Sick people

[The Bard]

@jayseven, I think the distinction between human training and that of animls is that we believe that as humans we are by nature adaptive creatures, exemplified by the fact that we really have no niche. We are adaptive engineers who use whatever we can see and find to manufacture suitable conditions for our survival. This is sort of contrary to the way we see other animals, at least in biological terms, as creatures that occupy very distinct and exact places in ecosystems, and are naturally confined to certain habitats, climates and behavioural functions and that we believe we are somehow subverting in the process of training them to shit in specific locations. It's the result of not really knowing a dog's "will," and whether they would prefer to belong to a more organic set of conditions over being fed and cared for.

[jayseven]

But with humans having all this amazing potential, can't we pull an analogy out of our hats about we are The Man's pets, doing shitty jobs as we're told to do them, etc etc? I think there's a difference between being able to do whatever you want and doing something that's good for you -- rules, behavioural training, moral constraints and so on all serve to restrict the wealth of options one has in order to satisfy "doing whatever one wants" -- yet there's still a maximal level of happiness that the richest man in the world or the most starvingest of african orphans can both experience, regardless of their environmental or educational background.

 

There's also whole wreaths of points to be made about ignorance being bliss, and all that.

 

In general I type this and think of cats and dogs. Truthfully, there are many animals that seem to serve little more than ornamental purpose, which I don't really agree with at all.

 

This is another pub-and-pint topic, isn't it?

[The Bard]

Well, you say "ignorance is bliss," but you have to define a distinction between innocence and ignorance. I would argue that an incapacity to learn what it is that is socially distasteful is the definition of innocence over ignorance (which is simply being unaware, or unlearned). This is why we human beings are capable of learning vast systems of abstract laws; because we have the ability to understand cause and effect, and consequence on a deeper level. Sure, when you whack a dog on its nose for shitting on your rug, it might look guilty, and not do it again, but this is not because it knows it's wrong, it's because it associates physical pain with the action, and any perception of guilt we might superimpose on the dog is entirely to do with anthropomorphosis.

 

We definitely need that drink brah, it's been too long .

[jayseven]

I'm not sure if the distinction between innocence and ignorance affects the morality of having pets. Being unaware or being incapable of being aware are moot points -- but in terms of distinguishing humans from animals then yes, that can be conceded. But I was talking more in terms about a domesticated animal having no knowledge of another way of life, i.e. they truly don't know what they're missing.

 

This is turning into one of those the-more-I-think-about-it... things.

 

To the pub!

[The Bard]

Well it's relevant in the sense that these animals don't understand the things they're being taught and the only way they can learn is through the fear center in their brain coming to switch on depending on stimuli that we reinforce. Essentially what you're doing in training an animal is inducing an anxiety disorder. Some would argue that is not natural or moral and it would be better to leave animals to their own devices.

[jayseven]

Positive reinforcement slaps away the word 'only' :P Yes, the stick tends to be the quicker way to get the behaviour you want. Not trying to play it down, but in the pack animal behaviour will be shaped both positively and negatively as well. The issue we have, as you italicised, is the Human Guilt of meddling. It's like we got to be modest about being top dog (pun totes intended) - I respect and appreciate the efforts humankind has put into treating animals decently, but I really just think that we've just got a mowgli situation here albeit a lot more occurant, and reversed.

 

The bit where the see-saw tips the other way is when I start thinking about how some behaviours are repressed, like the reason why dogs lick people (conditioned not to bite, but biting is a form of affection in the 'pack') and how their interactions with other dogs is limited. Buuuuuuuuuuut! Repressing behaviour does not immediately mean it's baaad or wrooong. If a dog doesn't shit on the sofa and because of which the owner pets the dog, then regardless of the dog knowing why it's being petted, it is being petted. You mentioned the relationship of causality with animals in terms of their cognition, so if it's just the end result that's important, and the end result with a pet is a secure, loving, safe environment, does it matter if they're being trained in the first place? Referring back to the human guilt, and the idea of anthropomorphising, the notions of morality and natural behavior are not things that animals think about the same way as us (as you said, they have their 'innocence'), so the whole moral standpoint of having a pet is completely a human problem.

 

There's probably a fairly salient thought in here somewhere, just waiting to be expressed. I'm specifically not trying to say it's just right or wrong. I do appreciate that psychological issues exist with animals, but while I'm being mildly superfluous with my posts in general, ultimately I just think that the argument of having pets being a bad thing for the animal is largely ridiculous, and if anything should be entirely dependent on the quality of the owner; rather than the romantic notion that a wild, truly free life being at one with nature is by default than a domesticated, albeit partially repressed life. We've all seen David Attenborough's stuff. Whales eat seals eat penguins eat fish. Where animals don't have time to develop any mental disorders because their whole lives are one anxiety attack about staying alive tomorrow.

[Iun]

the reason why dogs lick people (conditioned not to bite, but biting is a form of affection in the 'pack')

 

I lick Mrs Iun because it annoys the hell out of her.

[The Bard]

Yes, and of course the counter argument to what I said is the idea that their natural habitation would produce just as much if not more distress. The problem with this is that we don't know if it's true; we can test animals in abstract domestic situations because we can MRI their heads and see the activation in different parts of the brain to do with pleasure, fear, reward etc, but there is no way for us to do perform this function in their natural environment. There is a reason to believe that the functions the animals have evolved to perform within an ecosystem do not require the same mental contortions that a novel domestic situation does.

 

This could be endless

[Diageo]

These are truly sick people.

Graphic

Edited December 13, 2011 by jayseven

[jayseven]

From the video description alone I know I don't want to watch it.

 

Added a spoiler tag, just for extra precaution.

Edited December 13, 2011 by jayseven

[EddieColeslaw]

From the video description alone I know I don't want to watch it.

 

Ditto. Just... How do parents deal with their kids potentially stumbling upon and watching this kind of thing?

[Diageo]

Another lovely video of how feeding a kitten to a snake is only nothing compared to what other people can do.

Sensitive individuals should not click this link.

[Frank]

 

The presence of that video gives me the chills.