7 ms·

Dog breeding is mostly a net-negative for the society. Kind of like jewelry and luxury cars.

by f6v 5y ago

bluedevil2k 5y ago
What a negative and downright wrong thing to say. Dog owners are happier and healthier than non-dog owners. https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-owners-benefits/ https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-o...
- slothtrop 5y ago
  What does that have to do with dog breeding? Add to the fact, there's more than one way to be healthier and happier.
  - kcb 5y ago
    I'm not sure if this was the point he was trying to make but dog breeding is why dogs exist.
- hairofadog 5y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I love dogs, I have a dog, and I think dog breeding is a net evil. I wish it would stop. Edit: While it's admittedly over-the-top snarky, this video sums up my feelings nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo
  - rory 5y ago
    There is an ethical version of breeding that would be good for society though (and I imagine this exists to some extent outside the mainstream mainstream). E.g. if a breeder decides "I want a hypoallergenic dog between 40 and 50 pounds with a calm demeanor who is otherwise maximally healthy" instead of worrying about the the nitpicky specifics of their appearance, that would be a benefit for society. It's more the culture of dog breeding and showing than the concept that's harmful.
    - simplyaccont 5y ago
      you just described proper poodle breeders: hypoallergenic, ~50lbs, bred for good demeanor (part of standard description, i believe) and do extensive genetic testing to exclude problematic lineages.
  - kcb 5y ago
    Personally I just worry that the result would be all dogs being pitbull mixes.
    - scollet 5y ago
      Why is that?
      - kcb 5y ago
        The traits that make a dog best for breeding in a more natural environment don't necessarily make them good for pets.
        scollet 5y ago
        What does this even mean?
djsbs 5y ago
This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives. As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs. Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”
- f6v 5y ago
  1. I'm talking about the society at present. 2. Key part of my argument is “net”.
  - djsbs 5y ago
    Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric. So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast: To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!
- artfulhippo 5y ago
  Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.
  - djsbs 5y ago
    What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding. The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl. Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same. Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days. Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior. Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.

Dog breeding is mostly a net-negative for the society. Kind of like jewelry and luxury cars.

by f6v 5y ago

Dog breeding is mostly a net-negative for the society. Kind of like jewelry and luxury cars.

What a negative and downright wrong thing to say. Dog owners are happier and healthier than non-dog owners. https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-owners-benefits/ https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4870796/dog-o...

slothtrop 5y ago
What does that have to do with dog breeding? Add to the fact, there's more than one way to be healthier and happier.
- kcb 5y ago
  I'm not sure if this was the point he was trying to make but dog breeding is why dogs exist.
hairofadog 5y ago
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: I love dogs, I have a dog, and I think dog breeding is a net evil. I wish it would stop. Edit: While it's admittedly over-the-top snarky, this video sums up my feelings nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo
- rory 5y ago
  There is an ethical version of breeding that would be good for society though (and I imagine this exists to some extent outside the mainstream mainstream). E.g. if a breeder decides "I want a hypoallergenic dog between 40 and 50 pounds with a calm demeanor who is otherwise maximally healthy" instead of worrying about the the nitpicky specifics of their appearance, that would be a benefit for society. It's more the culture of dog breeding and showing than the concept that's harmful.
  - simplyaccont 5y ago
    you just described proper poodle breeders: hypoallergenic, ~50lbs, bred for good demeanor (part of standard description, i believe) and do extensive genetic testing to exclude problematic lineages.
- kcb 5y ago
  Personally I just worry that the result would be all dogs being pitbull mixes.
  - scollet 5y ago
    Why is that?
    - kcb 5y ago
      The traits that make a dog best for breeding in a more natural environment don't necessarily make them good for pets.
      - scollet 5y ago
        What does this even mean?

djsbs 5y ago

This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives. As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs. Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

f6v 5y ago
1. I'm talking about the society at present. 2. Key part of my argument is “net”.
- djsbs 5y ago
  Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric. So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast: To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!
artfulhippo 5y ago
Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.
- djsbs 5y ago
  What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding. The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl. Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same. Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days. Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior. Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.