Yes and no. Plenty of good pet owners out there, and I’d say the bad ones are the exceptions.
I just wonder if the good pet owners would select their children under the same scrutiny that they select their pets, if the choice was offered. I think they would, and… I probably would too?
Owners aren’t the direct problem other than providing economic encouragement for breeders.
The problem is breeding which only happens through inbreeding. “Good breeders” is a misnomer in that the difference between a good breeder and bad is one attempts to limit health problems while engaging in an activity that will cause health problems.
If one doctor is trying to give you cancer and the other is trying to give you a little cancer, neither is a good doctor.
Good point, I didn’t distinguish between owners and breeders, nor the types of breeder ideologies.
If we extrapolate that to humans, would you be for a “good doctor” who tries to knock-in genes that would make your children smarter and healthier, versus say, a “bad doctor” who knocks in whatever superficial characteristics you want.
Or would you be against the idea of designer children completely, because you ultimately would not trust that any genes you or any expert selects for, would actually be beneficial for your great-great-grandchildren?
I’m not sure what side of the debate I lie on here, tbh
We sterilize cats, dogs etc. because we want to, control what food they eat, confine them to the house (indoor cats), artificially inseminate cows, shred 99+% of male chicks and are starting to introduce cows to vr in certain areas to reduce their stress levels so they produce more and better quality milk because their environment is so horrible that their lives are a living nightmare. Commercial meat chickens have been bred to grow so quickly and so large that its a kindness to slaughter them when mature. Grain fed cattle need to be supplemented with B12 or they get sick and die because there is very little Cobalt in grains that they could use to make B12 themselves. The mad cow outbreak in the UK was caused by the industry practice of feeding cattle parts of other cattle that contained contaminated brain and nerve tissue. Any time theres a bird flu outbreak, we slaughter birds by the millions to stop it. Foi gras is usually made by force feeding ducks until their livers grow several times normal size. Veal is made from baby cows that weve restricted the movement of so their muscle tissue remains nice and soft. We extract animal rennet from their stomachs after theyre butchered and use it to make certain cheeses.
I am not a vegan by any stretch of the imagination but holy fuck do I understand why a lot of people are. By and large, we treat animals like absolute shit. If people were treated like animals are, people would recognize it as a horrifying atrocity.
I think it is because a dog has been seen as an object or tool for a long time. We are the owner. We buy the one that we like the most.
With humans we don’t have ownership over another human. The human is owned by itself. So we let everyone decide for themselves who the want to breed with. One person will select a partner that is nice, some like a “bad boy”, some like dark hair, blond, tall short, etc.
Also, humans are really not that different from each other while dogs can look like a completely different species.
You seem to confuse the concept of Eugenics (selective breeding to improve “genetic quality”) with the general idea that genetics can influence things like personality, intelligence etc. The latter is pretty much undisputed. But as Humans are seen as individuals with rights, selectively breeding them like you would dogs is seen as unacceptable.
Oh good distinction, didn’t think of that. Is genetics then simply not the phenotype of applied eugenics (not exclusively, of course)?
So we’re okay with the idea of dog breeding, because we see dogs not as individuals in control of their lives. I guess, this confuses me too sometimes since I’ve never owned a pet, but I’ve definitely heard of pet owners refer to their pets as quasi-children. I’ve even heard in the same sentence about how they love their dogs, and then to go on about the positive characteristic of their dog’s breed. It’s a little bit strange, no? But they’re not bad people, and they mean it genuinely in a loving way.
I’m a pet owner who loves my cat dearly, but I think pet ownership is a moral inconsistency on most people’s parts. As a pet owner trying to be responsible, I:
had my cat’s reproductive organs removed
don’t let my cat leave the house (busy traffic area and she doesn’t think wearing a harness is worth being outside for)
leave my cat alone for several hours (max 8, normally more like 5) most days
feed my cat the same food every day, in quantities she finds lacking, while preventing her from getting additional food for herself.
occasionally stick her in a box and bring her awful places: mostly to a place where strangers hold her down and put things into her body while I watch.
I would not enjoy living like that, nor would very many people, yet those are very common behaviors from pet owners who will tell you they love their pet and consider them part of the family.
To be clear, I do all of the above because I think it’s the best way to be a cat owner and I do those things for my cat (even leaving her alone is so that I can earn money to support her), but these are things that would be considered abuse if done to children. I’ve considered whether I should set my cat free, so as not to essentially hold her prisoner, but I do think she would have a worse life in the wild. After all, we did breed them to love us (albeit to a lesser degree than in dogs), and my cat does love me. Plus, I saved her life a few years ago, so I can’t be too negative an influence for her.
I think a lot like you do in this regard, this is a complex topic.
At first I treated my cats like roommates almost. I gave my first kitties freedom and they paid with their lives. Now I don’t let my kitties out at all.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the “sin” was in domesticating and distributing the species in the first place. Now that the domesticated species exists and is some combination of unfit for the environment and invasive, it’s our responsibility to care for them and restrict them when necessary, including their numbers. The alternative for my cats would be a cage.
I’m an anarchist and don’t feel I have any entitlement to control any another regardless of species so this was a difficult conclusion and not necessarily consistent but I don’t like dead kitties.
That’s how I feel as well. We’ve bred multiple species that are capable of loving us and unsuitable for release (cats are killing machines, so unless you live near the Sahara, you’re condemning local wildlife by releasing a cat, and dogs will either not survive, form packs that dangerous for innocent people, or find a new owner as far as I’ve experienced wild dogs, but that might not always be the case).
I think the best way to go forward for me is to keep my current cat and try to be the best owner possible, I just don’t think it’s a choice without harm.
I mean, we do all of that for children, too and nobody questions if a parent who won’t let their kid play in the street loves them.
Being kind to something else NEVER has to include doing only what they want. That’s how you end up a people-pleaser with shitty “friends” that abuse you.
I am not suggesting that people don’t love their pets. I love my cat to bits and pieces, but I don’t know if pet ownership as a concept is beneficial for the pets, if that makes more sense.
We do some of that for children, but I intentionally tried to choose examples I thought would apply less (locking my cat alone in my house for hours and sterilizing her being big ones I hope people don’t do to children), because we don’t treat animals exactly the way we do children. There are a lot of ways in which we’re really archaic about human rights, but we do generally look out for people’s psychological health in that regard. During covid, when people were cooped up in their houses, there were hundreds of articles about the effect of isolation on children’s (and adults’) mental health, but pet owners regularly leave pets alone (sometimes even in a crate, because otherwise they act out!) without worrying about their mental health.
A case could be made for prisoners and/or people with severe handicaps being treated the same way, but at the very least, we consider sterilizing them a crime. Again, I sterilized my cat, because I do think it’s the best for the greater good, but I don’t know if it’s best for her. I also don’t think it’s really possible to know, given the communication difficulties, so all we as pet owners can do is try our best and hope.
I was financially comfortable during the pandemic and worked from home, so I ended up completely alone in my home for about 10 months. I think based on my experience with that, I’d probably choose the human zoo regardless of the fact that it would be psychologically detrimental.
Yes, the Human relationship to animals can often be pretty paradoxical. People may love their dog and maybe even look at it as almost an equal, but don’t mind animals with even higher intelligence (pigs) being kept in horrible conditions so they can eat them. Pug owners may think their pet is so cute, but are willing to ignore all the human-caused suffering that pugs have to go through to look like that. Ultimately animals are always treated as less than human, even if people may delude themselves otherwise.
Well, GOOD pet owners realize the typical pet treatment is still being a bit of a dick.
Bad ones do just what you say and worse. Even to humans. The best example of misguided cruelty is when loved ones keep someone alive with a terminal illness. Many of them want to go long before family members want to let go.
Hisashi Ouchi was kept alive for weeks while literally begging to be allowed to die. Humans are disgustingly cruel when it comes time to care about something with more than basic emotion.
I guess, this confuses me too sometimes since I’ve never owned a pet, but I’ve definitely heard of pet owners refer to their pets as quasi-children.
While people can and do love their pets very much, I’ve not found the bond with a pet to be anywhere near the same as a bond with my children. At the risk of sounding like a monster, I’d explain it this way:
My wife and I had a cat die last year after about 17 years with us. We also have kids the oldest of which is not quite a teenager. So, there was some significant overlap and I cried in the vet’s office holding my dead cat for the last time. But, if I had ever been put in a position where I had to choose between protecting one of my children or protecting that cat, there would have been no hesitation in choosing my child over the cat. There was a very strong bond with my cat, but it doesn’t even come close to the bond with my children.
Maybe this will be different for other people. And yes, we referred to the cat as “our fuzzy kid”. But, when you get right down to it, no he was never at quite the same level.
To be clear I agree with this 100%, but I also want to mention that personality disorders (and other neurodivergent traits) are very inheritable. Being raised in a nurturing environment that takes steps to help a child understand their non-typical traits can make a massive difference in how those traits are displayed in all but the most extreme cases, though.
To be clear, personality is incredibly heritable, even beyond personality disorders. People arrive here with all sorts of proclivities related to mood, intelligence, empathy, and more, which is then filtered and changed through their experiences. Everyone has a different starting place related to personality. Twin studies have shown this over and over
That only makes sense if someone is completely ignorant of how much human variation there is and how many different things affect something as general as “personality”
But I don’t think facts or logic will do much to change your mind about eugenics.
How is he confusing the two? We selectively breed dogs for traits and do not allow their offspring to procreate. I’m sure there are puppy mills that kill the “undesirables” too. I don’t think OP is conflating anything.
We selectively breed dogs for traits and do not allow their offspring to procreate. I’m sure there are puppy mills that kill the “undesirables” too.
I never denied that. But in the description they conflated it with just talking about genetics affecting a persons/dogs characteristics. There is a difference between acknowledging that and the act of selective breeding to reach certain characteristics. It’s not eugenics to say “a person may have a genetic tendency towards ‘trait x’”, eugenics would be “let’s selectively breed people to encourage ‘trait x’”.
Probably because of Hitler. He was very inspired by eugenics and Darwin’s recently published seminal work on evolution. In his writings and speeches he frequently referred to Darwinism and human engineering via eugenics. Here’s a quote from Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
“In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution.”
Not just Hitler, the whole of the Nazi party and their public propaganda was based on extreme Darwinism.
An important official Nazi Party publication, “Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte”, edited by Alfred Rosenberg, occasionally featured articles promoting evolution. In a 1935 article Heinz Brücher praised German biologist Ernst Haeckel for paving the way for the Nazi regime. In addition to mentioning Haeckel’s advocacy of eugenics and euthanasia, Brücher highlighted Haeckel’s role in promoting human evolution. Brücher reminded his readers that Haeckel’s view of human evolution led him to reject human equality and socialism. In 1941 Brücher published another article in “Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte” on evolution through natural selection. Several times he stressed that the principles of evolution were just as valid for humans as for other organisms. He closed the essay by explaining the practical application of evolutionary theory:
“The hereditary health of the German Volk and of the Nordic-Germanic race that unites it must under all circumstances remain intact. Through an appropriate compliance with the laws of nature, through selection and planned racial care it can even be increased. The racial superiority achieved thereby secures for our Volk in the harsh struggle for existence an advantage, which will make us unconquerable.”
In Brücher’s view human evolution is an essential ingredient of racial ideology, not a hindrance to it. In 1936 another author named Heberer launched an attack on antievolutionists in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. He praised Haeckel and stressed the affinities of Darwinism and human evolution with Nazi ideology.
The history is really quite fascinating and it’s rarely taught in your state-mandated evolutionary biology classes!
Ah yeah the Göttingen school of history, and the invention of various racial identities. It was popular all over Europe at the time, especially among the higher classes. I didn’t know about Brücher and Haeckel.
I guess there’s nothing wrong with selective breeding, as long as there’s no singular ideal “perfect race” to use as a caste system. In domesticated animals, the only caste that exists there is the ones we human impose based on market value, but not ones that the domesticated animals themselves would adhere to.
Yes. It wasn’t a uniquely German trend, although they applied it the most and thereby killed millions. The Americans also have their own gruesome history of human eugenics.
Firstly, there are plenty of people who believe that humans have made terrible mistakes when selectively breeding dogs. See the oft-reposted “dog breeds then be now” image. Which leads into the primary technical reason eugenics doesn’t work, the fallibility of human decision making combined with the lack of perfect information.
Some traits may seem undesirable, however biodiversity is very important for survivability, and we are already very non-diverse genetically. Consider sickle cell anemia, a blood disease caused by a genetic trait. However part of the trait that causes it also offers protection from malaria.
Second is the controversial aspect. Who gets to decide which traits are desirable? If left up to individuals we would be awash with poorly informed trends, but if some central authority were given control, it could never be apolitical and would certainly devolve from any scientific basis into ideology.
I would argue it’s not good or acceptable in dogs. At least I wouldn’t accept it if it were up to me. A good boy is a good boy no matter what his talents are or how many butts he sniffs.
It’s ironic that dogs, when left to their own devices, will form packs where they will bring loot back to disadvantaged members of the pack, and here we are being more needy than that.
Even in humans, we occasionally exercise “selective breeding,” like when potential carriers of Tay-Sachs (an absolutely horrific disease which mostly affects people with Ashkenazi heritage, and whose sufferers have an expected lifespan of a few years of horrible pain) and their partners choose to be tested before deciding whether or not to have children. Even with the context that mostly Jewish peoples’ genes are tested to see if they should have children, it’s not considered eugenics, because it’s an entirely voluntary process. Even if two people are both carriers, they aren’t prevented from having children, nor is their genetic predisposition shared with anyone.
Incest laws are essentially a way to restrict peoples’ choice of partner to ensure genetic vigor (that’s why they’re different for relationships which could and could not produce children). Even that’s not generally considered a form of eugenics, because it applies to people, without regard to their specific genes.
The issue is thinking of genetics as prescriptive. Genetics simply influence behavior and setup initial probabilities.
Plus the distinction with breed and behavior with dogs isn’t as extreme as most people think. Yes, some breeds do have some genes that do influence behavior, but most people don’t even know what kind of dog they have unless they have purebred documents.
One of the caveats here may be that people who own purebred dogs may have expectations regarding their behavior and interpret things the dogs do accordingly. And there’s some evidence for that. Golden retrievers have a reputation for being friendly dogs, and the owners of retrievers tend to say that their pets don’t fear strangers. But the researchers were able to identify mutts with significant golden retriever ancestry and find that the behavior of these dogs is all over the map.
Despite that caveat, a few behaviors appear to have a significant genetic component, and some of these behaviors have been partially selected for in some specific breeds. But there are two reasons to expect that the genetics of these behaviors would be complicated. As the researchers point out, the first is that most modern breeds only originated about 150 years ago, so the number of generations to fix subtle features like behaviors have been too few.
The second issue is that, in humans, complicated behaviors tend to be shaped by many genetic factors that, individually at least, have a weak influence. There’s no real reason to expect that it would be different in dogs, making it significantly harder to select for that behavior in a breed.
For actual dog owners, you can rest assured that there is a real genetic influence on some breed behaviors. And, if your own dog seems to be a complete mutant when it comes to its behavior… well, there’s a chance it is.
Something to consider here is that selective breeding of dogs is very often not done to the dog’s benefit, and indeed in some breeds makes them less healthy. It’s done for the benefit of their owners, either to do some job or for aesthetics, in a way that would be considered absolutely abhorrent if done to people (indeed, a lot of people think that in dogs it can go too far, especially where breeds with health problems are concerned). Eugenics is at least conceived by its proponents as being for the good of the species in a way that dog breeding is not, it’s just that the easiest way to do that is to control who has children, which isn’t generally considered acceptable for people, and the easiest ways to prevent someone you don’t want to have children from doing so are to kill or forcibly sterilize them, which is even worse. Additionally, it’s tricky to know what traits even are detrimental or beneficial to the species, and the personal biases of whoever is in charge come into play (for instance, a lot of historical examples of eugenics being pushed have been by people who were, well, extremely racist and therefore selecting for things like skin color, which if successful would simply lower genetic diversity, which is counterproductive)
Now, as far as comparing humans to dog breeds (as in, why people find it okay to say “x breed of dog tends to be more aggressive”, but not “x group of people are more aggressive”), it should be considered that humans already have a rather low genetic diversity, as far as species go. If were we like dogs, we would probably all be the same “breed”, so to speak, even people from different ethnic backgrounds (sure, we can tell ourselves apart due to not looking exactly the same, but even two dogs of the same breed don’t look exactly alike, and we’re very attuned to seeing small differences in humans that we might not see in other animals). I’d bet it would probably be possible to eventually selectively breed a bunch of humans to have noticably and consistently different traits beyond just skin and hair color (which while visibly distinct from the outside, don’t really represent very much change), but intentionally engaging in breeding humans like dogs like this would be considered, well, a horrible thing to do, and in any case, isn’t what we currently have nowadays.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !asklemmy@lemmy.ml
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!
Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
OP just discovered people treat animals really really badly and wonders why we dont want to do the same with people
This is the right answer
Yes and no. Plenty of good pet owners out there, and I’d say the bad ones are the exceptions.
I just wonder if the good pet owners would select their children under the same scrutiny that they select their pets, if the choice was offered. I think they would, and… I probably would too?
Owners aren’t the direct problem other than providing economic encouragement for breeders.
The problem is breeding which only happens through inbreeding. “Good breeders” is a misnomer in that the difference between a good breeder and bad is one attempts to limit health problems while engaging in an activity that will cause health problems.
If one doctor is trying to give you cancer and the other is trying to give you a little cancer, neither is a good doctor.
Good point, I didn’t distinguish between owners and breeders, nor the types of breeder ideologies.
If we extrapolate that to humans, would you be for a “good doctor” who tries to knock-in genes that would make your children smarter and healthier, versus say, a “bad doctor” who knocks in whatever superficial characteristics you want.
Or would you be against the idea of designer children completely, because you ultimately would not trust that any genes you or any expert selects for, would actually be beneficial for your great-great-grandchildren?
I’m not sure what side of the debate I lie on here, tbh
But if a little cancer can trick your immune system into fighting cancer, then we’re back to a good doctor again.
We sterilize cats, dogs etc. because we want to, control what food they eat, confine them to the house (indoor cats), artificially inseminate cows, shred 99+% of male chicks and are starting to introduce cows to vr in certain areas to reduce their stress levels so they produce more and better quality milk because their environment is so horrible that their lives are a living nightmare. Commercial meat chickens have been bred to grow so quickly and so large that its a kindness to slaughter them when mature. Grain fed cattle need to be supplemented with B12 or they get sick and die because there is very little Cobalt in grains that they could use to make B12 themselves. The mad cow outbreak in the UK was caused by the industry practice of feeding cattle parts of other cattle that contained contaminated brain and nerve tissue. Any time theres a bird flu outbreak, we slaughter birds by the millions to stop it. Foi gras is usually made by force feeding ducks until their livers grow several times normal size. Veal is made from baby cows that weve restricted the movement of so their muscle tissue remains nice and soft. We extract animal rennet from their stomachs after theyre butchered and use it to make certain cheeses.
I am not a vegan by any stretch of the imagination but holy fuck do I understand why a lot of people are. By and large, we treat animals like absolute shit. If people were treated like animals are, people would recognize it as a horrifying atrocity.
You forgot to mention breeding pets with problems in breathing, posture and organ damage to make them look “cute”.
Because we consider humans to be important in themselves. Dogs are important primarily to humans, specifically the human that owns the dog.
We assign humans “personhood” whereas we do not do so to dogs.
Abrahamic religious traditions put the idea of men having dominion over life into our societies ideological underpinning.
You’re obviously correct, and so have many people throughout the ages, about there being ethical inconsistencies.
When future societies look back on this period, the way we use animals will be seen as absolutely barbaric. Mainly because it’s absolutely true.
We’ve been selectively breeding all manner of life forms for millennia. At this point it’s a natural behavior of our species.
I think it is because a dog has been seen as an object or tool for a long time. We are the owner. We buy the one that we like the most.
With humans we don’t have ownership over another human. The human is owned by itself. So we let everyone decide for themselves who the want to breed with. One person will select a partner that is nice, some like a “bad boy”, some like dark hair, blond, tall short, etc.
Also, humans are really not that different from each other while dogs can look like a completely different species.
It’s the fucking Richard Dawkins argument again. People need to stop taking what that nazi says seriously.
You seem to confuse the concept of Eugenics (selective breeding to improve “genetic quality”) with the general idea that genetics can influence things like personality, intelligence etc. The latter is pretty much undisputed. But as Humans are seen as individuals with rights, selectively breeding them like you would dogs is seen as unacceptable.
Oh good distinction, didn’t think of that. Is genetics then simply not the phenotype of applied eugenics (not exclusively, of course)?
So we’re okay with the idea of dog breeding, because we see dogs not as individuals in control of their lives. I guess, this confuses me too sometimes since I’ve never owned a pet, but I’ve definitely heard of pet owners refer to their pets as quasi-children. I’ve even heard in the same sentence about how they love their dogs, and then to go on about the positive characteristic of their dog’s breed. It’s a little bit strange, no? But they’re not bad people, and they mean it genuinely in a loving way.
I’m a pet owner who loves my cat dearly, but I think pet ownership is a moral inconsistency on most people’s parts. As a pet owner trying to be responsible, I:
had my cat’s reproductive organs removed
don’t let my cat leave the house (busy traffic area and she doesn’t think wearing a harness is worth being outside for)
leave my cat alone for several hours (max 8, normally more like 5) most days
feed my cat the same food every day, in quantities she finds lacking, while preventing her from getting additional food for herself.
occasionally stick her in a box and bring her awful places: mostly to a place where strangers hold her down and put things into her body while I watch.
I would not enjoy living like that, nor would very many people, yet those are very common behaviors from pet owners who will tell you they love their pet and consider them part of the family.
To be clear, I do all of the above because I think it’s the best way to be a cat owner and I do those things for my cat (even leaving her alone is so that I can earn money to support her), but these are things that would be considered abuse if done to children. I’ve considered whether I should set my cat free, so as not to essentially hold her prisoner, but I do think she would have a worse life in the wild. After all, we did breed them to love us (albeit to a lesser degree than in dogs), and my cat does love me. Plus, I saved her life a few years ago, so I can’t be too negative an influence for her.
I think a lot like you do in this regard, this is a complex topic.
At first I treated my cats like roommates almost. I gave my first kitties freedom and they paid with their lives. Now I don’t let my kitties out at all.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the “sin” was in domesticating and distributing the species in the first place. Now that the domesticated species exists and is some combination of unfit for the environment and invasive, it’s our responsibility to care for them and restrict them when necessary, including their numbers. The alternative for my cats would be a cage.
I’m an anarchist and don’t feel I have any entitlement to control any another regardless of species so this was a difficult conclusion and not necessarily consistent but I don’t like dead kitties.
That’s how I feel as well. We’ve bred multiple species that are capable of loving us and unsuitable for release (cats are killing machines, so unless you live near the Sahara, you’re condemning local wildlife by releasing a cat, and dogs will either not survive, form packs that dangerous for innocent people, or find a new owner as far as I’ve experienced wild dogs, but that might not always be the case).
I think the best way to go forward for me is to keep my current cat and try to be the best owner possible, I just don’t think it’s a choice without harm.
I mean, we do all of that for children, too and nobody questions if a parent who won’t let their kid play in the street loves them.
Being kind to something else NEVER has to include doing only what they want. That’s how you end up a people-pleaser with shitty “friends” that abuse you.
I am not suggesting that people don’t love their pets. I love my cat to bits and pieces, but I don’t know if pet ownership as a concept is beneficial for the pets, if that makes more sense.
We do some of that for children, but I intentionally tried to choose examples I thought would apply less (locking my cat alone in my house for hours and sterilizing her being big ones I hope people don’t do to children), because we don’t treat animals exactly the way we do children. There are a lot of ways in which we’re really archaic about human rights, but we do generally look out for people’s psychological health in that regard. During covid, when people were cooped up in their houses, there were hundreds of articles about the effect of isolation on children’s (and adults’) mental health, but pet owners regularly leave pets alone (sometimes even in a crate, because otherwise they act out!) without worrying about their mental health.
A case could be made for prisoners and/or people with severe handicaps being treated the same way, but at the very least, we consider sterilizing them a crime. Again, I sterilized my cat, because I do think it’s the best for the greater good, but I don’t know if it’s best for her. I also don’t think it’s really possible to know, given the communication difficulties, so all we as pet owners can do is try our best and hope.
It really is a complex dynamic. I guess, would you like to live in a human zoo, if you had every need taken care of?
Some part of me revolts at the idea, whilst another might shrug at it and wait eagerly for my daily human treat.
I was financially comfortable during the pandemic and worked from home, so I ended up completely alone in my home for about 10 months. I think based on my experience with that, I’d probably choose the human zoo regardless of the fact that it would be psychologically detrimental.
Yes, the Human relationship to animals can often be pretty paradoxical. People may love their dog and maybe even look at it as almost an equal, but don’t mind animals with even higher intelligence (pigs) being kept in horrible conditions so they can eat them. Pug owners may think their pet is so cute, but are willing to ignore all the human-caused suffering that pugs have to go through to look like that. Ultimately animals are always treated as less than human, even if people may delude themselves otherwise.
Well, GOOD pet owners realize the typical pet treatment is still being a bit of a dick.
Bad ones do just what you say and worse. Even to humans. The best example of misguided cruelty is when loved ones keep someone alive with a terminal illness. Many of them want to go long before family members want to let go.
Hisashi Ouchi was kept alive for weeks while literally begging to be allowed to die. Humans are disgustingly cruel when it comes time to care about something with more than basic emotion.
While people can and do love their pets very much, I’ve not found the bond with a pet to be anywhere near the same as a bond with my children. At the risk of sounding like a monster, I’d explain it this way:
My wife and I had a cat die last year after about 17 years with us. We also have kids the oldest of which is not quite a teenager. So, there was some significant overlap and I cried in the vet’s office holding my dead cat for the last time. But, if I had ever been put in a position where I had to choose between protecting one of my children or protecting that cat, there would have been no hesitation in choosing my child over the cat. There was a very strong bond with my cat, but it doesn’t even come close to the bond with my children.
Maybe this will be different for other people. And yes, we referred to the cat as “our fuzzy kid”. But, when you get right down to it, no he was never at quite the same level.
So folks this is the difference between good parent and me …. My teenager can save himself, grab the kitties.
But if he wasn’t capable of saving himself?
Actually, no.
Personality isn’t very inheritable.
There’s nature and nurture.
And personality is almost all nurture.
In dogs, and humans.
To be clear I agree with this 100%, but I also want to mention that personality disorders (and other neurodivergent traits) are very inheritable. Being raised in a nurturing environment that takes steps to help a child understand their non-typical traits can make a massive difference in how those traits are displayed in all but the most extreme cases, though.
To be clear, personality is incredibly heritable, even beyond personality disorders. People arrive here with all sorts of proclivities related to mood, intelligence, empathy, and more, which is then filtered and changed through their experiences. Everyone has a different starting place related to personality. Twin studies have shown this over and over
That’s why I wrote “can influence” and not “is determined by”.
That only makes sense if someone is completely ignorant of how much human variation there is and how many different things affect something as general as “personality”
But I don’t think facts or logic will do much to change your mind about eugenics.
How is he confusing the two? We selectively breed dogs for traits and do not allow their offspring to procreate. I’m sure there are puppy mills that kill the “undesirables” too. I don’t think OP is conflating anything.
He’s not referring to the breeding, but to the traits.
I never denied that. But in the description they conflated it with just talking about genetics affecting a persons/dogs characteristics. There is a difference between acknowledging that and the act of selective breeding to reach certain characteristics. It’s not eugenics to say “a person may have a genetic tendency towards ‘trait x’”, eugenics would be “let’s selectively breed people to encourage ‘trait x’”.
That said, I’m pretty sure all of us picked our mates because of traits we found desirable. Some of those traits are certainly genetic.
Probably because of Hitler. He was very inspired by eugenics and Darwin’s recently published seminal work on evolution. In his writings and speeches he frequently referred to Darwinism and human engineering via eugenics. Here’s a quote from Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
“In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution.”
Not just Hitler, the whole of the Nazi party and their public propaganda was based on extreme Darwinism.
An important official Nazi Party publication, “Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte”, edited by Alfred Rosenberg, occasionally featured articles promoting evolution. In a 1935 article Heinz Brücher praised German biologist Ernst Haeckel for paving the way for the Nazi regime. In addition to mentioning Haeckel’s advocacy of eugenics and euthanasia, Brücher highlighted Haeckel’s role in promoting human evolution. Brücher reminded his readers that Haeckel’s view of human evolution led him to reject human equality and socialism. In 1941 Brücher published another article in “Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte” on evolution through natural selection. Several times he stressed that the principles of evolution were just as valid for humans as for other organisms. He closed the essay by explaining the practical application of evolutionary theory:
“The hereditary health of the German Volk and of the Nordic-Germanic race that unites it must under all circumstances remain intact. Through an appropriate compliance with the laws of nature, through selection and planned racial care it can even be increased. The racial superiority achieved thereby secures for our Volk in the harsh struggle for existence an advantage, which will make us unconquerable.”
In Brücher’s view human evolution is an essential ingredient of racial ideology, not a hindrance to it. In 1936 another author named Heberer launched an attack on antievolutionists in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. He praised Haeckel and stressed the affinities of Darwinism and human evolution with Nazi ideology.
The history is really quite fascinating and it’s rarely taught in your state-mandated evolutionary biology classes!
Ah yeah the Göttingen school of history, and the invention of various racial identities. It was popular all over Europe at the time, especially among the higher classes. I didn’t know about Brücher and Haeckel.
I guess there’s nothing wrong with selective breeding, as long as there’s no singular ideal “perfect race” to use as a caste system. In domesticated animals, the only caste that exists there is the ones we human impose based on market value, but not ones that the domesticated animals themselves would adhere to.
Yes. It wasn’t a uniquely German trend, although they applied it the most and thereby killed millions. The Americans also have their own gruesome history of human eugenics.
Firstly, there are plenty of people who believe that humans have made terrible mistakes when selectively breeding dogs. See the oft-reposted “dog breeds then be now” image. Which leads into the primary technical reason eugenics doesn’t work, the fallibility of human decision making combined with the lack of perfect information.
Some traits may seem undesirable, however biodiversity is very important for survivability, and we are already very non-diverse genetically. Consider sickle cell anemia, a blood disease caused by a genetic trait. However part of the trait that causes it also offers protection from malaria.
Second is the controversial aspect. Who gets to decide which traits are desirable? If left up to individuals we would be awash with poorly informed trends, but if some central authority were given control, it could never be apolitical and would certainly devolve from any scientific basis into ideology.
I like your comment a lot, I just have to admit I have no idea what peoyeho is, despite searching
Oops, “people who”
That’s the neat part, you don’t.
You may love your pet, but it is your property. You may love your child, but it is not your property.
This is an ideal, but I’m not sure if it’s reality
In what way?
Society definitely sees your pet and your children as part of your property until they are an adult
I would argue it’s not good or acceptable in dogs. At least I wouldn’t accept it if it were up to me. A good boy is a good boy no matter what his talents are or how many butts he sniffs.
It’s ironic that dogs, when left to their own devices, will form packs where they will bring loot back to disadvantaged members of the pack, and here we are being more needy than that.
That’s cute – I think humans do that too in smaller groups
Even in humans, we occasionally exercise “selective breeding,” like when potential carriers of Tay-Sachs (an absolutely horrific disease which mostly affects people with Ashkenazi heritage, and whose sufferers have an expected lifespan of a few years of horrible pain) and their partners choose to be tested before deciding whether or not to have children. Even with the context that mostly Jewish peoples’ genes are tested to see if they should have children, it’s not considered eugenics, because it’s an entirely voluntary process. Even if two people are both carriers, they aren’t prevented from having children, nor is their genetic predisposition shared with anyone.
Incest laws are essentially a way to restrict peoples’ choice of partner to ensure genetic vigor (that’s why they’re different for relationships which could and could not produce children). Even that’s not generally considered a form of eugenics, because it applies to people, without regard to their specific genes.
True, and I know that in Cyprus – prospective parents have to first get blood tests proving that they’re both not carriers for Thalassemia
The issue is thinking of genetics as prescriptive. Genetics simply influence behavior and setup initial probabilities.
Plus the distinction with breed and behavior with dogs isn’t as extreme as most people think. Yes, some breeds do have some genes that do influence behavior, but most people don’t even know what kind of dog they have unless they have purebred documents.
Here’s a great article from Ars Technica with a survey of thousands of dogs and linking their genes to behaviors. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/genetics-goes-to-the-dogs-finds-theres-not-much-to-breed-behavior/
Wow, what a well-sourced answer!
Though it does not seem to land on any one conclusion about nature vs nurture
Because it’s both! Genes have never been wholly predictive of behavior. People have just wanted them to be.
Something to consider here is that selective breeding of dogs is very often not done to the dog’s benefit, and indeed in some breeds makes them less healthy. It’s done for the benefit of their owners, either to do some job or for aesthetics, in a way that would be considered absolutely abhorrent if done to people (indeed, a lot of people think that in dogs it can go too far, especially where breeds with health problems are concerned). Eugenics is at least conceived by its proponents as being for the good of the species in a way that dog breeding is not, it’s just that the easiest way to do that is to control who has children, which isn’t generally considered acceptable for people, and the easiest ways to prevent someone you don’t want to have children from doing so are to kill or forcibly sterilize them, which is even worse. Additionally, it’s tricky to know what traits even are detrimental or beneficial to the species, and the personal biases of whoever is in charge come into play (for instance, a lot of historical examples of eugenics being pushed have been by people who were, well, extremely racist and therefore selecting for things like skin color, which if successful would simply lower genetic diversity, which is counterproductive)
Now, as far as comparing humans to dog breeds (as in, why people find it okay to say “x breed of dog tends to be more aggressive”, but not “x group of people are more aggressive”), it should be considered that humans already have a rather low genetic diversity, as far as species go. If were we like dogs, we would probably all be the same “breed”, so to speak, even people from different ethnic backgrounds (sure, we can tell ourselves apart due to not looking exactly the same, but even two dogs of the same breed don’t look exactly alike, and we’re very attuned to seeing small differences in humans that we might not see in other animals). I’d bet it would probably be possible to eventually selectively breed a bunch of humans to have noticably and consistently different traits beyond just skin and hair color (which while visibly distinct from the outside, don’t really represent very much change), but intentionally engaging in breeding humans like dogs like this would be considered, well, a horrible thing to do, and in any case, isn’t what we currently have nowadays.