Human Nature

Re: Dogs are different

Luuk — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:58:17 GMT

obduliojacinto,

I have no problem with the cultural revulsion against eating dogs, nor any problem with cultural or societal restraints perse. I'm just imagining myself being exposed to the dilemma in a different culture, or whether or not that culture is doing something wrong.

I just don't see why the criteria you adopt should be the one I personally have to, to decide whether or not to eat dog meat. I only have a problem with the idea that your criteria would somehow make dog the only animal morally wrong to eat: it seems arbitrary. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're implying that. I think we just have a difference of opinion, and I can only thank you for the talk.

Re: Dogs are different

Els — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:59:20 GMT

One thing that hasn't been brought up is that dogs are carnivores, therefore higher on the food chain than herbivores, which makes them not so good for you anyway. I've heard it said that if you're not going to be a vegetarian, then you should eat a vegetarian! After not eating meat for many years, the thought of eating dog meat is no more repulsive to me than eating farm animals.

Re: Dogs are different

icemilkcoffee — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:37:13 GMT

tedward:
In the highlands of West Papua, pigs are used as currency, pets, and food. Women will even allow the pigs to suckle human milk, according to the Travel Channel show "Living with the Mek."

I've read somewhere that in the ld days, the wet nurses will also nurse piglets when they can't find a human baby to nurse, in order to keep their milk supply going.

Re: Dogs are different

obduliojacinto — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:07:09 GMT

@ekdysiast and @luuk

I am not giving a preferential seat and a free pass to dogs within western civilization just because they are dogs. My criteria is not that dogs are special and because of that we let them in the house. My criteria is that we already let them in the house, and that makes them special. Sure, with enough time and patience you can build similar bonds with other animals (though I would consider a cow as a bedwarmer a bit overwhelming), and you can go all the way back to try and explain why we can unleash a dog and not a cow inside a house, or why we put dogs to take care of sheeps and not the other way around. But that is for me a bit irrelevant to the point. Thing is, for whatever reason, a big chunk of humanity built this bond with dogs, and that loads the discussion with a cultural and moral context.

The question of eating/not eating dogs or any other animal is really about what we have come to consider acceptable or not acceptable within our respective cultural and moral practices, and not about protein sources. Now, of course you might consider this or that cultural/moral constraints as ridiculous/anachronic/nonsensical, but that doesn't make them less present (though I don't say valid).

And yes, talking about cultural practices implies some broad generalizations -but in any case, sorry for using the word "man" so freely.

Re: Dogs are different

Daizinwolf — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:19:41 GMT

We can stop eating pigs, cows, and chickens, right now.

Re: Dogs are different

butch — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:35:29 GMT

Do not knock eating dog. When a person is hungary he will eat anything. I ate dog more than once while in Viet Nam., as while as cat, snake, wild pig,snails etc. Being in 52 countries outside the USA we here at home do not what hunger is. Iam quite sure if we reach that stage we have a unlimited supply of dogs/cats that are being put to sleep everyday.

Re: Dogs are different

tedward — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:15:05 GMT

In the highlands of West Papua, pigs are used as currency, pets, and food. Women will even allow the pigs to suckle human milk, according to the Travel Channel show "Living with the Mek." That's a closer relationship than I've ever heard of any Westerner having with an animal, dog or otherwise. ALL Domesticated animals are strongly tied to the development of human society as we know it (see, for example, "Guns, Germs, and Steel"). Dogs are not more important than other domesticated species just because they were hunting companions -- large domesticated species have been historically necessary for large-scale farming, which allowed for trade specialization and eventually to the technological developments allowing for the creation of the computer that you're typing on. There's nothing inherently more wrong about people eating dogs than there is about people eating pigs or cows. We should be less concerned about the species source of our meat (with respect to domesticated animals) and more concerned with the consumption of meat without reverence to the ethical and environmental concerns of doing so. There are ethics to be considered when eating any meat, whether it's factory farmed far away from your home and you never have to look the animal in the eye or if you raised the animal yourself. Dogs (and cats) aren't different, and if you're starving, eat Sparky, just give thanks first.

Re: Dogs are different

Luuk — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:25:55 GMT

I think Lid is saying that if the pyramids were built without beasts of burden, then other constructions could also have been possible without the use of beasts of burden. Lid is denying the necessity of their use, not the fact that they were used.

But by the same logic you could argue that because the Chinese ancestors did not use dogs in the same way the Western ancestors did, we did not need to use dogs and therefore dogs are not deservant of a special place in society.

Re: Dogs are different

ekdysiast — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:00:44 GMT

ekdysiast:
Ergo, no ancient buildings were built like the pyramids.

Ugh, should have read, "no ancient buildings were built with beasts of burden"

Re: Dogs are different

ekdysiast — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:54:53 GMT

@obduliojacinto

And if YOUR criterion is: do we let them in the house? Then it seems, other domesticated animals have done that, but not only that, they have slept with us, in bed, even the cow (holy cow!)!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/opinion/25robb.html

If I needed a bed warmer over the winter, I'd take a cow or pig over a dog any day, given their body mass.

And as for the bond that's formed between man and dog, I know the dog was certainly feeling it when it was swimming through my digestive tract a few years ago. Unfortunately, I wouldn't go so far as to call that love or unique. So you are in no way speaking for me (though I do consider myself a sample of homo sapiens sapiens). I will have my lawyers send you a cease and desist letter for bandying about the word "man" so carelessly. Please change that to "all men save one".

Re: Dogs are different

Luuk — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:54:01 GMT

First off, there is no evidence that the pyramids were built without beasts of burden. Unless we accept the movie The Ten Commandments as history (no empirical evidence of Jewish slaves building the pyramids either).

We certainly didn't domesticate dogs "tens of thousands" of years before horses and oxen. We certainly have evidence to support sheep being domesticated at the same time (possibly as early as 12000 BC. At least as early as 7000 BC...by which time cows, oxen and horses also were domesticated).

There's also no reason to assume dogs were used exclusively as hunters at first, shepherds later and then for aesthethic purposes. In fact, there's plenty of reason to suppose dogs and wolves were used as a food source (perhaps not primary, but certainly supplemental) during intitial periods of domestication, as well as being beasts of burden and as a look-out to danger. I'd go further and argue that dogs needed to be domesticated before they became valuable as hunters, at least to the extent that they'd have to be conditioned not to eat the prey, instead delivering it to humans.

Obviously, in Western society, dogs have served a special function as "man's best friend". I'm not sure whether it's due to unconditional love a dog has for a person, or just its utter dependency for survival on us. The lack of this phenomenon in other cultures strongly suggests we're not naturally designed to foster a special bond towards dogs alone. I don't deny we can form a bond with a dog, but we really can develop similar ones with other animals. I'd argue we'd be able to form even stronger bonds with animals more closely related to humans, such as apes and monkeys.

Furthermore, their being "unleashed in our homes" is as much due to their size and physical characteristics as it is due to their personality: they don't take up much space, their means of escape can easily be prevented and there's not much chance we'd kill them or be killed by them by accident (crushing, etc).

None of which would imply any moral impetus to not eat one. Just a personal preference.

I'm not a "dog person": I respect them as much as any living creature, but I much prefer the independence of a cat. Does this make it alright for me to eat a dog, but not a cat? The argument easily reaches an absurd level due to the fact that the logic implies I should not be allowed to eat a dog, but would be able to eat a wolf (disregarding its endangered status for the sake of argument). Based solely on the fact that, as a society, we like dogs best. Should the moral code of human beings in relation to animals really be reduced to "if you can make me like you, I'll promise not to eat you"?

Re: Dogs are different

ekdysiast — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:44:17 GMT

@lid

Ok. So if your criterion of not eating an animal is how long they've been domesticated, when can we stop eating cows and pigs (and chickens and turkeys and crows and mud and our hearts...)? I'm not a paleozoologist so my numbers are hazy on this one, but I think for dogs, it was about 14000 bce, and 6000 years later for cows and pigs (feel free to correct me on this one). The conclusion is, I guess,we can wait another 6000 years and then pigs and cows will be off the menu. Sorry, chickens, your turn will come later.

And as for your point about the pyramids, I vaguely recall seeing a Discovery documentary about that. Well, I'd say your syllogism is watertight.

The pyramids were built without beasts of burden.
All ancient buildings were built like the pyramids.
Ergo, no ancient buildings were built like the pyramids.

Good work! Aristotle would be proud of you (but not Frege).

Re: Dogs are different

obduliojacinto — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:21:32 GMT

I think the point is still with Lid -and on what is expressed by Will S. We made dogs what they are now through thousands of years of artificial selection -first intuitively searching for good hunters, later for shepherds, and later specifically for aesthetics or refined roles. But is the bond that we create throughout those years what makes the difference: though you can create a bond with pigs, goldfish, rabbits or cows (Buster Keaton included), the uniqueness of our relationship with dogs is that we have unleashed dogs inside our homes (only cats share that "privilege", though the nature of the bond with them is completely different). We might have tailored them for our ever-changing purposes (for detecting drugs, for rescuing victims of disasters, for helping blind people), but it is mainly the love we have typecasted into them (and by reflection into ourselves) what grants them that unique place in front of the fireplace or under the bedcovers on a Sunday morning. Something like the small robot kid on "Artificial Intelligence", but on a much broader and profound scale. We have systematically taught them to love us almost inconditionally -the hard way, the manipulative way, the sincere way- and we have decided to love them; whether this was achieved by taking the alpha-place on their universes or by mutally covering each others' back, day thru night since the caveman times, is beyond the point. The kind of love man and dogs share is unique.

Of course, this bond is only be truly significative within the loose boundaries of Western civilization.

Re: Dogs are different

Lid — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:23:38 GMT

Nice responses but still off the mark. Dogs have been companions of man tens of thousands of years before anyone rode a horse or hitched an ox. It has nothing to do with they're being cute or thinking of them as pets. I'm talking about the dog as the animal most connected to and longest used by mankind.

By the way ekdysiast, if humans can build pyramids without beasts of burden, I think they could have managed other structures.

Re: Dogs are different

thedrafthorse — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:50:51 GMT

And, likewise, the horse. Dogs are really not different from cows OR horses...

In medieval Christendom, where the horse was an instrument of war, agriculture, and civilization itself, it was taboo to eat horses. From the middle of the 5th century when hippophagia was condemned by the Church, all the way until the mid-19th century, the Christian taboo against eating horses in Western cultures held sway.

It was only when the horse, as part of the Industrial Revolution, became itself industrialized in its breeding, use, exploitation and eventual obsolescence did the taboo in the West against eating horse meat decline.

France legalized horse butchery in the 1860s. So the eating of horse meat in Western Europe really has a relatively short history.

Ironically, the same people who want to ban horse slaughter in the US are the same people who object to horses being used as draft animals, when of course it was their role in transport and agriculture--not just companionship--that have earned them their place alongside the dog as man's best friend (and civilization builder).