6 ms·

I've made this argument many times and it always raises eyebrows and induces shrugs. We as a species co-evolved with some animals and not others. Our partnershi

I've made this argument many times and it always raises eyebrows and induces shrugs. We as a species co-evolved with some animals and not others. Our partnership with extends deep into the mists of pre-history. We and they have co-evolved to an extent to be better companions. Eating a dog is a profound betrayal unlike that of eating a horse. Come at me

bigbillheck 3y ago
We've got a pretty long-standing partnership with horses too.
- lainga 3y ago
  Indeed, but the switch from long-standing to long-riding is a relatively recent innovation, by the Romans, Arabs et al. (by breeding horses large enough to ride on), after the Sea Peoples demonstrated how to defeat charioteers
callalex 3y ago
This is like arguing about if it’s better to regularly beat your sibling or your cousin. Just don’t beat anybody!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lukan 3y ago
Compagnions and friends? Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe. But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters. I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership. Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and misery to the animal: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht (german) I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.
- zen928 3y ago
  > I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal. Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now, killing the planet's livable ecosystems while exclusively creating living spaces and amenities for these domestic pets and treating the nature they come from as second class? Tens to hundreds of thousands of unique species and subspecies go extinct at previously unrecorded rates, but selective breeding of vanity traits in pet animals remains a common past time. There's clearly an attachment to these animals and breeds that keeps them in our conscious above others to consider it worthwhile to hold them in public reverence in a way that can still be described as companionship. We've flipped the needle on adapting them for survival companionship to (essentially) slaved ownership with the aftereffects like you've mentioned, but I think zooming in on the scale of an individual societies' treatment won't generally be favorable. We barely even treat our own species with a level of achievable compassion for anyone deemed undesirable or are a lower class, the betrayal starts earlier than our treatment towards dogs.
  - lukan 3y ago
    "Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now" I only talked about dogs and humans.
    - zen928 3y ago
      Yeah, it's a bit narrow minded to exclude the rest of the historical context while comparing two isolated points in time. Sure makes an entirely emotion-driven plea look initially more compelling and legitimate though! Good for you on sticking to your preferred form of discourse.
      - lukan 3y ago
        Are you .. serious? Do you really think it makes sense to always talk about everything? The topic was about dogs and humans and this is what I was talking about. Nothing more, even though surely I could. Topics are connected and I do not neceasarily disagree to what you said, but sorry, this is indeed not my preferred form of discourse.
sph 3y ago
I am OK with some cultures not eating some meats: pork for the muslims or jews, horse for some Western countries, sometimes rabbit. Where I'm from (Italy) we eat both horse and rabbits. But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
  Just as there are places where eating canids and felids is not taboo - so too are there places where eating a primate is not taboo. A larger geography by far as far as I know. By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid? As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Horse and rabbit were delicious. What about coyote or mountain lion though? Those are still but seldom eaten in America mostly by hunters. Some people draw the line at not eating predators not because of cultural taboo but because of bio accumulation issues. Fascinating ethnobiology and moral boundary discussion.
  - mckn1ght 3y ago
    And then you have a ton of people that eat beef all the time, vs a ton of people that revere cows; in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one, google "cow vigilantism". It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
    - leosanchez 3y ago
      > in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one Only one country isn't it ?
      - sandspar 3y ago
        If it counts, that one country makes up 17% of living humans.
matwood 3y ago
I wouldn't eat a horse either, but otherwise agree. Dogs have evolved the skills to fit in human social structures. They really do become part of families.
Perceval 3y ago
Rats and cockroaches also co-evolved with humans. Is that a partnership that evokes similar sentimental feelings for you?
- 8338550bff96 3y ago
  Dogs co-evolved with such great benefit to humanity that it not only changed the nature of human civilization, but was foundational to the formation of the first human civilizations. Show me evidence that co-evolution with rats and cockroaches is anything like this.

bigbillheck 3y ago

We've got a pretty long-standing partnership with horses too.

lainga 3y ago
Indeed, but the switch from long-standing to long-riding is a relatively recent innovation, by the Romans, Arabs et al. (by breeding horses large enough to ride on), after the Sea Peoples demonstrated how to defeat charioteers

callalex 3y ago

This is like arguing about if it’s better to regularly beat your sibling or your cousin. Just don’t beat anybody!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lukan 3y ago

Compagnions and friends? Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe. But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters. I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership. Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and misery to the animal: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht (german) I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.

zen928 3y ago
> I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal. Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now, killing the planet's livable ecosystems while exclusively creating living spaces and amenities for these domestic pets and treating the nature they come from as second class? Tens to hundreds of thousands of unique species and subspecies go extinct at previously unrecorded rates, but selective breeding of vanity traits in pet animals remains a common past time. There's clearly an attachment to these animals and breeds that keeps them in our conscious above others to consider it worthwhile to hold them in public reverence in a way that can still be described as companionship. We've flipped the needle on adapting them for survival companionship to (essentially) slaved ownership with the aftereffects like you've mentioned, but I think zooming in on the scale of an individual societies' treatment won't generally be favorable. We barely even treat our own species with a level of achievable compassion for anyone deemed undesirable or are a lower class, the betrayal starts earlier than our treatment towards dogs.
- lukan 3y ago
  "Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now" I only talked about dogs and humans.
  - zen928 3y ago
    Yeah, it's a bit narrow minded to exclude the rest of the historical context while comparing two isolated points in time. Sure makes an entirely emotion-driven plea look initially more compelling and legitimate though! Good for you on sticking to your preferred form of discourse.
    - lukan 3y ago
      Are you .. serious? Do you really think it makes sense to always talk about everything? The topic was about dogs and humans and this is what I was talking about. Nothing more, even though surely I could. Topics are connected and I do not neceasarily disagree to what you said, but sorry, this is indeed not my preferred form of discourse.

sph 3y ago

I am OK with some cultures not eating some meats: pork for the muslims or jews, horse for some Western countries, sometimes rabbit. Where I'm from (Italy) we eat both horse and rabbits. But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.

bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
Just as there are places where eating canids and felids is not taboo - so too are there places where eating a primate is not taboo. A larger geography by far as far as I know. By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid? As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Horse and rabbit were delicious. What about coyote or mountain lion though? Those are still but seldom eaten in America mostly by hunters. Some people draw the line at not eating predators not because of cultural taboo but because of bio accumulation issues. Fascinating ethnobiology and moral boundary discussion.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  And then you have a ton of people that eat beef all the time, vs a ton of people that revere cows; in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one, google "cow vigilantism". It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
  - leosanchez 3y ago
    > in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one Only one country isn't it ?
    - sandspar 3y ago
      If it counts, that one country makes up 17% of living humans.

matwood 3y ago

I wouldn't eat a horse either, but otherwise agree. Dogs have evolved the skills to fit in human social structures. They really do become part of families.

Perceval 3y ago

Rats and cockroaches also co-evolved with humans. Is that a partnership that evokes similar sentimental feelings for you?

8338550bff96 3y ago
Dogs co-evolved with such great benefit to humanity that it not only changed the nature of human civilization, but was foundational to the formation of the first human civilizations. Show me evidence that co-evolution with rats and cockroaches is anything like this.