And that’s why I said “free range” instead of “wild”.
See the last part of my previous post WRT to “it’s not natural”.
we are talking pets here…not food for people that eat meat for survival. same umbrella different handle 
There’s no such word as “specie”. The singular of “species” is “species”.
Can we eliminate human slavery before we get too worked up over this?
Species is the singular and plural. And you could say it’s weird, but it also shaped our evolution as well as the evolution of many animals, and I think you could make an extremely strong case that it’s been beneficial both for us and for the domesticated animals (at least the non-food ones). Cats and dogs have proliferated and they live all over the world. If they belong to halfway decent people, they get plenty of food, a place to sleep, medical treatment and immunization from diseases and protection from predators. That’s a lot more than you’re guaranteed in the wild. Are they less free? Yes. And while it’s possible for animals to be unhappy in their surroundings, I don’t think cats and dogs bother themselves with debates over what’s “natural” and what isn’t. It’s also a stretch to call pets enslaved when they’re not being made to do any work.
Slight correction: short hard lives. When you take animals that don’t know how to fend for themselves and release them into the wild, the results usually aren’t pretty. I’m not seeing the humane side of that idea.
This. Sometimes I wonder if I have my dog trained, or he has me trained. 
Dogs in particular are not just “domesticated” in the sense that they have been raised in captivity. Dog have been selectively bred (over the course of at least 15,000 years) to be “pets” or the companions of humans. Every fibre of a dog’s being compels it to seek out and enjoy the company of humans.
Suggesting we emancipate dogs and let them enjoy their freedom is as sensible as emancipating toddlers–both depend on the love and care of adult humans for their physical and psychological well-being, and freeing them would be an act of cruelty, not kindness.
house security, herding, pest control, blind people - are just some of the work we make these pets do. These poor things don’t even have an idea that their ancestors used to hunt and fend for themselves - Darwinism so to speak. Is that how we want to affect human history? We we we are on top so screw anything that can’t think for themselves? If that’s the case, fine but to own them as PETS is what I just find kind of twisted. A bear or wolf in the wild is still a wolf or bear in the wild, if it comes near your habitat and threatens your life, you take precautions…that is natural. Now to capture that wolf or bear, throw a collar around it, make it fetch a ball, and take it for walks and say you love it? no. just don’t see how that’s valid. 
My ancestors did too, doesn’t mean I want to go back to it. Why would a dog?
Some pets do none of those things. I wouldn’t confuse a seeing eye dog with a pet either, but they’re in the same general category.
You’re misunderstanding Darwin, and more importantly you’re projecting human values onto animals.
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. By what terms is it not valid? What would make it valid? There are reasons humans began domesticating animals: it helped us survive and we do have a very strong need for companionship. More recently, yes, people (at least people in wealthy countries) have sort of developed a tendency to humanize their pets. They treat them like family members and things like that. That can become very silly and annoying, but I don’t think anyone is harmed by it.
How the hell did you go from dogs and cats to wolves and bears?
here’s a story I’m sure you’ve heard going around - A lady is having a dinner gathering when one of her guests inquired about why she cuts off the end of her pot roast before she cooks it. The lady answers back " because for 30 or so odd years, my mother has always done it that way and hence the tastiness of the roast." Unaware the mother was in the room, the mother quickly corrected her daughter and said “no no no, reason why I cut it off was because back in the day, the pots were smaller and couldn’t fit the roast, hence why i cut it off.”
Now I believe this pet thing is also a result of things we’ve practiced in the past (domestication) but today we are saying it’s ok because NOW they can’t fend for themselves, or they wouldn’t survive if we released them. Well geez yeah…how about acknowledge that we’ve messed up that specie for our own pathetic void? :dubious: I’m just saying no matter how we want to paint it to our children, pets were bred to be slaves for us.
I believe the dog came from bears or wolves…can’t remember which cam first.
Pocho, you seem to think animals had no agency when it came to domestication. That is not true. Humans have tried and failed to domesticate many species. The process isn’t merely something we forced onto certain animals; rather, it’s one that occurred naturally over the course of human interactions with a small number of species, and it worked because those species benefitted as much from the association as humans did.
Do ants enslave aphids? Are clownfish the captive servants of anemones? Humans aren’t the only creatures which have entered into mutually beneficial relationships with other species, and “master/slave” is a poor way to view such relationships.
i stand corrected. thanks
Specie is a perfectly cromulent word, it’s coin money (as opposed to bullion). Even my slave puppy knows that! 
I think you’re engaging in anthropomorphism, here, by attributing human motives like freedom and revolution to animals.
The analogy to human slavery is spurious. Human slaves were forced into a subservient role in human society, but they still participated in a social contract. Upon being freed, this expanded to the full measures of human life: rights and responsibilities.
Animals can never participate in a social contract, they cannot grasp rights or responsibilities. They exist in a state of nature, beyond law or duty.
Slaves can be freed from toil to citizenship.
Animals can only be “freed” from one aspect of nature (brutal competition under the auspices of mankind) to another (brutal competition under the auspices of nature). There is no higher state for them.
Pets, even more so, as their relationship with humans is a mutually beneficial one.
It’s true, at least for the vast majority of them.
SPECIES. Please. And again, you’re projecting human values into this. You can’t do that and then talk about evolution and what’s “natural” at the same time. Dogs (and to a lesser extent cats) are different than they were thousands of years ago, but they’re not messed up any more than we are messed up because we developed agriculture and most of us are used to living in large civilizations. From an evolutionary standpoint they are very successful and they fit very well into their niche even if it’s a niche we largely created for them. Again, though, they also shaped our evolution. Are you going to complain to dogs about that?
Except for the work and suffering and wanting to be free parts. Other than that, though, it’s just like slavery.
Erm… wolves. That should probably be obvious just from a quick glance. Wolves and dogs are canines. If humans had tried to domesticate bears, I doubt they would have lasted very long. That sounds like an incredibly stupid thing to attempt.
Yes agreed but we are on top of the food chain and with that power comes responsibility. Not ok with the mentality of “because they do it, why can’t we do it?” master/slave relationship over thousands of years has now become ‘companionship’ or ‘pets’. Original intention was to have dominion over it for survival purposes. How is a dog or cat helping you survive today? Wait let me guess…by it exhibiting traits we humans bred into it?
You seem to hold animals existing in the wild as somehow purer or more noble than those in captivity. Why, exactly? Animals cannot combine for some greater purpose, they eat, breed, and die, whether on someone’s front porch, the zoo, or in the wild.