other armature.


Ah, now we know what to get you for a house warming present!

I'm really dying to see what your aesthetically aware household looks like now !

I'm picturing an early-american, starched-white, class 100 clean room bathed in a cool white light. Am I close ?

Ah, you probably would prefer your house-warming present shaved and laquered I'm guessing.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Thu 15 Mar 2007, 18:50:47

BWhippet, actually I'm not depressed any longer, and I wasn't down for long, you're over-stating the extent of it. Also, getting my pup helped, for sure, and mostly it just took some time to get used to the PO reality. I think you're having some fun on this thread trying to bait us with your talk of killing eating and stuffing our pets. I think you're just trolling. Nice try, but the laugh is wearing off.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby threadbear » Thu 15 Mar 2007, 20:25:13

Whippet, Dogs and humans struck up a symbiotic relationship, not one based on mutual parasitism, necessarily. I rely on my dog to let me know if anyone is trespassing, and when I'm alone in the house at night, she provides a valuable service. She's contantly on the watch.

Oh, btw, for anyone living in the Pacific Northwest, be advised. Bald eagles, at least where I live, have started taking lambs and foals. This is new behaviour for bald eagles, in my area. I thought I was imagining things when one of the breeding eagles, who nests across the street and down the hill about 100 yards, swooped down on my dog, late last summer. A friend of mine called me yesterday after speaking with the fish and wildlife people and confirmed they're going for land animals now.

The dumb bird got caught up in the utility lines, about 25 feet above my dog's head, but it definitely looked like it was coming in for a kill shot. My husband was standing about 20 or 30 feet from the dog, when this happened, and my dog isn't tiny, she's 22 lbs, and has fur that makes her look larger.

They're expanding their menu, because there are fewer fish. So if you have livestock, or small animals, just be aware that you not only have to checking the horizon for coyotes and cougars, you have to start looking up, too.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby lateralus » Sat 17 Mar 2007, 12:16:18

You probably have heard this already but for those that haven't.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON - A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.

An unknown number of cats and dogs suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, Menu Foods said in announcing the North American recall.


Link

I personally don't care for Iams, they used to be a good company until they were bought out. Now I wouldn't feed it to my dog or cats if it was free.
lateralus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue 04 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Hockeyland
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Sat 17 Mar 2007, 16:34:41

Lateralus, that's truly horrifying. I don't use Iams, thank God! But given how many dogs and cats are dying of cancer, I'm pretty suspicious of all the canned foods. I buy raw from my butcher who mixes locally grown beef or chicken trimmings with organ meats. I steam some veggies (yams, potato, peas, carrots and kale) and mix enough to last 3 days. I do use a bit of kibble from a holistic local manufacturer and mix a 1/2 cup or so with the raw. It's a bit more work than opening a can, but not as much work as it sounds! There is still so much out of my control, but I figure at least I know most of what's going into her food and mostly where it came from. I am learning to raise goats and will be getting some chickens so I'm hoping after TSHTF we can transfer over. We do have some wild rabbits on our property so perhaps she can do some of her own hunting -- maybe -- we'll have see about that! She'll probably just want to chase the rabbits and kill the chickens.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 25 Mar 2007, 13:44:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'W')hippet, Dogs and humans struck up a symbiotic relationship, not one based on mutual parasitism, necessarily. I rely on my dog to let me know if anyone is trespassing, and when I'm alone in the house at night, she provides a valuable service. She's contantly on the watch.


I'm sure she is. I never said the parasitism was mutual. In fact, its mostly one-way. What evolves is a co-dependence which resembles mutuality.

My experiences with dogs and their owners follows a pattern: Their widely-tuned mutts "detect" anything and everything, but unable to learn the difference themselves (separated by walls from experience) they are trained by abstraction and proxy to simply inhibit themselves. They are taught not to bark at sensory data which they have no useful knowledge of anyway. And in these terms, they are like a left-handed person retrained as right handed by a process of hand-slapping. An existence I would imagine exhausting, frustrating, and pointless. The fruit of such exploitation is clearly for the peace of mind of the owner, not the dog. The investment in a false sense of security is endemic to the culture at large. Heres a better solution: Get the sign, not the dog. "Beware, Vicious Guard Dog on Duty". I can't see a downside to this. "Vicious attack Cobras on property."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') friend of mine called me yesterday after speaking with the fish and wildlife people and confirmed they're going for land animals now.

They're expanding their menu, because there are fewer fish. So if you have livestock, or small animals, just be aware that you not only have to checking the horizon for coyotes and cougars, you have to start looking up, too.


I personally witnessed this a few weeks ago. On the beach with a few people, and one (idiot) dog owner. Said dog owners' puppy was frolicking about 30-40 feet away (small collie) and we see an eagle. We're all suitably impressed. Then it comes in closer, circling one, twice, three times in a descending pattern over the dog, to within about 60 feet or so, and then veers off to nest in a tree. I say (observe), "I think he's scoping out your dog". (Idiot) Dog owner says, "Naww, he's just 'chillin'". And so forth.

Just another example of the pet owner absolutely unable to connect with the flux of nature, even as it stares them in the face. The tendency to anthropomorphize is endemic to the personality.

You know what? We eat their fish, they eat our dogs. Fair is fair. In this case, it is not only fair, it is just. We destroy the temple of nature, the mushrooms and worms eat the temple of our bodies. Balance is the only law. Until people care about animals they don't own with the same veracity that they defend their pets, there will be imbalance. People have to demand a return to balance. Its our responsibility as a species. We cannot allow a selfish exceptionalism to rule our consciousness.

I'm realistic, its probably too late for that anyway. A plague of Eagles is the least of our problems.

I've been amused by the recent spate of news stories about animals turning on people. Most recently, elephants biting people, destroying property. The simple-mindedness of the commentators is what is telling. The cause is correctly identified (habitat loss, encroachment, captivity, etc.) but the tone is exasperated. Kind of like the pet owner who loves their mutt but can't stop it from repeatedly peeing on the bed. Idiots!
Last edited by BlisteredWhippet on Sun 25 Mar 2007, 14:41:54, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby threadbear » Sun 25 Mar 2007, 14:25:47

Whippet-- I was talking to a fellow walking his dogs the other day and he told me he had just witnessed an eagle locked onto a seal! He said it was a real battle royale, out in the bay. The bird wasn't letting go. Actually, they may have a bit of trouble letting go if their talons inbed deeply upon contact and then their prey starts thrashing.

Golden eagles can bring down cows. True. They take a run at a cow in a pasture, extend their talons and then rake them deep into the animals back,paralleling the spine. The animal becomes paralyzed and dies. Then they gorge on the corpse on the ground of course. (though it would be pretty cool to see a several eagles flying through the air with a cow in tow!) :lol:

The fish and wildlife people aren't really too concerned with dogs, cats and lambs. They're not endangered. What concerns them is the expansion of the menu to include blue herons, whose breeding numbers are also down due to the lack of fish. The eagles could render them extinct, in this part of the world. This again, is something new, and a direct result of lack of fish.

What makes me kind of nervous, is the idea that killer whales might develop a taste for swimming or boating humans. They've extended their menu fairly recently too. They used to eat predominantly fish, but more seem to be going after seals now.

People absolutely deserve, as a species, anything they get from nature., generally. But me, specifically, I just don't want to experience the cleansing nature of "turnabout is fair play" myself.

BTW, Here's something quite interesting about a selective breeding program. The question being--Can a fox be turned into a "dog".

The Russian Silver Fox Project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 25 Mar 2007, 14:31:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'I') think you're just trolling. Nice try, but the laugh is wearing off.


You think I'm funny, punk? Well, do ya?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'L')ateralus, that's truly horrifying. I don't use Iams, thank God! But given how many dogs and cats are dying of cancer, I'm pretty suspicious of all the canned foods.


Until this moment, would you have supposed anyone railing against canned food or the food industry in general as a simple troll? Guess what pal- here is shit in the meat. And cancer? Why so much? Why have IQs been in steady decline?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')We do have some wild rabbits on our property so perhaps she can do some of her own hunting -- maybe -- we'll have see about that! She'll probably just want to chase the rabbits and kill the chickens.


The rabbits are probably interbred feral varieties released from captivity by humans. Just commenting. Anyway, what makes you think that your dog will hunt? Canines learn behavior from their pack leaders and mothers. The instinct to chase might be there but your dog isn't going to get anywhere near catching rabbits. A single dog is at a severe disadvantage vs. a rabbit. It takes a pack of dogs all speaking the same language.

Lets examine the evolution of your behavior. Now your task is finding out howq to "raise" the puppy into something "useful". But the fact remains that a number of wire traps or similar contraptions will be lightyears more efficienct at bagging bunnies. So who needs the dog? Plus, the downside in terms of bunny-hunting is that your little poop & piss machine is going to mark up the territory so much that the bunnies are simply going to learn to stay away.

Heres what I mean about parasitic: Your human brain is capable of high-level abstract thought, the dog's brain is more instinctual and low-level. The task is catching rabbits. You expend that high-level energy teaching the low-level dog brain to fulfill a function in terms of a human desire. In other words, you're exploiting the dog's instincts to your own ends. But the dog can't catch rabbits better than you can. In fact, its ability to catch rabbits is incredibly less efficient than your ability. So there are severe losses in efficiency in mental energy.

My prediction is that you will fail to produce a dog that will catch rabbits efficiently. All he will do is scamper around, expending energy that you will have to then supply (via your local meat merchant's services). And you will have wasted a ton of time and brain power ("quality" time as you will prefer to call it) attempting to make a dog hunt in human terms, which is a task really only accomplished by dedicated professionals, true adepts. Its like asking Bud the night janitor to build a formula one car and then use it to drive to work.

I was thinking about the whole issue the other day, and I came to a new exception to my rule: Some animal/human relationships are actually valid and/or useful. In short, the qualifier for such a relationship must be exceptional. Hellen Keller cannot see or hear, therefore the seeing eye dog's relationship fits the definition of exceptional. I find that acceptable. I believe that some people are in fact gifted by experience or ability to commune with animals in a special relationship. These are the exceptions, the Jane Goodalls.

Helen Keller or Jane Goodall typified the exceptional nature of a man/animal communion in the exact opposite way that the "pet/owner" paradigm does not. The "lap dog" and "Fawning owner" is nothing like the vital and intimate relationship between Willy and the Kid.

I'm prepared, then to extend an amnesty to select animal "owners". Career horse-whisperers. People that work at wild animal sanctuaries. The exceptional.

I think maybe most pet owners simply desire that kind of connection, so they get the "pet". Unable to establish the truly exceptional relationship, they cultivate what resembles it. Kind of like the NASCAR fan who buys the "Sporty" car. Or the athlete-worshipper who wears the jersey and jumps up and down on the couch. People want to participate. My thesis is simply that people want an authentic experience of nature. Denied that by history, circumstance, practice, or belief, they seek out substitutes and alternatives. It is desire which generates the typical pet-seeking human behavior. The want of transcendent experience, a whiff of existential authenticity, by simply being near it. Observe the "Pet Show", where things like "poise" and "beauty" are revered. Capitalist, consumerist modes of thinking are grounded in the values of acquisition, a hunger, a sense of incompleteness.

But it would seem to me that some people have exceptional relationships with domesticated animals that are altogether different from this norm. In short, it matters what the fundamental rationale and motivation for a behavior is. This connection between fundamental motivation and action is precisely the penultimate ability of the human mind. It is a matter of capability and how exactly that capability is nurtured. Neglected, circumvented, or denied, this ability atrophies. This is the aging mind, too sure of many things, uncomfortable outside its conceptual envelope. The "closed" mind.

Without that ability, we become less human. Without reason, our actions are pointless, lacking meaning. Empty justifications are not sufficient to generate the kind of exceptionalism that we see, need, and admire in the truly connected. I think people must feel their disconnection, the pain of it, the discord, the enmity and alienation. Much too often people's lives are subsumed in a continual effort to avoid the truth. The are prisoners in the fortress protecting Freud's Ego, materially and physically captive in the cocoon of modernity.

When people free the condemned pooch from an ASPCA shelter, they are attempting by proxy to liberate their spirits. By enjoying a spectacle of animal freedom watching their pets frolick, they experience a voyeuristic thrill and fulfill emotional needs. Modern psychologists would tell us that this is sufficient and necessary. Its ringing endorsement of everything from Ambien to Prozac to getting puppies is simply a symptom of its teleological inability to ascertain or address the gulf between symptom and cause. My view is extra-social, probably antisocial in conventional definition. I don't need to justify my commentary or theories in the same way an Eagle doesn't need a reason to snatch puppies. Which might give you a clue as to the difference between my state of mind and the "Mind-State" in which so many are in thrall.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby dinopello » Sun 25 Mar 2007, 17:05:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'I')n other words, you're exploiting the dog's instincts to your own ends.


Is that bad? My girlfriend exploits my instincts to her own ends. I don't mind...
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Tue 27 Mar 2007, 02:56:54

I'm not training her to catch rabbits, you misunderstood. I was commenting on threadbear's post about the dogfood scare and was musing on what she might eat post-PO. I agree she'd chase the rabbits, unlikely that she'd manage to kill one, although I've seen single dogs do it - usually experienced dogs.

BWhippet wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our human brain is capable of high-level abstract thought


Thanks for the compliment, however, you don't know for sure that my dog's isn't as smart as me or as capable of abstract thought. Most likely there is no comparison. To say that my dog is a "low-level" intelligence is applying value - you have displayed a bias. She simply has dog intelligence. To say that she has X level of intelligence is a bias because it suggests that there is such a thing as intelligence as it applies to animals and there are levels that are relevant in comparison across species. Her brain is configured to "smell" her world, as is all dogs. Perhaps the testing has not given her a way to understand the smell of the question or answer by smelling or barking, or to even formulate a question about abstract smells she can understand. I think intelligence is a human question. I think worms, snails, fish, trees, birds, insects are as "intelligent" as their social, environmental and economic context needs them to be. There are simply variations, or adaptations, to differing contexts. One dog is simply more or less adapted to his context than another dog. Comparing the human context to a snail's and saying the human is "smarter" is simply ridiculous.

Humans very arrogantly believe we are the pinnacle of evolution, but that we even think evolution has a pinnacle is absurd. We don't know the end story, for all we know we could be a dead branch on the evolutionary tree, another species of non-survivor. To even say "at this point in evolution" is absurd as we do not fully know where we have been. Believing are smarter/better than all other animals is simply species bias. We kill and eat other beings - we think we are better than them because we can do this - just as the lion might think he's superior to the chimp he ate yesterday. If he were to test the chimp by lion standards the chimp would come up looking pretty dumb. By our standards the chimp is smarter because when we take him out of his context put him in a cage and ask him to put square blue plastic boxes into square blue plastic holes he can. Then we give him a banana. The relevance of our testing to either the chimp or dogs or whatever animals is absurd.

When are we going to learn to respect all life? To really understand we are animals like all animals. We need to realize we cannot escape nature or nature's basic rules. We should respect other's territory and elders, we can't kill gratuitously, mate too often, take too much, or spoil our beds and feeding grounds. To understand that when we place ourselves outside these rules our survival is not sustainable. Maybe we'll never truly understand this because we are arrogant and we think these basic rules don't apply to us. We want to change the rules, change our context. Unless we do come to understand and live under these natural laws I think we probably will end up being an evolutionary dead-branch - if the planet manages to survive us.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby davep » Tue 27 Mar 2007, 07:55:09

Great post crapattack.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby lateralus » Wed 28 Mar 2007, 14:50:16

People that don't like animals are usually cold hearted and self-absorbed.

Sound familiar BW?
lateralus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue 04 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Hockeyland
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 29 Mar 2007, 14:57:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'I')n other words, you're exploiting the dog's instincts to your own ends.


Is that bad? My girlfriend exploits my instincts to her own ends. I don't mind...


Do you wanna be her dog?
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby dinopello » Thu 29 Mar 2007, 16:09:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'I')n other words, you're exploiting the dog's instincts to your own ends.


Is that bad? My girlfriend exploits my instincts to her own ends. I don't mind...


Do you wanna be her dog?


Nah, we haven't gone there. But I think I do have instincts and they mesh well with what her ends are. You might say she 'enjoys' me. And, I don't mind.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')omen and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 29 Mar 2007, 19:10:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateralus', 'P')eople that don't like animals are usually cold hearted and self-absorbed.

Sound familiar BW?


Yes, was this catchphrase in fact inserted at another point in the thread?

This is just stupidity. I never indicated a dislike for animals. I am advancing a theory and philosophy quite different from the conventional and most people will attempt to distill rather than understand. Therefore I will distill it for you:

1. I like animals (lets get this out of the way).

2. I like people.

3. The relationship between animals and humans is problematic.

4. The "special" relationship or "pet/owner" relationship between animals and humans is dysfunctional and bad for both that individual and that animal, and by extension, ALL animals and humans, AND the environment.

I can prove all tenets of the theory by anecdote, which I will relate to you THUSLY:

I work on a farm. (Plant farm). A new worker was hired and came monday. She was reserved, quiet, a bit antisocial. She did not interact much with the other people. She did not express much friendliness. The impression was somewhat cold, and distant. These are simply observations.

The second day, she brought her dog, some kind of golden lab. The novelty of the dog's presence was enjoyable to people. But the dog was easily bored and interrupted work to try and play with people. This was not a real problem. From time to time the new worker snapped at the dog, occasionally having to chase after and retrieve the dog, to keep him under her command, to keep him from barking at something or being under foot.

The distraction to everyone was negligible. The dog's novelty was still enjoyable. The new worker was generally a little less reserved than the day before, relatively calm in a morose sort of way, occassionally punctuated by the staccato bursts of commands, shouting, etc., expressing anger, frustration, etc. Physically this was represented by grabbing, jerking the collar, dragging the animal, and at one point, miming a striking motion. She "broke the ice" with people discussing the dog and their relationship. These are observations.

The third day the dog's novelty was enjoyable. However, it was obvious the environment was loaded with potential problems. One, the energetic movement of people and material. Two, the use of heavy equipment like forklifts and electric loading machines as well as heavy carried loads, not to mention double-axle diesel trucks and passenger vehicles. There were all kinds of distraction, and more doggie-owner talk was discussed. I talked to her about her life. She moved to the area because she hated her old job, and probably some other things she wasn't mentioning. She expressed a cynical demeanor. She engaged in sarcasm.

She was opening up more and more and she did express certain emotions about the dog. One was exhaustion. The other was regret.

"I wish I could feed my dog vegetables," alluding to the fact that her dog was expensive to feed. "I'm trying to sell my car but every day he gets in it and messes it up again. Its a pain in the ass".

"At least you can bring your dog to work."

"Yeah," she said. "Thats mostly why I took the job."

"Wow. The dog really kind of defines your life, huh?"

"Yeah," she said, looking at the dog. "But I'm an all or nothing kind of girl."

"Would you like to have my dog?" She asked me at one point.

"No, thanks." I said. "I fucking hate dogs." Actually, I didn't say that. :)

The anecdote is sadly all too common a story. It illustrates several problems, problems that have nothing to do with dogs or my personal feelings about dogs. First of all, for the dog, the situation is negative because it is dangerous. Literally, its a disaster waiting to happen for the dog. Second, the relationship with a single, morose woman is not nearly equivalent to being in a pack of wild dogs. To my perception, the dog's constantly being berated, corralled, subdued, and dominated. The dog is confused, caught between instinct, its own nature, and the demands of the artifice of a fully humanized environment. I will go out on a limb and say this is not natural, let alone ideal, if I were to go so far and try and speculate on what was fulfilling for a dog's state of mind.

As for her, the impression I got was that she got the dog at a low point in her life, seeing as how she has a young dog (1.5 years) and alluded to a dissatisfaction with her recent history. She also expressed a lot of negative, stressful-type emotional states. Her investment in the dog was significant to the point where she was arranging her life around it, and was struggling to support it.

There was the additional problem of meeting new people (namely myself) whose friendship and/or intimate relations would be fulfilling and enjoyable, but prevented from occurring by her preoccupation with a pet animal. Sad but true.

Finally, there is the time and energy spent mastering something that has no lasting or practical value. As I've said before, the pet is something you sink time, energy and emotion into. What you get back is not really that much compared to the alternative (time, energy and emotion spent developing relationships with the self and other human beings or other stuff.) Pet ownership is a choice, kind of like the choice to strap an anvil to your leg. The difference is that it is easy to see how the anvil is a problem and there is no emotional or cognitive difficulty in divesting yourself of that relationship.

Her personal philosophy was completely empty and uncompromising, resulting in and compounding her unhappiness by clouding her judgment and rationale. "All or nothing" simply means that the relationship is defining her rather than the other way around.

To many people, a pet is like the proverbial "Thing that you own which ends up owning you", but the worse aspect is the way it entangles reason with emotion, making dispassionate judgment difficult. Her mind, having been disarmed by the social propaganda of the pet-owning fetishists and her own lack of self-discipline, self-esteem, and a distorted value system in terms of humans, animals, and nature, is unable to extricate itself.

This is a human being lost in the wilderness of her own mind. I can sense the cloudiness of her perspective and powerlessness of her situation. I could try arming her with logic but such tactics would be useless for she is already lost. She will grow like a tree does around cancer, and deal with her compromised situation. She will be a member of society and all that entails. She will sell her car, get another one. Get some schlepp job and try to trap a man into being the doggiesitter and sperm donor. She will resign herself to daily walks, will scoop poop, will tolerate the barking and clogged vacuum bags and spend thousands annually on dissected remains of other animals. She will invest all that time and energy on the pet relationship, in guilt, frustration, the amiable fatalism of her situation, all that shit. What is unlikely to occur is a realization of her situation in nature, a realization of the wrongness of her choice and the empowerment of self-esteem and comfort of being (alone), or growing emotionally strong without the crutch of the pet. And her actions specifically regarding the care and feeding of the pet will have telegraphed far, far from her and her pet, from the factory that makes the meat to the pesticides made out of its collars to the fleas in the carpet biting the next occupant of the apartment.

A millstone around her neck. A yoke. An albatross.

Recently the Animal Police (or whatever) busted some guy who had amassed 110 parakeets in his apartment. The TV news alerted the zombie public who quickly adopted all 110 birds. One individual's sickness instantly spread to 110 other people. What is their aesthetic reason, their spiritual reason, for wanting a tropical bird, to sit in a cage, hopping about in its own shit, for the rest of its short, miserable life? There is no deep answer to that question, and that is precisely the problem.

My thesis is that nature is not here for our simple self-indulgence. Our minds are misused by setting itself to this task and the exercise of it destroys the teleological reality that civilized, domesticated people are divorced from, and the consequences of that are clear in the deeply negative impact we are having on the environment, a negative impact that denigrates both people and animals.

You can go tit for tat, wallow in details, specifics, this or that scenario, but to me, that is the unavoidable essence. Our relationship to animals is troubled to the very foundations of our concept of animal and man.

These concepts are sold to us, taught to us, inherited and programmed. Many people don't have the insight to realize that it is simply the poisoned progeny of a cultural idea passed down directly from Anglo-Saxon empiricists, and before that all the way back to the first domesticators of animal and plant life. The origin of pets is a habit, not a reasoned exercise of any natural philosophy. A culture that would destroy animal habitat and push species to extinction, failing and flailing to protect these, and establish factory farming and Zoos can be expected to produce perverse practices like pet-owner paradigms. Anyone who comes by and questions the sacred institutions of the culture, is going to be assaulted with "When did you stop beating your wife" questions like, "Why do you hate animals?" in the exact same way war detractors in 2001 were assaulted with "Why do you hate America?"

The similarity is that each position directly questions the assumptions upon which these behaviors and choices rely even if they were based on uninformed vapors. Unfortunately, choices, beliefs, behaviors- all these have real consequences, and therefore are of a category of things which are moral questions.

I think that unsubstantiated beliefs and prejudices require a kind of willful ignorance if one is not completely desensitized or idiotic. Egos require self-deceit if necessary to preserve itself. But crack ain't nutritious even if the addict looks in the mirror and sees a beauty queen and feels strong enough to lift a minivan. Pets feed a need for companionship, a communion with nature, but is more than a poor substitute, it is poison which plunges people into a vicious cycle of alienation, habit, and routine. In short, it kinda makes you retarded, and keeps you retarded.
Last edited by BlisteredWhippet on Thu 29 Mar 2007, 19:55:00, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 29 Mar 2007, 19:40:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'I')'m not training her to catch rabbits, you misunderstood. I was commenting on threadbear's post about the dogfood scare and was musing on what she might eat post-PO. I agree she'd chase the rabbits, unlikely that she'd manage to kill one, although I've seen single dogs do it - usually experienced dogs.

BWhippet wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our human brain is capable of high-level abstract thought


Thanks for the compliment, however, you don't know for sure that my dog's isn't as smart as me or as capable of abstract thought. Most likely there is no comparison. To say that my dog is a "low-level" intelligence is applying value - you have displayed a bias. She simply has dog intelligence. To say that she has X level of intelligence is a bias because it suggests that there is such a thing as intelligence as it applies to animals and there are levels that are relevant in comparison across species. Her brain is configured to "smell" her world, as is all dogs. Perhaps the testing has not given her a way to understand the smell of the question or answer by smelling or barking, or to even formulate a question about abstract smells she can understand. I think intelligence is a human question. I think worms, snails, fish, trees, birds, insects are as "intelligent" as their social, environmental and economic context needs them to be. There are simply variations, or adaptations, to differing contexts. One dog is simply more or less adapted to his context than another dog. Comparing the human context to a snail's and saying the human is "smarter" is simply ridiculous.


Whoa there tiger. First off, I never said I wasn't biased. I am not the Oracle at Delphi. I also reject the equivocal nature of relativistic arguments that pretend that comparisons cannot be drawn.

Of course humans have greater intelligence, whatever than might mean, than a dog. In capacity and scope, is demonstrated prima facie by the expressions of human intelligence. Regardless of any relative value judgment on the mind of either species, humans have the ability to alter and adapt to its environment in novel ways. Dogs cannot build a device to help them in river crossings, for instance, or understand the mechanics of a gastrointestinal system. Dogs aren't even close to being a smart as humans. What is ridiculous is the assertion that this is not the case. Human intelligence is far more flexible and capable. It is a rational, reasonable assessment and has no bearing on value. Eagles are valuable, but that value doesn't depend on writing an essay about the meaning of The Scarlet Letter. And so are dogs, but not because you invented a justification.

A dog's brain is the size of a lemon. "Intelligence" perceived are artifacts of the anthropomorphism of the owner. Judging a dog's "smarts" is an understanding which is visceral, imaginative, and intuitive. The appreciation of animalia does not require a dimplomatic, humanistic meta-philosophy of thought to apprehend. I think it probably gets in the way of any mechanisms we might posses in realizing that reality, pet ownership being one such mechanism. The reptilian brain (which all mammals share in essentially the same form) is a way for the "higher mind" to understand other mammals. In this way we can relate. But humans are different. We are special in our capacity and power. We should not pretend differently, and your theory that we "cannot be sure" amounts to willful ignorance. The only way we can "Fit" into the picture of Nature with all the other animals is if we realize our power and intelligence, and take responsibility for it.

This means not crying like a baby about poor little Bambis who have multiplied beyond natural limits because we've destroyed the habitats of their natural predators, for instance. Destruction of animals is a reality and while not pretty, is necessary. Many pet owners are dazzled by "the Cute" and seem unable to make rational judgments about animals until things get out of hand. (One wonders how completely retarded pet-ownership had made the French face-transplant woman whose face was eventually gnawed off by her pet Labrador).

The fact is that humans have the responsibility for the consequences of our power, and imbalances in nature are sometimes a direct result of that power. Destruction goes hand in hand with creation. Problem is, people get all woozy about destruction because they have a retarded sense of morality and ethics. The product of this is culture whose members freak out about what to do about a mouse and then poison it with industrial pesticides. They give birth to unwanted children and abandon commitments. The cause of all this, I think, is a long history of being divorced from the reality of man-in-nature. Modern humans exhibit a compartmentalized morality and extremely narrow perspectives littered with prejudice and superstition.

"Intelligence" is a tiresome subject, in my opinion. It is an issue of awareness and cognition. Lemon brain vs. cantelope brain. The fact is that I love animals but have no problem with culling a couple hundred million of them in North America, because my love for them is superseded by a rational realization of their negative impact on all the other shit I love.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Humans very arrogantly believe we are the pinnacle of evolution, but that we even think evolution has a pinnacle is absurd. We don't know the end story, for all we know we could be a dead branch on the evolutionary tree, another species of non-survivor. To even say "at this point in evolution" is absurd as we do not fully know where we have been. Believing are smarter/better than all other animals is simply species bias. We kill and eat other beings - we think we are better than them because we can do this - just as the lion might think he's superior to the chimp he ate yesterday. If he were to test the chimp by lion standards the chimp would come up looking pretty dumb. By our standards the chimp is smarter because when we take him out of his context put him in a cage and ask him to put square blue plastic boxes into square blue plastic holes he can. Then we give him a banana. The relevance of our testing to either the chimp or dogs or whatever animals is absurd.


I absolutely agree. Calling a dog "stupid" is a way to simply relate to other humans the significantly smaller capacity for thought compared to human-level intelligence.

In terms of the issue of pet ownership, to me, its like hanging out with stupid people. That interaction not going to stimulate the higher-mind thinking that interacting with other intelligent people provides. Pets don't provide anything a human can't provide. The sad thing is that people need pets to get what they need, or think they need. And end up buying bumper stickers that say, "The more people I meet, the more I love my dog." The sad thing about these people is that they are so alienated from themselves they aren't going to find a way back. They fill a human shaped void with a dog shape that leaves the heart half-full.

The issue of value judgments, not me, cannot be equivocated to meaninglessness. We are human, we make judgments, we create and use value. It is part of who we are. So lets not toss out the distinction because it doesn't fit a someone's anti-hierarchical theory. Its up to us to develop our value judgments responsibly. I would say its irresponsible to assert that every fucking dog walking down the block is necessary and special creature, or that every fuzzy little kitty is a special little soul who "deserves to live". Nah, fuck that. That is the irresponsible extension of human ethics into a domain where it is not warranted.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')When are we going to learn to respect all life?


Shoot for the stars, pal. Right on.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')To really understand we are animals like all animals.

But we are not like all animals.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We need to realize we cannot escape nature or nature's basic rules. We should respect other's territory and elders, we can't kill gratuitously, mate too often, take too much, or spoil our beds and feeding grounds. To understand that when we place ourselves outside these rules our survival is not sustainable. Maybe we'll never truly understand this because we are arrogant and we think these basic rules don't apply to us. We want to change the rules, change our context. Unless we do come to understand and live under these natural laws I think we probably will end up being an evolutionary dead-branch - if the planet manages to survive us.

Well, to me, this is all about people, not dogs. Our problems are us, other people, and the things people do and things they create. Animalia has been harnessed as a salve for too much that humanity lacks, in compassion, safety, or whatever else. The problem of respect of all life begins with a respect of self. That is not an externally solvable problem. But it IS internally solvable, by the human mind, for the human mind. Animalia is not a means to and end and by end, I mean human end.

And for myself, as an expression of the genome, I don't know if I am a dead-end branch. Clearly I have overcome some of the pitfalls in life including pet ownership, which I can't say had anything to do with genetics. The fact is that the sheep currently riding the conveyor belt to be slaughtered into a morsel of "Science Diet" has nothing to fear from me. This is where I step politely away from you and your ilk and distinguish myself as someone who opposes your values and ideas in this regard. I will not be crossing the aisle to join in your pity-party with its proclamations using the "Royal 'We'", 'cause you all ain't "Me", mmm'kay? When you grow up into a real human being you can call me up and I'll turn your pooch into compost for you.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby crapattack » Thu 29 Mar 2007, 22:36:51

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')In short, it kinda makes you retarded, and keeps you retarded.


Sounds to me like the girl in your ancedote just shouldn't really have a dog if she is willing to give it away because it messes up her car. Maybe she wasn't serious. The fact that you use this ancedote and draw the conclusions that pet ownership is in someway bad for humans is laughable. there are folks who really aren't that responsible and shouldn't have pets, or others who are cruel or simply don't care for them and these folks probably wouldn't benefit from having them. I would agree that many times it is bad for the pets but only when they're stuck with abusive or negligent owners, not because there is something fundementally wrong with owning them. I disagree that pet ownership makes and keeps you retarded, and I am assuming you mean this in both senses of the word - derogatory and developmentally. If you're going to be making such statements, perhaps you should provide us with some links to research that backs up your claims. If you can.

BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course humans have greater intelligence, whatever than might mean, than a dog. In capacity and scope, is demonstrated prima facie by the expressions of human intelligence. Regardless of any relative value judgment on the mind of either species, humans have the ability to alter and adapt to its environment in novel ways. Dogs cannot build a device to help them in river crossings, for instance, or understand the mechanics of a gastrointestinal system. Dogs aren't even close to being a smart as humans. What is ridiculous is the assertion that this is not the case.


The fact that you start off with "Of course" is very telling. If you are to judge a dog by it's "expressions of human intelligence" then you are saying that x animal displays x level of human intelligence. Since humans can't know any other intelligence but our own we feel free to think this is the only type of intelligence that matters. The very concept of intelligence is a human construct used mostly by the military and educational system to try to evaluate and stream soldiers and students into suitable occupations. Intelligence tests are very controversial and in many cases were shown to be deeply flawed with social bias, and directed toward capturing only certain types of intelligence indicators relevant to academic accomplishment while ignoring other types, ie: athletic, creative or emotional "intelligence".

We don't really know what "intelligence" really is even in our own species, let alone another. If you say that this dog dispays x level of human intelligence, what in-fact are you trying to say? If you are a dog trainer it's handy to know what this breed is more or less capable of in certain human contexts and by human standards, but it's really rather useless as it applies to this or that particular dog. I submit that most of the time we use our flawed concept of intellegence to justify discriminating against them, abusing them, or lowering their status in some way. We forget we are applying human standards and contexts to non-humans.

It's simply untrue that dogs can't alter or adapt to their enviroment in novel ways, otherwise they wouldn't have survived the evolutionary process with all it's inherent upheavals. It is true that they can't build bridges, but I have seen them float on logs so I'm sure they've found a way to cross rivers when they needed to. But as far as building things go, we don't actually know if they can't build bridges because they don't have hands and therefore can't use complex tools, or because they cannot conceive of such a thing because they don't need to. But in all those cases we actually don't know if dogs think about building bridges because we don't speak the same language and can't ask them. We don't know how "smart" animals are. I submit they are as "smart" as they need to be for there environmental, economic and social contexts. You think that is ridiculous because you place humans in the centre of the universe as the "smartest beings in the room". That's pure arrogance.

A dolphin's brain is larger than ours and by that standard, they could well be smarter. Modern neuroscience sees the brain as an organization of functional regions. It is somewhat true that the size of the regions can have a correlation to the range of abilities, but more important is their complexity, construction and organization. What they are finding is that different species have specialist organization and construction. Certain parts of your brain have adapted to be much bigger and more complex than a dogs. Likewise certain parts of a dog's brain is much more developed and complex than yours. If you measure intelligence by abilities then my dog "smells" much smarter than you. You can't smell a chicken leg from a 1/2 block away, and my dog might think you're pretty dumb because of that. In fact in her opinion, you're alot dumber than my dog, who values speed and agility a great deal, because you can't run as fast as her or know which direction a sheep is going to go. The fact that you find the very idea that my dog might be as smart as you riduculous shows how deep your specis bias and discrimination goes.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/iq/iq_test_controversy.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... i.box.1833
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 30 Mar 2007, 15:56:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'B')W wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')In short, it kinda makes you retarded, and keeps you retarded.


Sounds to me like the girl in your ancedote just shouldn't really have a dog if she is willing to give it away because it messes up her car. Maybe she wasn't serious.



Actually, she was. If I would have said "Yes", she would have handed the pooch over. The car, I imagine, was just one aspect of the total workload and investment the dog represented. The current thing to bitch about, as it were.

I think alot of pet owners are in a perpetual cycle, struggling with the responsibilities. The worst off...

(As I am typing this I am looking at a guy in a football jersey (trying to) walk two large husky mixes pulling him down the sidewalk in fits and starts. What a F*$King idiot!) :)

... the WORST OFF kind of skip from one complication to the next. Their pets are never long without some issue. Pet ownership is the task to which they have set themselves, have invested their self-esteem, pride, and so forth, and so "failure is not an option". They ride a mini-rollercoaster of pride and shame, victory and defeat, in their journey to becoming... what? The image in their head. Of themselves as Master Of Beasts or Cute Girl with Large Fierce Looking Yet Cuddly Doggie.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact that you use this ancedote and draw the conclusions that pet ownership is in someway bad for humans is laughable. there are folks who really aren't that responsible and shouldn't have pets, or others who are cruel or simply don't care for them and these folks probably wouldn't benefit from having them. I would agree that many times it is bad for the pets but only when they're stuck with abusive or negligent owners, not because there is something fundementally wrong with owning them. I disagree that pet ownership makes and keeps you retarded, and I am assuming you mean this in both senses of the word - derogatory and developmentally. If you're going to be making such statements, perhaps you should provide us with some links to research that backs up your claims. If you can.


Well, I am arguing that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. I realize that sounds infinitely quixotic to most conventional thinkers. And as for research... ? Eh, who funds that? PETA?

Today in the paper, they publish a "Kids Section" in the backside of the A pages. Its all about ZOOS, a related issue to my mind. At any rate, in the first paragraph, they lay out some fundamental assumptions:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Z')oos have many functions. Their task is to educate the public about animals, the environment and conservation, blah blah...


The gist of it was that somehow, Zoos protect the environment. They're good for animals because they educate people about them. And their conservation projects protect wild animals.

Well, over the last 100 years of zoos, menageries, and so forth, I don't think people in general have a deeper, more meaningful connection with nature or wildness. And if real figures are a measure for their success in conservation, they have not demonstrated how, for instance, putting a panther in a cage and shipping him to San Diego to have Yuppies take pictures of him actually saves habitat or conserves any part of the web.

This semi-public institution (employing 1000 people, 75% of whom are unpaid volunteers) in my opinion, is backassward. Again, the link back to the menageries and travelling circuses of the Anglo-Saxon tradition are the cultural grandfathers of this practice. As long as colonial expansion and capitalization has occured, animals have been captured and brought back to impress the masses. In the past, the justification was voyeuristic, for profit, to titillate, amaze, scare, etc... in other words, exploit.

Somehow, over the years, the same thing is presented as a pinnacle of science or naturalism, or some such BS. This is a demonstration of how the justification of a practice follows the cultural zeitgeist over time. The difference now is that the cages are better, the staff if more knowledgeable, and they get a "mix of fresh produce (from the industrial farm industry) that most closely matches their natural diet". But fundamentally, we are still talking about animals, put in cages, and exploited for human ends. Justifications followbut they ring hollow.

Husky man getting dragged down the street probably sees himself in his mind being some sort of Jack London Beefcake Frontiersman. The reality is that he's feeding his dogs ground up "Wheat Gluten" contaminated with industrial pesticides and clogging the shit out of his Eureka.


BW wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course humans have greater intelligence, whatever than might mean, than a dog. In capacity and scope, is demonstrated prima facie by the expressions of human intelligence. Regardless of any relative value judgment on the mind of either species, humans have the ability to alter and adapt to its environment in novel ways. Dogs cannot build a device to help them in river crossings, for instance, or understand the mechanics of a gastrointestinal system. Dogs aren't even close to being a smart as humans. What is ridiculous is the assertion that this is not the case.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The fact that you start off with "Of course" is very telling. If you are to judge a dog by it's "expressions of human intelligence" then you are saying that x animal displays x level of human intelligence. Since humans can't know any other intelligence but our own we feel free to think this is the only type of intelligence that matters. The very concept of intelligence is a human construct used mostly by the military and educational system to try to evaluate and stream soldiers and students into suitable occupations. Intelligence tests are very controversial and in many cases were shown to be deeply flawed with social bias, and directed toward capturing only certain types of intelligence indicators relevant to academic accomplishment while ignoring other types, ie: athletic, creative or emotional "intelligence".


To lay it to rest, I don't think animals are "dumb". But asking, "who is better at abstract thought" is like asking "Who is better at differentiating micro-scents in a field of multiple sensory inputs". The dog's got a smarter nose, but we have smarter smarts. To me, arguing this this stupid. We are not hurting anyones feelings to say that most dogs are in fact, "Dumb" by any standards, let alone "human". Social bias has nothing to do with it. Its a fools argument and has nothing to do with anything. If you want to persue it, go participate in the idiotic "What is your IQ" thread.

As far as evolutionary adaptation goes, animals don't have the range of ability in modifying their environment. The reason that dogs survived for so long is because they were an expression of genes that was widely distributed. There were many dogs and offshoots of the dog line that were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were simply fortunate to have the hairy coat in a time of temperature drop, or smaller frame in times of caloric scarcity, or longer teeth when it was fortunate. The genomes that didn't possess these things simply died. The less-hairy dogs may have figured out how to burrow under the peat moss or some shit. Maybe after a few million years they became what we know as badgers.

But Dogs are special because they are cousins of wolves. As a species, the domesticated dog has been crossbred for specific mutations that- I'm going to use that word again- create a retarded offspring. Interbreeding for (human desired) traits as rendered them unnatural in the sense that they are crippled. The cute Pug with the mashed up face that drools all the time and has a tounge too long for its mouth... the golden retriever with the congenital hip displaysia... The Australian shepherd with the too-warm coat and half-blind eyes, or the bulldog with overstoked adrenals. My favorite is the tiny lap dogs that are really retarded in a way you might expect any mammal who has been inbred, and can't be taught anything except to eat, shit, and bark. Thankfully, their vocal chords can be removed to suit human taste. Dogs are a product of human invention, not "wild animals". Observing a wild Canus like the wolf next to, say, a border collie is an exercise in contrasts. Contrasts of intelligence, contrasts in how an expression of a particular genome is "filled out" by natural selection, natural environment, a natural diet, etc.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We don't really know what "intelligence" really is even in our own species, let alone another.


Well, look, to me, you know it when you see it and hear it. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Such a distinction doesn't need a "test", mainly because this isn't a physical science. And I don't have the time to autopsy and weigh brains in a bucket or construct double-blind rat-maze test courses. That would be a waste of time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If you say that this dog dispays x level of human intelligence, what in-fact are you trying to say? If you are a dog trainer it's handy to know what this breed is more or less capable of in certain human contexts and by human standards, but it's really rather useless as it applies to this or that particular dog. I submit that most of the time we use our flawed concept of intellegence to justify discriminating against them, abusing them, or lowering their status in some way. We forget we are applying human standards and contexts to non-humans.


I am simply insisting that its bad philosophy for humans to wallow in equivocation about whether or not its fair to make value judgments. We will make value judgments because thats what our mind does. Instead of pretending we can ignore that reality, lets take responsibility for that ability and make sure we use this power responsibly. The question about what to do with our surplus animal populations, or successfully manage our impact on the environment, or mitigate or remediate damage already done or reverse threats all require value judgments, which require a realistic and dispassionate assessment. For example, are we being fair by sustaining large surpluses of dogs, at the expense of material resources and habitats of other animals?

People think they can avoid difficult moral questions. But the fact is that moral questions are frequently of the variety which offer alternate options, neither of which are necessary pleasant or beneficial. The longer we put this stuff off, the more the unpleasant the cumulative effects, and more unpleasant the dilemmas.

The problem as I see it in America, is that a great deal of the population wants the instant fix that satisfies everyone, and they follow leaders who pander to this base instinct. The net effect is an alienation from a grown-up, mature sense of moral responsibility. The population is infantilized and unable to make the hard moral decisions that its society and culture creates.

Last night I watched a PBS documentary about how Fish Farms in BC decimated local wild salmon populations by 98%. The negative effects were cumulative, and by the time the public had woken up to the problem, the salmon were permanently gone. The road of moral relativism is the path that society is heading. Ever dumber, less informed, dependent, alienated from nature, comfort-seeking anti-intellectuals, they exhibit the worst possible traits of humanity: the domesticated human, unable to reconstruct their compartmentalized mind into the vital organ which makes them what they are. Like a selfish, ignorant child, they pander to the voices and opinions that stoke their egos and become incensed only when the problem has snowballed so completely that it affects their personal situation: the fish on their plate, the gas in their car, or the toxic waste masquerading as fertilizer which finally accumulates to acute levels of toxicity in their precious poodles. Suddenly, they are activists. :) But their follow through is lousy and their misplaced faith in corporate and government oversight will soon return their demeanor to its formerly fully domesticated state.

People don't mind the domestication of animals, I think, because of an Ego-saving device. After all, their logical constructs would be incongruent if they objected to domestication. Congruency would require a fair assessment of their own domestication- the thought of which would throw them into abject levels of dissonance.

Domesticated people, like domesticated animals, cannot survive outside the paradigm. They are dependent as opposed to independent. The device of believing in the independence of thought, their exercise of their moral agency, are all operating within a paradigm without the kinds of standards that such imperatives are formed to question. The standards, within the matrix of social and cultural norms, are relativistic and abstracted to the point of uselessness. Everyone has an opinion, everyone's feelings are protected, and everyone is entitled and immune. If you own a pet, any justification will do because there is no real discussion, debate, thought, or visceral experience of any alternative.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It's simply untrue that dogs can't alter or adapt to their enviroment in novel ways, otherwise they wouldn't have survived the evolutionary process with all it's inherent upheavals. It is true that they can't build bridges, but I have seen them float on logs so I'm sure they've found a way to cross rivers when they needed to. But as far as building things go, we don't actually know if they can't build bridges because they don't have hands and therefore can't use complex tools, or because they cannot conceive of such a thing because they don't need to. But in all those cases we actually don't know if dogs think about building bridges because we don't speak the same language and can't ask them. We don't know how "smart" animals are. I submit they are as "smart" as they need to be for there environmental, economic and social contexts. You think that is ridiculous because you place humans in the centre of the universe as the "smartest beings in the room". That's pure arrogance.


I don't think its arrogant to recognize that we are singularly able, by choice alone, to simply destroy the world. It may be that we are smarter because he have opposable thumbs and dogs don't. It is a question of Physical Anthropology. Who cares? My position is that if a person thinks his dog is as smart as he is, then he is probably as dumb as his dog. Thats great. Hanging out with Fido would probably be more his speed, say, than hanging out with Stephen Hawking or even Wayne Newton. People who prefer dogs to humans as companions are running at their speed. Hanging out with dogs is not the same quality of interaction as hanging out with a human. Its like jerking off as opposed to having sex with a real live woman or wearing athletic shoes as opposed to actually working out. Its a poor substitute and doesn't exercise those special faculties of the human mind which grow with that kind of stimulation. Just like hanging out with retards: the things they are interested will probably become quite tiresome after awhile to any sufficiently intelligent person, the same way throwing the ball and watching it come back becomes terribly boring to anyone with half a brain. The dog's brain will never tire of the magical bouncing, rolling, hiding ball. But the human mind is over and done with it under 10 seconds. I worry about the intellectual capacity and psychological health of people who acquiesce to this unbalanced arrangement. The rubber chew-toy industry loves these people. Dogs don't buy this crap, people do. The childlike individuals for whom this activity constitutes entertainment boggle my mind. When I talk to them, I really feel like I'm talking to a herd animal. They have the stink of domestication about them. They eat the same canned meat and Wheat Gluten their dogs do. The bulk of their physical love and affection is shared with this lemon-brained animal. It is bizarre and unnatural, but good luck explaining that to them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A dolphin's brain is larger than ours and by that standard, they could well be smarter. Modern neuroscience sees the brain as an organization of functional regions. It is somewhat true that the size of the regions can have a correlation to the range of abilities, but more important is their complexity, construction and organization. What they are finding is that different species have specialist organization and construction. Certain parts of your brain have adapted to be much bigger and more complex than a dogs. Likewise certain parts of a dog's brain is much more developed and complex than yours. If you measure intelligence by abilities then my dog "smells" much smarter than you. You can't smell a chicken leg from a 1/2 block away, and my dog might think you're pretty dumb because of that. In fact in her opinion, you're alot dumber than my dog, who values speed and agility a great deal, because you can't run as fast as her or know which direction a sheep is going to go. The fact that you find the very idea that my dog might be as smart as you riduculous shows how deep your specis bias and discrimination goes.


I have just one response to this whole arm of conversation: WHO CARES?

Its a ridiculous argument completely unrelated to any of my expressed opinions. The reality is that an appreciation of ourselves as humans or dolphins as dolphins is not an exercise in comparative analysis. And the responsibility for making hard decisions about moral questions like, "should we incinerate little doggies and kitties en masse because we have interbred them into a plague species" has nothing to do with any particular "right to live" bestowed on Fido. We can talk about the disparity between supposed universal values and particular values and the way that the culture tends to grant special protection and preferential treatment to some species and not others. Lets sidestep this whole relativistic and conventional tar-baby issue and get real, okay? Humans dominate, are the smartest, most powerful creatures on the planet with a significantly greater ability to conceptualize and specialize in novel ways.

I am not and have not advanced any theory or argument that pretends to assert that such power and dominance is a sufficient reason for forming particular value judgments. I am simply saying that because we are the most powerful, we have the moral responsibility for making better, more informed, more comprehensive value judgments.

I am not saying dogs should be destroyed because they are stupid, I'm saying that dogs should be destroyed because they are a plague species, moreover, a plague species which we have created. I am not saying that Dolphins are better than dogs, or that we should only protect animals we "like". In fact, I am saying we should return the balance to the best of our ability, giving back habitat and restoring as much wildness as possible. That means reversing the course of domestication. There are ways to do this, but first we have to clean up our mess. That means culling excess populations. That means halting the industries which profit and perpetuate the destructive practices which are threatening the web. That means taking the horn of the moral dilemma which requires unpleasantness like bloodshed, destruction, personal sacrifice, and so forth. This has to happen all the way up the chain, all t he way back to that toxic waste dump/wheat gluten field in China. The factories which make rubber dog toys, and the especially, fundamentally, the people who see the behavior of pet-keeping as normative. Certainly anyone with brains sees how difficult a proposition this is.

I think piecemeal efforts, like the attempt to save wild salmon by encouraging people to eat more of them, simply illustrates the conceptual difficulty of the population to think their way out of the box. They are living in a dream world, and world where their own nature is stunted and compartmentalized. They are dazzled by lights designed to dazzle them. How else can you explain the disparity between what they allegedly desire and what they perpetuate and create? They are continually sucked into a maelstrom of false ideology and incomplete, dysfunctional intellectual and philosophical reality. They slowly get sucked into multiple layers of investment, financial and emotional, in an array of stuff... the empty calories of capitalist, domesticated existence which leaves them empty and hollow. They have their dog, their view, the "Green" SUV, the organic produce, hemp fabric, North Face fleece, their recycled trash, their dogs... and the human being kind of recedes into this conceptual mess.

In this picture, I do see the desperate usefulness of the pet animal as a desperate last connection to something vital, Earthy, natural. Something to settle for. Its something to hold onto on the journey across the river Styx. But it doesn't create a hard, strong human. It creates a dependent, desperate addict. There is no honor in it during these "Last Days" of environmental and biological collapse.

I cannot see it any other way than as a tragedy, because there is little hope for these people. All they can do is hubristically make a bad situation worse. They can only teach their offspring the desperate and useless practices and false wisdom they know. They are the spiritual descendents of the soulless, desperate hordes of human tidal waves that have spread periodically across the planet, decimating natural relationships and authentic modes of living since "time immemorial".

Ultimately, philosophy is the exercise of thought in the service of solving the insoluble problems of civilization and humanity, culture and society. What kind of society are we creating? What do we want it to be like? What must we tear down/build to get there? At the current moment, the situation is pure anarchy in the figurative and literal capitalist sense. The promise of the human mind and human will has not been realized in a way which promotes the best possible outcomes in terms of the development of civilization.

I do think that everything matters, every moral question, every little value judgment. The only way I can see humanity taking things forward is if we enable and build the things which are good and remove the cancers which will only slow or reverse the process. Pet ownership is a cancer. Its damage effects the personal, the civic, the social, and extends around the Earth. The question of whether or not such a practice should continue in human communities is as rational, as useful, and necessary as any other, like the question of whether societies should have a free-speech right, or slavery, or anything else of a nature which has impacts.

If it was the case that pet ownership had zero impact on anything, like doodling on your own forehead with a sharpie, rest assured I would not waste my time it. It has been enormously helpful to myself in formulating and refining the idea, and I thank everyone for their input, argument, invective, and comment. :)
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby mercurygirl » Fri 30 Mar 2007, 17:21:08

No offense to anyone else, but I really understand BW's position. I think he's right in seeing the issue as part of the very big picture of our destruction of our environment.

Here's an article, complete with photo of a dog running on a treadmill in an indoor pen, about the pet food debacle, in which is explained how pet owners are being driven panicked to buying expensive organic food. An organic pet food company owner is quoted as saying, "This is going to reinforce to pet parents that there are choices". The pets are referred to as babies and family members.

Link

I've always been repulsed by zoos, pet stores, etc. If I went in a pet store, I'd cry at seeing the birds sitting alone, the fish bumping their noses on the glass. I'd think, don't people SEE this? Down the road from my house is a corral with a few horses in it. Lots of people keep horses around here. So I've seen this sad horse for weeks now, standing in a muddy corral holding up one hoof. I briefly thought of stopping to ask if the horse was OK, but there's no point, it's none of my business.

Last night, a neighbor was strongly suggesting to me that it's important that I get my child a dog, because my kid enjoyed playing with his dogs when visiting. I just smiled and said "maybe someday". I expect that I will have trouble on my hands down the road when I try to explain why we shouldn't have a pet.

It's a sad world we've created. Just my opinion.
mercurygirl
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I want a dog.

Unread postby holmes » Fri 30 Mar 2007, 19:58:34

Mercury Girl,
It is a weird cargoist dysfunctional society. I mean observe the marriage logic. get married too early to the wrong partner and have babies. Then by the 30's one is blown out and looking for the "right" one. That right one is usually someone (like myself) who maintained discipline in the loins and in relationships. So the blown out who finds me to be their savior who can not or does not want children and has gone through the navy fleet of men is the right one for me? Twisted to say the least. Should it not be the other way around? find that soul mate and then have kids and pets? God the woman ive dated that fit this criteria. The issue is that they are not going to get that right one becuase they made the wrong choices in the past. it has to do with the pet fetish we see. Pile em up and then worry about how your going to take care of them later. it has to do with our short term mindset I believe as well. If it feels good do it. damn the consequences. pet stores are a weirdo fetish thing. freaky stuff in this petro chemical world.
"To crush the Cornucopians, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron