Does it? Says who? Do sharks have responsibility toward smaller fish?
At best they contribute to the quality of life of their owners; I agree most of us don’t need pets. And yes, they’ve been bred for those qualities. We’ve changed a bit ourselves. Why is that a problem?
And there’s no reason to think we created those niches deliberately, rather than by accident. Black rats, Norway rats, house mice, and cockroaches are every bit as domesticated as dogs and cats, even though most of us actively seek to keep those creatures out of our houses. When they are in our cities, they ARE in their natural habitats! Ditto the pigeons which crap so prodigiously all over most of our cities.
Our domesticated animals chose us as much as we chose them. And their gamble has paid off spectacularly in an evolutionary sense, as they are now among the most successful species on the planet.
I don’t own Blackjack. We’re BFFs. He lives with me. He doesn’t want to live anywhere else.
lol…sorry english is not my first language…I was trying to tie to them both being carnivores…same family. look up amphicyonids
Since you think “natural” automatically means “good”, how about the only real natural law: might makes right.
Even if you’re not convinced that providing an animal with an incredibly luxurious lifestyle for free or in exchange for minor work they usually ENJOY doing - because they’ve been bred to want to do it - isn’t slavery, well, in nature, the toughest animal makes the rules. That’s us. So you still shouldn’t have a problem with it.
Cats still keep down vermin in our dwellings. Many dogs are still used for a wide variety of working purposes. But many of these creatures are now basically parasitizing us, by taking advantage of our maternal/paternal instincts to obtain food and protection from us. Since most of us don’t mind this particular form of parasitism, though, I don’t really see it as a problem.
If dogs and cats want their freedom so much, they should get to work evolving opposable thumbs! We paid our dues, so should they!
There was a recent thread called, “Do you have servants?” I replied, “No, but my dog does.” 
That we ACTIVELY seek to keep those pets in our house is not their original intent…not natural either. They did not choose to be subservient for life, we bred that into them. Life itself is a selfish entitiy. Now to breed our own self loathing demand into another species and say its for companionship? that I can’t fathom. Demand and supply regarding breeding of animals we’re talking here…not for food but for our own lifestyle…not survival anymore.
Cat haiku:
Feed me, biped slave!
I think we know which of us
Two is the smarter
I didn’t do any of that. Blackjack needed a place to live and I said he could come live with me.
We evolved naturally. The claim that stuff humans do isn’t natural is nonsense. And what original intent did cats have? We didn’t have houses either at first, but they’re pretty useful. Cats also do just fine in houses.
So why is it bad if people are selfish?
Why not? This whole discussion seems to be more about your ability to understand why people have pets than anything else.
You know the saying: man cannot live by bread alone.
Your assumption about the origin of dogs is incorrect. It is not as if humans went into the woods one day, grabbed a bunch of wolves, and then forcibly “domesticated” them. Can you imagine how that would have went?
The term “slavery” refers to humans. Humans have free will and can fend for themselves, and make decisions for themselves. It is only possible to enslave a human by force - by preventing them from escaping with either physical restraints or with the threat of punishment if they escape and are caught. Humans who are enslaved are enslaved against their will.
By comparison, dogs were not bred by humans to be slaves or companions. Evidence increasingly suggests that the relationship between early humans and wolves (later proto-dogs) was symbiotic and mutually beneficial from the start. Early human and early dogs co-existed and interacted because it helped each other, not because humans “enslaved” dogs for their own benefit. Early wolves and early humans cooperated, and that early cooperation gave rise to the present dog.
There was a great article in the WSJ not so long ago. Hopefully it is not behind their paywall. Here is a link and excerpt:
Over time, the relationship between dogs and humans evolved to the way it is now, in a quite literal sense. Your assumption that the current relationship between dogs and humans is the result of humans forcibly subjugating the entire species eons ago is incorrect.
Humanity has certainly shaped the dog’s evolution more than dogs have shaped ours. But never in the history of the dog has the dog been an unwilling companion to humans. As a result of their willing service, dogs have had the benefit of millenia of human stewardship over their health, safety, and welfare. We are, after all, smarter than they are.
I wouldn’t have a problem if these animals naturally worshiped us or became parasites that depend on us. My problem is we humans are actively aware that we bred traits into them that only serves us and not their instinctual rights. Thousands of years later, we now say “oh they need us just as mush as we need them”. I’m sure if they could talk, some of them would rather naturally want to lead a pack.
They did get to that point naturally. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and it always has been.
What are instinctual rights?
By definition most dogs don’t lead packs. A pack can only have one leader at a time. If a dog further down in the pack winds up part of a human pack instead of a dog pack, what difference does it make?
lol I can give you many reasons why it’s bad to be selfish.
this whole discussion IS about my ability to question what we all have bred to believe is ‘right’.
Serious question that Absolute touched on…where do you think dogs (and cats and other domesticated animals) came from? How do you suppose they were domesticated…and why them, and not other things? Why were we able to domesticate wolves, but not, say, bears? Leaving aside the plain fact that none of those domestic species COULD be put back into the wild or freed from their, um, odious bondage and ‘slavery’, you really need to grasp the how and why animals such as the dog became domesticated in the first place to realize how ridiculous your arguments in the OP actually are. It’s only through that understanding that you can eventually give yourself the :smack: you really need, looking back on this thread in the future.
So what’s the solution to all of this, anyway? Outlaw all dog breeding?
You’re not answering the question. If life is selfish, why is it bad if people collectively are selfish?
You definitely have the ability to question it. You’re just not making a sensible argument in support of your position.
Ok so every dog born is automatically not a pack leader by your definition. How do we know which dog wants to be a leader and which has been bred to follow a leader? Let me guess, the one that wants to be a leader?..gets euthanized. yeah seems natural to me. :dubious: