pets under communism

[Vee]

this may seem like a really strange question and i'm not sure where the right place to post this but i'll try it anyway. i'm sorry in advance :laugh:

Would people keep pets under communism? I often hear environmentalists talk about how the relationship between the "pet owner" and the "pet" is oppressive and some of them even equate it to slavery. Would humans still tame animals and keep them as pets under communism? Is owning pets really a bad thing?

again i'm sorry for asking such a strange question.

[Palmares]

Personally, I doubt that all forms of domestication would disappear (at least in any short-term reality) in a post-capitalist society, even if that is what was the desired goal. However, I am more imagining the continuing agricultural practices that will be required for food production (at least given the current dependence of mass industrial forms of thus). Which of course, as we all know, including the domestication of various animals. Likely the actual form of this domestication will change, perhaps the scale, who knows.

Pets though? Hmmm... Maybe.

In some circles, such as permaculture theorists, it's posited that not all human/animal (excuse the false dicotomy! haha) relationships are necessarily oppressive, and I guess they see there being the possibility of a kind of ... kinship (apologies, I forget the exact word they use) between humans and animals.

Personally, I ain't got no beef (!) with having domesticated animals, however, seeing how many people have dogs (and cats to a lesser extent), and how many among them are not entirely the best owners... makes me not want to join their company, as it were.

[Armchair Partisan]

I often hear environmentalists talk about how the relationship between the "pet owner" and the "pet" is oppressive and some of them even equate it to slavery.

Maybe. As far as I'm concerned though, that's fine. The Internationale unites the human race, not all living creatures on Earth. Unless an animal develops a certain, arbitrarily defined level of sapience, I've no issue with using them as food or pets (with certain standards of protection to prevent animal cruelty, because I'm not a fan of animal cruelty).

[Lord Testicles]

I don't see who would stop you feeding a cat and letting it sleep in your house.

[Emmett Till]

this may seem like a really strange question and i'm not sure where the right place to post this but i'll try it anyway. i'm sorry in advance :laugh:

Would people keep pets under communism? I often hear environmentalists talk about how the relationship between the "pet owner" and the "pet" is oppressive and some of them even equate it to slavery. Would humans still tame animals and keep them as pets under communism? Is owning pets really a bad thing?

again i'm sorry for asking such a strange question.

Pretty funny.

Dogs seem to like being oppressed, I see no reason to deny them this privilege.

As for cats, it is unclear who is in charge in the human/cat relationship. The cats seem to think they are in charge, as they were in the jungle hundreds of thousands of years ago, when they were eating us and we were worshipping them and picking up their leavings.

[Zoop]

"Is owning pets a bad thing?"

There can't be one answer to this question. It depends entirely upon the type of animal which is kept as a pet.

Here you have to ask whether or not the natural inclinations of the animal conforms to the surroundings it finds itself in.

Keeping a bird in a tiny cage for the entirety of its life doesn't exactly satisfy the bird's needs. It is a ridiculously cruel practise. This also applies to zoos.

Keeping a dog however, is exactly what the dog needs. They thrive in this environment.

Evidently, it is different for each animal. Their individual needs need to be satisfied.

[Rudolf]

"Is owning pets a bad thing?"

There can't be one answer to this question. It depends entirely upon the type of animal which is kept as a pet.

Here you have to ask whether or not the natural inclinations of the animal conforms to the surroundings it finds itself in.

Keeping a bird in a tiny cage for the entirety of its life doesn't exactly satisfy the bird's needs. It is a ridiculously cruel practise. This also applies to zoos.

Keeping a dog however, is exactly what the dog needs. They thrive in this environment.

Evidently, it is different for each animal. Their individual needs need to be satisfied.


So if i catch a bird, let's say a falcon for the added "omg it's a bird of prey!" factor, and over successive generations of selective breeding i end up with a bird that likes to be kept in cages. Is keeping it in a cage a cruel practice? Does calling my bird a falcon or a no-longer-falcon change anything?


So to be more direct... is keeping a wolf cruel?


Anyway, owning a living being is fucked up and is to be abolished. Obviously this is a different statement to whether or not humans will keep animals... We will atleast in agriculture because their shit is really useful. But would humans keep animals for companionship? No, i don't think so. I expect when people are no longer alienated from each other the notion of a non-human companion would be folly.

[Zoop]

^ But in order for a bird to be happy in a cage (leaving aside whether or not that is possible), requires the enslavement of previous generations of birds in the first place, which one should object to, so it shouldn't even be possible to attain that situation in the first place.

Is keeping a wolf cruel? Yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be.

[Rudolf]

^ But in order for a bird to be happy in a cage (leaving aside whether or not that is possible), requires the enslavement of previous generations of birds in the first place, which one should object to, so it shouldn't even be possible to attain that situation in the first place.

Is keeping a wolf cruel? Yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be.


What happens when this bird is kept generations before anyone had the intellectual capability to object to it? Obviously the bird's descendants end up continuing to live in their little cages seemingly content in life and the people of the future with the intellectically capability to object to such a practice if it happened now talk about how it's fine because the birds really enjoy their little cages...


You can't keep dogs without first keeping wolves ;)

[Zoop]

The fact that dogs are content with their environment doesn't change the fact that the process of domestication is objectionable. It doesn't change the fact that this is how dogs are now.

[mutualaid]

this may seem like a really strange question and i'm not sure where the right place to post this but i'll try it anyway. i'm sorry in advance :laugh:

Would people keep pets under communism? I often hear environmentalists talk about how the relationship between the "pet owner" and the "pet" is oppressive and some of them even equate it to slavery. Would humans still tame animals and keep them as pets under communism? Is owning pets really a bad thing?

again i'm sorry for asking such a strange question.

Peter Singer writes about animal ethics from a somewhat materialist perspective (he thinks it is). He argues eating animals or owning animals is indeed a form of capitalist exploitation, seeing a living thing as a commodity to be consumed. I don't think he's a great writer, but he's probably right; under communism I would hope that no living beings (human or otherwise) can be owned.

[Guardia Rossa]

Well, than, how would this happen? Would I drop my dog on a jungle full of jaguars?

He would probably come back home. Or would pets "wither away"? :lol:

[Antiochus]

Well, there are some worrying signs already. The other day my cat left a red-paw print in the garage. He has also been seen with multiple cats at the same time. This means my cat has both rejected monogamy and is organizing.

[Rudolf]

The fact that dogs are content with their environment doesn't change the fact that the process of domestication is objectionable. It doesn't change the fact that this is how dogs are now.

Yeah, we can't really talk about them being content as meaning anything because we made them content. Dogs are of course what they are now. The issue is whether or not we should act so as to undo the damage of our ancestors, a sort of reverse-domestication if you will.



Personally, i don't like dogs the loud obnoxious pieces of shit that are always demanding more fucking attention... FUCK YOU, YOU COLLIE!

[BIXX]

You can't keep dogs without first keeping wolves ;)

As far as I understand dogs are the descendants of wolves who spent a lot of their time with human communities (eating our leftovers). However I'm sure youre right- the juno that turned the first wolves into "pets" was probably very violent.

I think in a general sense there would be less actual pets, perhaps more appearances of human-non human strange friendship (when animals of two species become friends where humans currently have little to no understanding of why such a thing would happen). But idk really. No one is stopping you.

[Emmett Till]

...

Anyway, owning a living being is fucked up and is to be abolished. Obviously this is a different statement to whether or not humans will keep animals... We will atleast in agriculture because their shit is really useful. But would humans keep animals for companionship? No, i don't think so. I expect when people are no longer alienated from each other the notion of a non-human companion would be folly.

Now that is a slander against non-human animals, who make fine companions. Speciesism at its worst...

Why is "owning" dogs (our relationship with cats is often more egalitarian) justifiable?

Because we are a superior species and dogs are an inferior one. Any humanist ought to agree.

[Vee]

I don't know what i actually think about having pets. i just wanted to see what other people thought because it looks like a lot of environmentalists think that it's oppressive.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't know what i actually think about having pets. i just wanted to see what other people thought because it looks like a lot of environmentalists think that it's oppressive.It is an interesting question, and the relationship between humans and animals is often abusive (which is shaped by capitalism), but I would not call it oppression. Oppression, to me, is about social relations, and the ability/possibility of the oppressed to change them (it thus requires self-agency). Much can be said for protecting animals and freeing them from abuse, but I do not think that animals can be oppressed.

Anyone may feel free to correct me, though.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think anyone has answered Skinz's question, and to be honest, that's the only question that needs to be asked. How do any of the opponents of pet ownership intend to stop people from feeding and providing shelter for cats, dogs and so on? If we're talking about animal abuse, sure, you could probably get many people on your side to confront the person abusing animals, but we're talking about enforcing a very narrow vegan purism. Most people, I would hazard a guess, are not interested. So what do you intend to do?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think the question has really been defined enough. If we are talking about continuing the commercial breeding of pets then this is going to be a problem for people. Specifically breeding animals to become domesticated pets is something that "vegans" (if this is how we intend to reduce the conversation) are going to object to. There are of course [non-human] animals that require shelter and food because, you know, they exist and are domesticated, and therefore require humans for support. I don't know any "vegan" who would object to this. The problem then is not really whether it's okay to feed and shelter these animals, but who is actually going to do it and how we try and prevent contributing further to the amount of unwanted animals, of which there are already too many and not enough people actually willing to feed and shelter them.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not really sure that this is a question for 'capitalism' v 'socialism'. The issues with human treatment of animals, in general, are: the production of animals for food and the conditions in which they are kept and killed; the use of animals for product testing; and the standards for breeding domesticated pets.

The first issue can be improved through better welfare measures (imposing quotas on the amount of animals that can be produced for meat at any one and banning factory farming full stop), the second issue can and already is being improved by banning animal testing for all cosmetic products, and imposing much stricter welfare measures guiding the use of animals for medical testing, and again the third issue can be very simply resolved by having animal licences, breeding licences, and stringent standards (maintained by inspections) for breeding domestic animals.

Personally I think the notion that with socialism I will just let my dog out onto the street to fend for herself is an example of the left over-doing it a bit. I feel that sometimes the left wants to create an 'oppression' out of nothing with certain issues. The fact that there is a clear dominant relationship between people and animals (moreso with animals like dogs that have a greater dependency) isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't necessarily oppressive. Dogs have evolved to be loyal to humans, to crave human company as well as playtime with other dogs and, whilst some have evolved to fend for themselves there are many who simply cannot and don't want to. If I let me dog off the lead half way down my road she runs straight to the front door, under no coercion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Personally I think the notion that with socialism I will just let my dog out onto the street to fend for herself is an example of the left over-doing it a bit.

What are you on about? :confused:


Dogs have evolved to be loyal to humans, to crave human company as well as playtime with other dogs and, whilst some have evolved to fend for themselves there are many who simply cannot and don't want to. If I let me dog off the lead half way down my road she runs straight to the front door, under no coercion.

Yeah it's called domestication. Domestication has very little to do with evolution.

[reviscom1]

I don't object to the concept of pets on Socialist grounds but just on the grounds that I am an animal lover and don't like to see them suffer. See, pets have very few legal rights and are therefore subject to the caprices, or even incompetence, of their owners.

Once any sort of pet is taken into it's owner's home they are completely at the mercy of that owner. Human nature being what it is, it's surprising that the majority of pets are looked after and treated well. But hundreds of thousands are not, particularly if owned by children.

Also, regardless of whether the pet is treated well, the power imbalance is still there and this is somewhat undignified for the animal. I am aware of this in the case of my own cats (even though I am very soft with them) and it makes me feel uncomfortable. I think it makes them feel uncomfortable on some level as well.

I think it's silly to call the human-pet relationship "oppression" though. There is strong potential for abuse, but when that potential is not realised then pets are treasured and honoured members of the family. That said, a lot of them are castrated, which I think future generations will find hard to believe.

Farm animals, though, now that is oppression. I don't see how you could be a Socialist and believe otherwise.

[Emmett Till]

I don't think anyone has answered Skinz's question, and to be honest, that's the only question that needs to be asked. How do any of the opponents of pet ownership intend to stop people from feeding and providing shelter for cats, dogs and so on? If we're talking about animal abuse, sure, you could probably get many people on your side to confront the person abusing animals, but we're talking about enforcing a very narrow vegan purism. Most people, I would hazard a guess, are not interested. So what do you intend to do?

Believe it or not, in California there are extreme vegans who try to feed their cats a vegetarian diet. Now, that's animal cruelty!

Feral cats and dogs are invariably and obviously less happy than domesticated ones, so any attempt to retrain them for the wild is also a form of animal cruelty.

[Emmett Till]

What happens when this bird is kept generations before anyone had the intellectual capability to object to it? Obviously the bird's descendants end up continuing to live in their little cages seemingly content in life and the people of the future with the intellectically capability to object to such a practice if it happened now talk about how it's fine because the birds really enjoy their little cages...



I agree with you about birds. Set them all free!

Our cats will never be really happy without birds to hunt and kill. Their favorite thing.

[Emmett Till]

I don't think the question has really been defined enough. If we are talking about continuing the commercial breeding of pets then this is going to be a problem for people. Specifically breeding animals to become domesticated pets is something that "vegans" (if this is how we intend to reduce the conversation) are going to object to. There are of course [non-human] animals that require shelter and food because, you know, they exist and are domesticated, and therefore require humans for support. I don't know any "vegan" who would object to this. The problem then is not really whether it's okay to feed and shelter these animals, but who is actually going to do it and how we try and prevent contributing further to the amount of unwanted animals, of which there are already too many and not enough people actually willing to feed and shelter them.

Commercial anything is a problem. But I am sure animal fanciers under socialism will continue to breed animals to their liking, as an art form among other things. No more pit bulls though!

Who is going to feed and shelter animals? People who love animals, which is most of the human race.

Too many? The solution is well known and sometimes legally required. Neutering.

[Emmett Till]

What are you on about? :confused:

Yeah it's called domestication. Domestication has very little to do with evolution.

Yes. Domestication is better than evolution, which works on the principle of "survival of the fittest." "Nature red in tooth and claw."

[mutualaid]

I don't think anyone has answered Skinz's question, and to be honest, that's the only question that needs to be asked. How do any of the opponents of pet ownership intend to stop people from feeding and providing shelter for cats, dogs and so on? If we're talking about animal abuse, sure, you could probably get many people on your side to confront the person abusing animals, but we're talking about enforcing a very narrow vegan purism. Most people, I would hazard a guess, are not interested. So what do you intend to do?

Like so many other institutions of capitalism, it will habitually phase out, not because of some draconian measure, but because the cultural practice of owning pets will no longer be relevant. It's odd to consider, but animals that have been domesticated will have to evolve to live in the wild again or die out. I think the point is this, if we live in a communist society, people will, eventually, no longer desire to own pets (they won't desire to own anything). In such a case, a species will have to adapt to the wild, die out, or, most likely, humanity will provide some habitat where animals can live pseudo independently.

[Guardia Rossa]

Yes. Domestication is better than evolution, which works on the principle of "survival of the fittest." "Nature red in tooth and claw."

I don't actually see how. Domestication, animals evolve to fit our needs, which is a "survival of the fittest" where only the better, most domesticated races survive.

And evolution with "survival of the fittest" is not some permanent state of warfare, it is the survival and reproduction of the most adapted individuals, not involving at all some kind of "Tooth and claw" warfare.....

[BIXX]

That isn't what domestication is, GR. Domestication is not evolution of any kind.

[Emmett Till]

Like so many other institutions of capitalism, it will habitually phase out, not because of some draconian measure, but because the cultural practice of owning pets will no longer be relevant. It's odd to consider, but animals that have been domesticated will have to evolve to live in the wild again or die out. I think the point is this, if we live in a communist society, people will, eventually, no longer desire to own pets (they won't desire to own anything). In such a case, a species will have to adapt to the wild, die out, or, most likely, humanity will provide some habitat where animals can live pseudo independently.

Are you serious? All kidding aside, and some of my posts were written to get a rise out of "animal rights" fanatics, I admit it, I have to say that's vicious and cruel. I do not believe a socialist society could possibly be so heartless, ruthless and cruel as to abandon our animal companions to misery in the wild. Almost worse than simply killing them all.

Perhaps in the future people's relationship with pets will not be described as "ownership" but companionship, as "ownership" will have negative connotations. But, due to the natural superiority of intelligent over non-intelligent animals, the relationship can never be quite equal, even with cats.

[Emmett Till]

I don't actually see how. Domestication, animals evolve to fit our needs, which is a "survival of the fittest" where only the better, most domesticated races survive.

And evolution with "survival of the fittest" is not some permanent state of warfare, it is the survival and reproduction of the most adapted individuals, not involving at all some kind of "Tooth and claw" warfare.....

Don't be silly, of course it does. Yes, rapid breeding helps a lot, but what do you think determines survival in the wild?

Avoiding some other animal eating you before you have young, that's what.

Life in the wild is exactly a permanent state of warfare of all against all, usually but not always only between species. You can have allies, symbiotes, parasites, etc. but all-sided permanent ruthless warfare is exactly what it is.

That's why pets are happier than feral creatures. However badly we treat them, at least we've rescued them from that! Cats of all sizes, ultra-efficient predators that they are, considerably more so than wolves, are not as well, doggedly grateful for that as dogs are, which is a major reason why I like them better.

[reviscom1]

As to how I would legislate on the subject of pets if I was in charge:

1) Bespoke licences for all types of pet, with strict conditions as to accomodation, food, hygiene etc.
2) A "responsible person" to be nominated for each pet, to be over 21 years of age.
3) Home inspections and vetting of responsible person before licence is issued.
4) Severe penalties for abuse/neglect, akin to those for abusing/neglecting a child.
5) Some types of pet to be banned.
6) An animal police force with powers of entry.
7) Periodic home inspections.

[The Feral Underclass]

Commercial anything is a problem. But I am sure animal fanciers under socialism will continue to breed animals to their liking, as an art form among other things. No more pit bulls though!

Then I suspect there will be a fairly robust response to that.


Who is going to feed and shelter animals? People who love animals, which is most of the human race.

Why aren't the doing that now then?


Too many? The solution is well known and sometimes legally required. Neutering.

Thanks, Herr Brack.

[Emmett Till]

As to how I would legislate on the subject of pets if I was in charge:

1) Bespoke licences for all types of pet, with strict conditions as to accomodation, food, hygiene etc.
2) A "responsible person" to be nominated for each pet, to be over 21 years of age.
3) Home inspections and vetting of responsible person before licence is issued.
4) Severe penalties for abuse/neglect, akin to those for abusing/neglecting a child.
5) Some types of pet to be banned.
6) An animal police force with powers of entry.
7) Periodic home inspections.

I guess we can nominate reviscom for gulag commandant after the Revolution. No rotten liberalism there!

[Emmett Till]

...Why aren't the doing that now then?...


Maybe the fact that we live in a capitalist society has something to do with that?

In fact, in America there is much more concern for cats and dogs than for human beings, especially black ones.

[The Feral Underclass]

Maybe the fact that we live in a capitalist society has something to do with that?

Yeah, it probably has something to do with it, but I don't think it's a convincing explanation in and of itself.

[Vee]

As to how I would legislate on the subject of pets if I was in charge:

1) Bespoke licences for all types of pet, with strict conditions as to accomodation, food, hygiene etc.
2) A "responsible person" to be nominated for each pet, to be over 21 years of age.
3) Home inspections and vetting of responsible person before licence is issued.
4) Severe penalties for abuse/neglect, akin to those for abusing/neglecting a child.
5) Some types of pet to be banned.
6) An animal police force with powers of entry.
7) Periodic home inspections.

How would you do this under communism? there is no state when we reach communism. maybe this would happen in a worker's state but by the time we reach communism the state would have withered away.

[Vee]

Thanks for all the good answers! i was worried that people would just write it off as silly and not give any serious answers.

[BIXX]

As to how I would legislate on the subject of pets if I was in charge:

1) Bespoke licences for all types of pet, with strict conditions as to accomodation, food, hygiene etc.
2) A "responsible person" to be nominated for each pet, to be over 21 years of age.
3) Home inspections and vetting of responsible person before licence is issued.
4) Severe penalties for abuse/neglect, akin to those for abusing/neglecting a child.
5) Some types of pet to be banned.
6) An animal police force with powers of entry.
7) Periodic home inspections.

I'm too.high for this bullshit what a fucking horror story

[Comrade #138672]

Thanks for all the good answers! i was worried that people would just write it off as silly and not give any serious answers.This is the learning forum. Seriousness is mandatory. (Although sometimes I forget that I am in the learning forum.) But I would not say that it is silly, no.

[Црвена]

As to how I would legislate on the subject of pets if I was in charge:

1) Bespoke licences for all types of pet, with strict conditions as to accomodation, food, hygiene etc.
2) A "responsible person" to be nominated for each pet, to be over 21 years of age.
3) Home inspections and vetting of responsible person before licence is issued.
4) Severe penalties for abuse/neglect, akin to those for abusing/neglecting a child.
5) Some types of pet to be banned.
6) An animal police force with powers of entry.
7) Periodic home inspections.

8) All citizens must attend the Two Minutes Hate.

I literally have no serious response. How you can advocate the existence of any regulation of people's personal lives, let alone "severe penalties" and arbitrary criteria, and call yourself a socialist is beyond me.

[Emmett Till]

Yeah, it probably has something to do with it, but I don't think it's a convincing explanation in and of itself.

Why not? In America at least concern for cats and dogs is extreme, if reviscom1's notions were put up for referendum they'd win in a landslide.

Why do so many pets at the pound end up getting put to sleep? Because under capitalism what people want is not necessarily what happens. Taking care of animals takes time, effort and money, something people are very short of these days.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why not? In America at least concern for cats and dogs is extreme, if reviscom1's notions were put up for referendum they'd win in a landslide.

Why do so many pets at the pound end up getting put to sleep? Because under capitalism what people want is not necessarily what happens. Taking care of animals takes time, effort and money, something people are very short of these days.

So what you're saying is that people love and adore animals so much that they aren't even prepared to make their lives a bit more inconvenient in order to ensure they have a full life?

That sounds like it makes sense.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What are you on about? :confused:



Yeah it's called domestication. Domestication has very little to do with evolution.

My point was that it is pointless critiquing 'domestication' as a concept if your solution is to abandon domestication with some free-for-all for animals. Dogs are now considered domestic animals, separate from their wild ancestors. That is, in some ways, evolution, and there's little evidence that this is a political issue. I was therefore making the point that it's needless to turn something that's apolitical into a political issue for the sake of 'liberation'.

[Emmett Till]

So what you're saying is that people love and adore animals so much that they aren't even prepared to make their lives a bit more inconvenient in order to ensure they have a full life?

That sounds like it makes sense.

Do you have any pets? It's more than a bit inconvenient. And when they get sick, as there is no medical insurance for pets in the USA, it always gets very expensive. I and my companion have at one time or another spent lots of money, definitely in the thousands, which we don't have.

Increasingly, the lives of the American working class are getting more desperate every day. You hear more and more reports of parents abandoning or even killing their children. I doubt things are better elsewhere in the world.

[Rafiq]

Pets as 'commodities' would not exist only insofar as commodities themselves would not exist in general. Would people have pets for personal amusement, luxury, etc. ?

Well let's ask: Why do people have pets in 2015? Why is it sort of common for people to be disgusted by babies but at the same time adoring of puppies? These are ideological matters. Pets would probably have a practical purpose, playing with children, and so on, but as far as "owning" one in the same way as now, is concerned, that is questionable. Not because a pet has rights, but because putting a collar on an animal and projecting an extension of your own identity upon it in some ways is a perversion of your own identity. I personally have always imagined pets to function kind of like how they do in communal, fringe places such as squats - it has a name, and everyone acknowledges it, but no one quite 'owns' it. Communal housing would probably entail communal pets as well which simply exist in the background. Aside from very lonely people in the past, in remote places, etc., having some kind of obsessive attachment to an animal is quite perverse - if one owns a cat, they should know their cat would probably eat them if it had the chance, for one, and that their "pet" doesn't "like" them, it's attachment to them is purely a result of mechanical processes that it is not in control of.

If pets were to exist, then with bio-genetic engineering, to be creative, perhaps one can imagine a world were exotic animals could be domesticated, or traits could be selected for or bred for at the level for physical appearance that would make for better pets. Take the Soviet silver fox program, for one, combined with modern biogenetic technologies (or future ones) - we can imagine lions, tigers, bears, all sorts of animals that people find cool or whatever becoming domesticated, to play with children as part of their socialization, etc.

[Palmares]

My point was that it is pointless critiquing 'domestication' as a concept if your solution is to abandon domestication with some free-for-all for animals. Dogs are now considered domestic animals, separate from their wild ancestors. That is, in some ways, evolution, and there's little evidence that this is a political issue. I was therefore making the point that it's needless to turn something that's apolitical into a political issue for the sake of 'liberation'.

I'm not sure I follow this logic, as you could easily say, along similar lines, that humans have evolved from a place of more or less "freedom", to (wage) slavery, etc, under capitalism. I don't see how liberation is something that is to be exclusively limited to humans, and I'm not even one of those "vegans" that people seem to denigrate.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...it would be incredibly fun to see how after the revolution all the house cats will be liberated and then watch that turn into an ecological disaster of unprecedented scale...

It will be incredibly fun to see the animal liberation movement adopting forced sterilization policies for pets....forcing pet owners to sterilize the pets to prevent further expansio of domesticated "breeds". And it will be incredibly fun to watch the animal liberation types then having to adopt a forced euthanasia program to kind of realize the concept of no pets.

In other words. People have held pets since forever. It won't change.

[The Feral Underclass]

My point was that it is pointless critiquing 'domestication' as a concept if your solution is to abandon domestication with some free-for-all for animals.

Who has suggested this?


Dogs are now considered domestic animals, separate from their wild ancestors. That is, in some ways, evolution, and there's little evidence that this is a political issue. I was therefore making the point that it's needless to turn something that's apolitical into a political issue for the sake of 'liberation'.

I don't really understand what you mean by "little evidence that his is a political issue." What evidence do you require to know that something is a political issue for someone?

I don't think the argument that something being apolitical makes it needless to politicise something. You don't accept "liberation of animals" as a legitimate point of view, so of course you think it's needless. But your argument doesn't really make any sense for why other shouldn't consider it legitimate.

In any case, no one is saying you shouldn't have a dog.

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you have any pets? It's more than a bit inconvenient. And when they get sick, as there is no medical insurance for pets in the USA, it always gets very expensive. I and my companion have at one time or another spent lots of money, definitely in the thousands, which we don't have.

Increasingly, the lives of the American working class are getting more desperate every day. You hear more and more reports of parents abandoning or even killing their children. I doubt things are better elsewhere in the world.

No, I don't have any pets (though there are two cats that live in my house that someone else takes care of). I don't have any because I don't want one, not because I can't afford it.

I do find the increasingly level of emotional hysteria that people apply to arguments odd. apparently working class people who love and adore animals don't have any because there's no health insurance and children are being murdered....Riiight.

By the way, when you say no medical insurance do you mean like a state thing? Because there are private pet insurance companies in the US, just like in the UK. I'm not promoting them, I'm just confused about what you mean...

[PhoenixAsh]

Perpetual (and ultimately intellectual dishonest) confusion seems to be your thing.

Thread full of people arguing owning a pet is a form of capitalist oppression...but nobody says we can't have a dog. :laugh:

Give a clear answer why people stop being able to afford taking care of animals because of extreme impoverisation...this is emotional hysteria and gets you confused.

Seriously...you must have a very harsh time coping in the "wild" reality... :rolleyes:


Stop trolling the learning forum.

[Antiochus]

The practical point of owning a pet, no longer exists. It is highly doubtful that humans wasted precious resources on otherwise wild animals simply because they liked petting or playing with them. Dogs were useful for guarding one's property, alerting one of possible dangers, helping to fight off other wild animals, hunting and so forth. Pet cats probably were highly useful in killing vermin (i.e mice, other rodents) that would otherwise devour a human village's food supply.

Obviously, these are no longer "needs" that humans need fulfilling with animals. So yes, I suppose other than a baby wanting to roll around with a puppy, there won't be much 'use' for them.

As it stands, the pet population is way too big. It would simply be better to sterilize large numbers of them, let their population naturally dwindle and have the remainder as a part of petting/play zoo or w/e. I suppose if an individual wants to own one, whatever, they should then shoulder the responsibility of taking care of it. As far as 'rights' are concerned, well obviously no one should abuse animals, but animals have no rights.

[Emmett Till]

I'm not sure I follow this logic, as you could easily say, along similar lines, that humans have evolved from a place of more or less "freedom", to (wage) slavery, etc, under capitalism. I don't see how liberation is something that is to be exclusively limited to humans, and I'm not even one of those "vegans" that people seem to denigrate.

Well, when the cats and dogs evolve to the point that they start demanding their rights, I will support their liberation struggle. Even the dogs, much as I dislike them.

Until then, talking about "animal liberation" is, at best, patronizing to say the least.

At worst, well, let's not go there...

[Emmett Till]

No, I don't have any pets (though there are two cats that live in my house that someone else takes care of). I don't have any because I don't want one, not because I can't afford it.

I do find the increasingly level of emotional hysteria that people apply to arguments odd. apparently working class people who love and adore animals don't have any because there's no health insurance and children are being murdered....Riiight.

By the way, when you say no medical insurance do you mean like a state thing? Because there are private pet insurance companies in the US, just like in the UK. I'm not promoting them, I'm just confused about what you mean...

Guess what, most working people in America do have pets. Few however are in a position to visit the pound regularly to rescue animals. I do know a few who do, but more than three or four cats, to say nothing of dogs, gets prohibitive. I do have a friend heavily into animal rescue, so this is something I have knowledge about. Even she currently only has two cats.

As for private pet medical insurance, if it does exist in America, and I've never heard of any, I am sure it is ridiculously expensive.

In America, there is no state medical insurance except for the aged, Medicare, and the very poor, Medicaid. "Obamacare" is somewhat-regulated private health insurance.

[The Feral Underclass]

Guess what, most working people in America do have pets. Few however are in a position to visit the pound regularly to rescue animals.

Most working people having a pet is the total opposite of working people in America not being able to afford to feed and shelter them.


I do know a few who do, but more than three or four cats, to say nothing of dogs, gets prohibitive. I do have a friend heavily into animal rescue, so this is something I have knowledge about. Even she currently only has two cats.

I would wager that three or four cats is prohibitive under any economic system and probably not particularly beneficial for the animal either. I think a better solution should probably be created.


As for private pet medical insurance, if it does exist in America, and I've never heard of any, I am sure it is ridiculously expensive.

The idea that America doesn't have private pet insurance seems ridiculous to me when you consider it's America we're talking about. Anyway, a cursory google search will provide you with plenty of options.

[Emmett Till]

Most working people having a pet is the total opposite of working people in America not being able to afford to feed and shelter them.

No it isn't. Think about it.

When you see homeless begging on the streets in America, they quite often have cats or dogs with them.




I would wager that three or four cats is prohibitive under any economic system and probably not particularly beneficial for the animal either. I think a better solution should probably be created.

Cats have large litters, so having three, four or more cats is something not at all uncommon. And if they're from the same litter, they love it. When I was growing up, we had seven cats at one point. None went to the pound, we managed to give most of them away to one neighbor or another, and usually had no more than two or three. Had to have momma spayed after a while.



The idea that America doesn't have private pet insurance seems ridiculous to me when you consider it's America we're talking about. Anyway, a cursory google search will provide you with plenty of options.

You're right it turns out. Nonetheless, I've never heard of anyone actually having pet insurance. Must be newish. Wish we'd known that a few years ago.

[The Feral Underclass]

No it isn't. Think about it.

When you see homeless begging on the streets in America, they quite often have cats or dogs with them.

Right, but you started this whole interaction by saying that the reason there are so many unwanted animals was because capitalism makes it too inconvenient for people to have them...

[PhoenixAsh]

The correlation between recession and and increase in abandoned pets is well documented. The American Humane society has been warning about this very subject since the start of the last one.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102238430
http://thesolution.org.nz/2009/12/05/the-lost-pets-of-the-great-recession/
http://mmdnewswire.com/family-pet-6117.html
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/susan-orlean/recession-pets
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/pets-feel-the-recession-too/comment-page-2/?_r=0

Pet ownership down in US:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/pet-ownership-us_n_1776153.html


Britain:

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/recession-affecting-pets-britain-040333401.html

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pet insurance is common - I was under the impression it was compulsory here in the UK?

It's very expensive, though that is probably understandable given the amount of silly things pet dogs can get up to. :lol:

TFU - I just don't get your point. You are arguing for the liberation of animals, yet then say it's OK to own a pet. I don't understand the practical implications of your philosophical position. Could you explain?

[Emmett Till]

Right, but you started this whole interaction by saying that the reason there are so many unwanted animals was because capitalism makes it too inconvenient for people to have them...

Don't assume all those abandoned animals due to the workings of capitalism that Phoenix Ash has usefully pointed out were unwanted.

[The Feral Underclass]

TFU - I just don't get your point. You are arguing for the liberation of animals, yet then say it's OK to own a pet. I don't understand the practical implications of your philosophical position. Could you explain?

I'm not saying it's okay to own a pet.

There are domesticated animals. That's true irrespective of any philosophical position. Those domesticated pets require humans to shelter and feed them. That's just the practical reality of creating domesticated animals and then allowing them to breed exponentially way beyond what humans are actually prepared to take responsibility for.

Liberation means the end of exploitation and subjugation of non-human animals by humans. But because of the nature of capitalism even if that became a reality, there are still going to be domesticated animals and other animals that are going to require human support. That will be the residual effect of a capitalist and speciesist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Don't assume all those abandoned animals due to the workings of capitalism that Phoenix Ash has usefully pointed out were unwanted.

I'm fairly confident that most animals that are abandoned are done so because they're unwanted.

[PhoenixAsh]

That maybe true for a given definition and interpretation of abandoned. If you see abandoned as in "leaving besides the road" type of abandoned I am sure you are right. If you see abandoned as a family giving up the care for a pet then I am not entirely sure if unwanted is the correct way to phrase it....and wether currently unwanted is the predominant cause.

[PhoenixAsh]

I however don't see a reason why other animals than pets need our aid when animal liberation is actualized. The interference into the course of nature in itself is subjugation.

[Emmett Till]

I'm fairly confident that most animals that are abandoned are done so because they're unwanted.

Well, no one has taken any polls on that. Certainly some are unwanted, and certainly quite a lot are abandoned because the owners feel they can no longer afford to care for them. And Phoenix Ash's figures prove that animal abandonment goes up dramatically when the economy gets worse, which gives you an objective measure.

By the way, as to pet insurance in the USA. I asked around, and it turns out that pet health insurance in the USA is pretty much like health insurance for humans would be without annoying government regulations, whether by Obama or his predecessors.

Cheap and affordable for young, healthy pets that don't need them very much, though a godsend if you want to have your pet spayed or neutered, something the capitalists would like to have done with the poor also.

Prohibitively expensive for the older pets, who are of course the ones that need it. We had a cat that made it to age 25 and was very expensive, I doubt we could have gotten insurance for her at all.

[Emmett Till]

That maybe true for a given definition and interpretation of abandoned. If you see abandoned as in "leaving besides the road" type of abandoned I am sure you are right. If you see abandoned as a family giving up the care for a pet then I am not entirely sure if unwanted is the correct way to phrase it....and wether currently unwanted is the predominant cause.

90% of pets abandoned are abandoned by dropping them off at the pound or at animal rescue societies. Some of them go to better owners--in good times economically most of them. Most animal rescue societies and even some pounds in particularly animal friendly areas have no kill policies.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, no one has taken any polls on that. Certainly some are unwanted, and certainly quite a lot are abandoned because the owners feel they can no longer afford to care for them. And Phoenix Ash's figures prove that animal abandonment goes up dramatically when the economy gets worse, which gives you an objective measure.

By the way, as to pet insurance in the USA. I asked around, and it turns out that pet health insurance in the USA is pretty much like health insurance for humans would be without annoying government regulations, whether by Obama or his predecessors.

Cheap and affordable for young, healthy pets that don't need them very much, though a godsend if you want to have your pet spayed or neutered, something the capitalists would like to have done with the poor also.

Prohibitively expensive for the older pets, who are of course the ones that need it. We had a cat that made it to age 25 and was very expensive, I doubt we could have gotten insurance for her at all.

Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing. If you're saying that post-capitalism people will take more responsibility and better care of domesticated animals, then that's fine with me.

[Emmett Till]

Anyway, I'm not really disagreeing. If you're saying that post-capitalism people will take more responsibility and better care of domesticated animals, then that's fine with me.

I'm not big on the idea of trying to predict what life will be like in a socialist society, I think we are all too blinded and stupefied by capitalist blinkers to really be able to figure that out. Which was one of the best points Engels made in "Origins of the Family," and the backward Victorian notions even he expressed there about homosexuality are an ironical proof of how right he was.

But that people will take better care of domestic animals, and animals used for food, and wild animals for that matter, we can take as a given. I just can't imagine that you'd still have the hideous mistreatment of animals in mass production factory farms you see nowadays in a socialist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

But that people will take better care of domestic animals, and animals used for food, and wild animals for that matter, we can take as a given. I just can't imagine that you'd still have the hideous mistreatment of animals in mass production factory farms you see nowadays in a socialist society.

Well for me, I would hope that our entire relationship with animals would eventually fundamentally change and we would stop exploiting and subjugating them altogether.

[Emmett Till]

Well for me, I would hope that our entire relationship with animals would eventually fundamentally change and we would stop exploiting and subjugating them altogether.

You can argue I suppose that pets are subjugated, dogs at any rate, but hardly "exploited." A workhorse is exploited, a pet exploits the pet's owner.

And the "subjugation" of pets is quite voluntary, indeed not always initiated by the human--as with a feral cat who tired of her "freedom" and pleaded with us to take her in, a plea we accepted. Indeed, the claim has been made that cats "domesticated" themselves thousands of years ago, persuading humans to take them in by catching mice for them.

[The Feral Underclass]

You can argue I suppose that pets are subjugated, dogs at any rate, but hardly "exploited." A workhorse is exploited, a pet exploits the pet's owner.



And the "subjugation" of pets is quite voluntary, indeed not always initiated by the human--as with a feral cat who tired of her "freedom" and pleaded with us to take her in, a plea we accepted. Indeed, the claim has been made that cats "domesticated" themselves thousands of years ago, persuading humans to take them in by catching mice for them.


An interesting theory, but I'm not sure I buy into it. Anyway it doesn't really alter the need for our relationship to animals to fundamentally change.

My point wasn't exclusive to pets either. I'm talking about all animals. Including those used for dairy and meat, as well as those used in heavy industry and so on.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk