Log in

View Full Version : domestication of animal and man



Organic Revolution
29th June 2005, 05:23
The Domestication of Animals . . .
. . . and of Man

Throughout the history of Western civilization the relationship of human beings to other animals has never been particularly "civil." What was once an uneasy coexistence swiftly became a relationship of domination and exploitation as humankind became more organized and technologically developed. In recent years, animal rights activists have brought international attention to the treatment and living conditions of animals in factory farms, zoos, circuses, and laboratories, but a serious discussion has yet to begin about the lives of the animals that exist in an environment that strikes much closer to home--the lives of domesticated animals, of our own household pets. A consideration of the lives our pets must lead reveals that they too are exploited in their relationship with human beings; but more than that, it also reveals something to us about ourselves.

Certainly there are plenty of happy, well-adjusted domesticated animals who manage to lead lives that are, for them, exciting and fulfilling. Still, history shows us that human beings in the worst of conditions, even during such periods of suffering and abomination as the Holocaust, have often managed to enjoy life, to fall in love and forge friendships, to find meaning in their day to day existence; for human beings are durable and resilient, and like all animals will adapt as well as they can to survive and thrive in any situation. So the fact that many animals--or humans, for that matter--are happy in our homes is by no means adequate reason to set aside a consideration of the merits of domesticated life.

Let us consider the usual contents of the lives of today's domesticated animals. Life begins, for most of them, in what we would refer to in human terms as a "broken home." Young dogs and cats are routinely taken from the company of their mothers and siblings at an extremely early age and thrust into an alien environment, whether it be a crowded, chaotic pet shop or the home of their new owner. Many of them are mistreated and abused (it is not at all uncommon for a dog, housecat, or parrot to have a phobia of human males, for many of them are abused by men in their youth), and many more are orphaned. More often than not, when domesticated animals reproduce it is looked upon as an unplanned inconvenience by their human owners, and the unwanted offspring are treated accordingly. Consider how difficult it is for young men and women who grow up in "broken homes," or in the adoption agency/youth reform program circuit, to become happy and self-confident, and it will become clear how difficult growing up must be for today's domesticated animals.

But a difficult childhood is the only the beginning of a difficult and unnatural life for today's typical housecat, gerbil, or parrot. For not only are the environments (i.e. cages, little glass boxes, six-room apartments and houses with climate control, and--at best--suburban back yards with the lawns mowed and bushes trimmed) which they must inhabit drastically different from those for which nature prepared them, but their role in the lives of the human beings who control their fate is itself unnatural. Most human beings who keep animals regard them as if they were, in some senses, toys rather than real animals. That seems like an unfair charge, but consider the usual relationship of these humans and animals, and the assumptions upon which the human owners keep these animals. Certainly these owners try to provide for the animals' needs, and often offer affection, but the fundamental role these animals play in the homes and lives of these people is the role of entertainment (and, often, of surrogate family/friends as well). That is, the animals are kept by the human beings in the expectation that they will bring some sort of fun, and perhaps love, in their owners' lives. Their role is not to be animals, that is, to hunt mice, to fly south for the winter, to chase down elk, to sharpen their claws where they please, to mark their territory with urine and court members of the opposite sex. Rather, they are expected to be modern court jesters or courtesans in the Western household.

The ramifications of this relationship between animals and humans are many, but we can see that this arrangement is not exactly in the best interest of the animals involved when we consider the "adjustments" human beings customarily make to their pets to make these pets fulfill their domestic roles more effectively. Housecats are the most obvious example: their owners routinely declaw and sterilize them so they will better fulfill their role as polite toys, rather than real animals, in the home. Having and using claws is a pretty basic part of being a cat; a cat without claws is like a human being without fingers: it may get used to the situation, and even figure out how to enjoy life despite the alteration, but something will be missing from its life forever.

Similarly, though some say that sterilization is humane and makes life simpler for these animals, is this a simplification any of us would willingly choose for ourselves? Sterilization affects more than just the sex lives of animals; it changes their hormonal balance, changing their very personalities. A sterilized cat will often gain weight, slow down, become less spirited. Sterilized cats and dogs are easier for their owners to deal with in a number of ways, but this must come at a cost to their enjoyment of life itself. A frustrated female cat in heat may not seem to be enjoying life very much, but if you take away a being's desires, what meaning is left for it to find in life? Left with its natural inclinations either surgically removed or frustrated by an environment much different than the one for which nature designed it, the sterilized cat will often become dull, grouchy, and fat--for eating the food its master provides is the only pleasure left to it.

Most of us can quickly call to mind an overweight, pathetic, neurotic dog or similarly maladjusted housepet that we have met at some time in our lives. These animals are the casualties of the exploitative relationship that exists today between humans and domesticated animals. Expected to be content as mere playthings, to eat standardized pet food that comes out of a box, and to live in quarters that are painfully cramped compared to their natural environments, it should come as no surprise that these animals are no longer as energetic or as passionate as wild animals. Once healthy and self-sufficient in their natural environment, these animals are now forced into humiliating dependence upon human beings who do not--cannot--permit them to live the lives that they would find fulfilling.

This is not to say that there is any truly viable alternative to domestication for these animals today. The "outside world" is no place for them to run wild or reproduce in; their natural habitats, for those animals who could still adapt back to them, have been changed beyond all recognition by pollution and other forces. The emerging new global environment, pockmarked by fields of asphalt, forests of steel, and cliffs of concrete, is only hospitable to pigeons and cockroaches. Compared to life in the "outside world," domesticated life is a lesser of two evils for housecats and parakeets alike.

And this is what is most tragic about this situation: there is no way out of the technological, over-organized world we have created; no way out for animals or humans. For we are really not much different from the animals we keep in cages and fishtanks in our homes: We too live in small, climate-controlled boxes, called apartments. We too buy standardized food to eat at McDonalds, food much different from the food our ancestors had evolved to eat. We too can find no outlet for our spontaneous, "wild" urges, castrated and declawed as we are by the necessities of living in cramped cities and suburbs under cramping legal and cultural restrictions. We too cannot wander far from our kennels, leashed as we are by 9-to-5 jobs, by apartment leases, even by political boundaries. And if we did wander far, what would we find? Forests, jungles, wild plains, majestic canyons? These are swiftly disappearing as we work around the clock to wrap our world in a skin of concrete, to make sure that all the grass is watered by sprinklers and all the swamps are drained and surveyed to be turned into office space. And what we don't transform into bigger cages and fishtanks for ourselves, we will surely make useless with pollution, if we do not reconsider and redirect our actions on a massive scale.

Perhaps we can learn about ourselves from the example of our own pets. We might do well to learn from them that real happiness does not follow from merely providing for food, physical health, and safety, but from much more complicated elements of life. The solution to the problem of the emotional poverty of domesticated life for animals, and for humans, is clearly not a simple one. We must begin by reevaluating what life should be for humans and animals alike, and what our society must be so that our lives can be meaningful and fulfilling. And we do not have too much time to waste; for already we have bred dogs that do not know how to survive without leashes, and soon there may not be any going back for us either.

"You [white folks] have not only altered and malformed your winged and four-legged cousins; you have done it to yourselves. You have changed men into chairmen of boards, into office workers, into time-clock punchers. You have changed your women into housewives, truly fearful creatures. I was once invited to the house of one. 'Watch the ashes, don't smoke, you'll stain the curtains. Watch the goldfish bowl, don't lean your head against the wallpaper; your hair may be greasy. Don't spill liquor on that table: it has a delicate finish. You should have wiped your boots; the floor was just varnished. Don't don't don't' That is crazy. You live in prisons you have built for yourselves, calling them 'homes, offices, factories.'"

-John (Fire) Lame Deer and Richard Erdoes, Lame Deer Seeker of Visions. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994 [1972], 121.

redstar2000
29th June 2005, 16:01
Another primitivist rant.

*yawns*

Would it be too much to ask if the primitivists should just GO and live in the wilderness someplace?

And stop cluttering the internet with their mindless chatter.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

ÑóẊîöʼn
29th June 2005, 16:11
Blah, blah, blah.

More irrational anti-humanist noise.

You realise you are applying human value to animals? Personally I'd say we were better off thanks to domestication of animals.

'Discourse Unlimited'
30th June 2005, 00:26
More irrational anti-humanist noise.

You realise you are applying human value to animals? Personally I'd say we were better off thanks to domestication of animals.


"Rationality" and "humanism" aren't all they're cracked up to be, chum. :P

Besides, there's another argument here. I've wanted to make this point before, in other threads, but never really got around to it... What is "human"? How are we defining the concept? Before you say something hideously condescending, think about the following "lessons from history".

1. In lists of the 'possessions' of plantation owners in 18/19th century America, (white) indentured servants are listed first, then cattle, livestock, other goods - THEN African-American slaves. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Europeans in the Colonial era regarded African-Americans and Native Americans as sub-human. My point isn't that these men were blathering racists, though this is certainly true - by modern standards, anyway. I only want to show that the definition of "human" changes through time.

2. Another example: in Victorian England (and elsewhere in the 'civilised' world), the mentally handicapped were regarded as sub-human. "Idiots" were ostracised and excluded from "human" society. Again, our notions of what constitutes "humanity" are very different - but it wasn't always like this. There are no strict definitions of "human" we can reasonably apply to the past... Or the modern day.

3. Nazi Germany - a tragedy of epic proportions. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm getting at. There were numerous exclusions from "humanity" here; Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, the disabled etc... :(

4. In the modern day, just look at a typical tabloid rag. Immigrants are "aliens". The language employed reduces these men and women to almost "animal" status... This is sad, and deplorable in leftist circles. But it's a problem we still haven't eradicated from our 'civilised' world!

Sorry to get so "off topic", but I thought I'd mention the above. In relation to the mistreatment of our furry friends, and the like... I, for one, don't think it's "ok" to ignore the suffering of animals simply because they're "not human". I wouldn't dismiss the article as a "primitivist rant" either. I'd deem it "utopian romanticism" or something like that... A return to the 'golden age' and what not. Just consider, though - it's cold out there in the winter; I rather like the idea of living in a warm house and working indoors!! :D

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th June 2005, 02:54
"Rationality" and "humanism" aren't all they're cracked up to be, chum. :P

The clarion call of superstition and the perpetuance of ignorance.


Besides, there's another argument here. I've wanted to make this point before, in other threads, but never really got around to it... What is "human"? How are we defining the concept? Before you say something hideously condescending, think about the following "lessons from history".

A human is of the species defined as homo sapiens. Any other definition is junk science.


1. In lists of the 'possessions' of plantation owners in 18/19th century America, (white) indentured servants are listed first, then cattle, livestock, other goods - THEN African-American slaves. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Europeans in the Colonial era regarded African-Americans and Native Americans as sub-human. My point isn't that these men were blathering racists, though this is certainly true - by modern standards, anyway. I only want to show that the definition of "human" changes through time.

If it can reproduce with another human, it is pretty much human. Why do you even take notice of 19th century ignorance?
Besides, definitions don't just change over time, they get better as knowledge increases.


2. Another example: in Victorian England (and elsewhere in the 'civilised' world), the mentally handicapped were regarded as sub-human. "Idiots" were ostracised and excluded from "human" society. Again, our notions of what constitutes "humanity" are very different - but it wasn't always like this. There are no strict definitions of "human" we can reasonably apply to the past... Or the modern day.

Bullshit. A human is a human.

"Racial science" has been proven to be junk. An example of rationality trumping ignorance.


3. Nazi Germany - a tragedy of epic proportions. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm getting at. There were numerous exclusions from "humanity" here; Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, the disabled etc... :(

Nazism isn't rational. It's romanticist trash.


4. In the modern day, just look at a typical tabloid rag. Immigrants are "aliens". The language employed reduces these men and women to almost "animal" status... This is sad, and deplorable in leftist circles. But it's a problem we still haven't eradicated from our 'civilised' world!

That doesn't mean we should stop trying.


Sorry to get so "off topic", but I thought I'd mention the above. In relation to the mistreatment of our furry friends, and the like... I, for one, don't think it's "ok" to ignore the suffering of animals simply because they're "not human". I wouldn't dismiss the article as a "primitivist rant" either. I'd deem it "utopian romanticism" or something like that... A return to the 'golden age' and what not. Just consider, though - it's cold out there in the winter; I rather like the idea of living in a warm house and working indoors!!

Well, pointless torturing of animals is pointless... but if the extinction of a species or two make human life more comfortable*, I for one will not be weeping.

(* think E.Coli and the mosquito)

Organic Revolution
30th June 2005, 04:54
a mosiquito does alot more than you give it credit for.

'Discourse Unlimited'
30th June 2005, 11:00
A human is of the species defined as homo sapiens. Any other definition is junk science.


Please define 'homo sappiens' for us, to clear up any confusion. (This should be funny!)



... definitions don't just change over time, they get better as knowledge increases.


Better? How? Are we on some ridiculous march towards a utopian future here? I might point out, whilst you're on the topic of "progress", that the Nazi scientists made some incredible breakthroughs in the 1930s and 40s... Of course, they had to sacrifice their sense of dignity and cause immense suffering to other men and women to do so. :(



Well, pointless torturing of animals is pointless... but if the extinction of a species or two make human life more comfortable*, I for one will not be weeping.

(* think E.Coli and the mosquito)


Alright. (Just to make things perfectly clear, though they should be anyhow - I do NOT support or condone the following!) So, pointless torture of humans is wrong, but if scientists can eliminate genetically inherited diseases or somehow make "human" life more comfortable, simply by mistreating the physically and mentally handicapped, why the hell not? Because of these imaginary lines you've drawn round the sacred "humanity"? Why are these lines there at all? Why not extend or curtail the boundaries? Who decides them?



Nazism isn't rational. It's romanticist trash.


Nazism is romanticist? Could you explain that one? I always thought that Nazi philosophy, whilst brutal in the extreme, was fairly "advanced" for its day... :-/

redstar2000
1st July 2005, 00:45
Originally posted by rise [email protected] 29 2005, 10:54 PM
a mosquito does alot more than you give it credit for.
Let's hear it for the mosquito! :o

What does it do...aside from spread malaria?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

ÑóẊîöʼn
1st July 2005, 03:19
Please define 'homo sappiens' for us, to clear up any confusion. (This should be funny!)

Wikipedia is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sapiens)


Better? How? Are we on some ridiculous march towards a utopian future here? I might point out, whilst you're on the topic of "progress", that the Nazi scientists made some incredible breakthroughs in the 1930s and 40s... Of course, they had to sacrifice their sense of dignity and cause immense suffering to other men and women to do so. :(

What incredible breakthroughs are these? To my knowledge most of the so-called 'discoveries' made by the nazis in the concentration were conducted along non-scientific lines (Mengele's obsession with twins for example) and as such been shown to be junk.


Alright. (Just to make things perfectly clear, though they should be anyhow - I do NOT support or condone the following!) So, pointless torture of humans is wrong, but if scientists can eliminate genetically inherited diseases or somehow make "human" life more comfortable, simply by mistreating the physically and mentally handicapped, why the hell not? Because of these imaginary lines you've drawn round the sacred "humanity"? Why are these lines there at all? Why not extend or curtail the boundaries? Who decides them?

Objective reality. A human with a genetically inherited disease is still a human. Don't forget that once we can correct birth defects without harming the foetus, your objections will count for nothing.


Nazism is romanticist? Could you explain that one? I always thought that Nazi philosophy, whilst brutal in the extreme, was fairly "advanced" for its day... :-/

The nazis took many of their memes (eg the Ubermensch) from romanticists such as Nietzche. Nazism is a savagely primitive ideology unfit for rational human beings.

'Discourse Unlimited'
1st July 2005, 12:56
"Wikipedia" may or may not be my friend, but it doesn't proves any point that you're trying to make. It suggests:



There are a number of perspectives regarding the fundamental nature and substance of humans ...

Materialism ...
Abrahamic religion ...
Pantheism ...
Panentheism is similar ...


(I cut out most of the text; left the "key point" - namely that there are multiple ways to define the human being, just in relation to "the spiritual"... Other means of distinguishing between ourselves exist too.)



Objective reality.


Ah. You actually think this is real, and perceivable. What's more, you seem to be under the delusion that just because you've invented a rule (defining what humans are), it can never be broken and will never change; it claims 'gospel truth' status... I think you ought to question these assertions!

ÑóẊîöʼn
1st July 2005, 16:18
(I cut out most of the text; left the "key point" - namely that there are multiple ways to define the human being, just in relation to "the spiritual"... Other means of distinguishing between ourselves exist too.)

What is your point? the section you highlighted only points out that humans have different approaches to objective reality, some of them more correct than others.

Do you have a point, or are you just engaging in intellectual wankery?


Ah. You actually think this is real, and perceivable.

I really do hope that you are not a subjectivist. Otherwise there's no way I can convince you of anything.

of course objective reality exists - it is also percievable. You need to get off your philosophy trip.


What's more, you seem to be under the delusion that just because you've invented a rule (defining what humans are), it can never be broken and will never change; it claims 'gospel truth' status... I think you ought to question these assertions!

My assertions are backed up with material evidence... but it's worthless me telling you that, because you seem to think everything is subjective.

Fine then. I say that if you were to jump off the top of the Empire State building, you will walk away unharmed once you reach the ground. Objective reality will prove me wrong of course, but that doesn't matter to you because it's all subjective.

Idiot. What are you trying to prove anyway? That you can masturbate furiously to spurious post-modernist thinking?

'Discourse Unlimited'
3rd July 2005, 01:07
Do you have a point, or are you just engaging in intellectual wankery?

...

Idiot. What are you trying to prove anyway? That you can masturbate furiously to spurious post-modernist thinking?


Do YOU have a point, or are you content with pathetic name-calling and abuse?

You do seem to be rather fixated on the subject of masturbation, too... This is worrying; maybe you ought to think about that as well. (Next you'll claim that your masturbation will be superior to mine, as it is based in "material reality" rather than "abstraction"!! :P ) Oh, and by the way - you're a tit. :D

Seriously though: yes, I am a "subjectivist". And I see no reason not to be. You're so keen on your "material reality", but everywhere in the 'real world' there is evidence to support subjective reasoning, and the fickle nature of 'truth'.

Consider your mindless assertion that 'objective reality' has determined the existence of your neat little categories and definitions... Surely you must accept that these concepts have been constructed, by "us"? If they have, what makes "us" right, at this present time? More to the point, why does 'objective reality' care what a "human" is? There are no laws but those which we invent ourselves; we then apply these to what we "perceive"...



I say that if you were to jump off the top of the Empire State building, you will walk away unharmed once you reach the ground. Objective reality will prove me wrong of course, but that doesn't matter to you because it's all subjective.


Cretin. That's a really lame example. "Subjectivity" could be applied here - but any "disagreement" would be miniscule (and subsequently messy). Say I ask you: "What's the greatest piece of music ever written?" You'll offer one answer, I'll offer another. Who's 'objectively' right?

ÑóẊîöʼn
3rd July 2005, 05:32
Seriously though: yes, I am a "subjectivist". And I see no reason not to be. You're so keen on your "material reality", but everywhere in the 'real world' there is evidence to support subjective reasoning, and the fickle nature of 'truth'.

What evidence is this? And isn't using evidence inherently against the grain of subjectivism?


Consider your mindless assertion that 'objective reality' has determined the existence of your neat little categories and definitions... Surely you must accept that these concepts have been constructed, by "us"? If they have, what makes "us" right, at this present time? More to the point, why does 'objective reality' care what a "human" is? There are no laws but those which we invent ourselves; we then apply these to what we "perceive"...

I provided the definition of a human, and you decided to go off on a tangent about how humans have different perceptions of reality... my reply was 'so what?'
It's quite obvious what a human is, but you have obviously spent too much time in philosophy (A practically obsolete branch of human 'knowledge') And not enough time in science.