3 ms·
it's an interesting premise - how to explain our irrational categorisation of animals as tolerated vs not tolerated. I believe it is in the main due to the anim
by hunglee2 4y ago
it's an interesting premise - how to explain our irrational categorisation of animals as tolerated vs not tolerated. I believe it is in the main due to the animals attitude to us.
here's my sketch framework
1. Pets - vassalized companions who accept human hegemony
2. Prey - harmless food, too dumb to realise what we have in store for them
3. Predators - resistant to human hegemony, dangerous competitors which need to be contained
4. Pests - resistant to human hegemony, not direct competitors but more invidiously have figured out a way to uniquely exploit the system we have set up exclusively for human benefit. To be exterminated
- Scarblac 4y agoCats are predators who accept our offerings of food and petting.
- hunglee2 4y agothey are also edible, so prey item in some cultures also. Truth is you can move animals across these boundaries but it does feel unethical. Rabbits good example - clearly widely eaten, yet once a pet, could you turn it into food? You'd be a wrong 'un if you did!
- InitialLastName 4y agoYou forgot "Victims - Incompatibility with human hegemony can be used to sell calendars"
- m463 4y agoI suspect if folks give an animal a name, then it is more or less off-limits to humans.
- hunglee2 4y agoindeed, that may be the moment when we move an animal into 'pet' category. This is why I never name my animals, I prefer to have options