• Omgboom@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    …We’ve committed a multi-thousand year long genocide against dogs, breeding them for traits that we find useful, and usually killing the puppies that don’t possess useful traits…

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That last part may need a bit of citation, but yes modern breed standardization has unfortunately crippled many of the poor creatures from birth.

      Adopt rescues, people! It’s usually super cheap and they’re almost always healthier dogs anyway.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Sorry to disappoint you, but even just picking your partner off of looks is literally a form of eugenics if you preach being attracted to your partner… Parents who decide to abort a fetus with a terminal illness is ALSO literally and directly eugenics.

        Eugenics itself isn’t bad, it’s just certain morons think THEY deserve to decide such things for and about others.

        • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          no that’s part of natural selection. it’s our biology telling us what we want. eugenics is systemic planned pairing and breeding. it’s also had the ideas that a person’s quality is defined at birth baked into it from the start. it’s based on the concept of a person’s worth being defined by the circumstances of their birth and not by their efforts in life.

          also, actual science tells us that the best thing to “breed for”,if that’s the way you want to look at life, is genetic diversity. the healthiest stock has the most diverse gene pool. something every eugenicist also somehow manages to ignore that and deny that if improving or genetics is our goal we should be trying to all become a neutral brown and choose people the most different from us genetically.

          cause that’s the thing about dog breeds. we can engineer the perfect biological hunting machine… that dies by age 11 at the latest. because breeding for a trait never creates healthy offspring. which makes sense, we weren’t breeding for health. the natural desire of most parents is a healthy child. it’s what nature optimized for. when we start looking for other traits we tend to fuck it up.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Nothing I said was incorrect. Eugenics IS NOT ONLY Nazi-style eugenics. Period. Ever.

            • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              the points i was making in the latter paragraphs is that even if there is nothing morally wrong and you’re not forcing anything it’s still an inherently flawed view of genetics. breeding the smartest, kindest and most capable people to have those traits you’ll still just end up with unhealthy offspring.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                I do not defend the practice of attempting to pick “good” genes, but to point out eugenics is very much around and accepted by everyone. It’s just a question to what degree, and certain people want to extend their decisions on the matter to others.

                OFC you cannot simply pick pretty babies and end up with a “better” species. That is an ignorant, stupid, and Nazi-esque way to look at eugenics.

                Stop letting Nazis and other similarly ignorant fucking morons define the world.

                • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  ok, so what is your definition of eugenics?

                  because the dictionary definition is “the selection of desired inheritable traits to improve future generations”. that is what I’m saying is an inherently flawed ideology and practice. if you mean something different you might choose a different word.

  • wren@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    all you need to know is that dogs are fluffye! no need to look at the other comments :)!

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yikes, you’re right. Should’ve skipped. Fuckin hell guys

  • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those “monsters” from the dark were the real heroes back when — braving the orange flickering light that instinctually meant death to sneak scraps from the stabby skin-wearers… Sounds like the original D&D story to me, NGL.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      domesticating wolves by campfire with just body language would be a bad ass RPG VR game

        • otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s what cats’ve done, TBF. They even taught themselves to sound like our babies! Not to mention, contracted a bio-parasite to further tilt our civilization to their whims…

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Its the cats that we don’t deserve.

    They just happen, they adopt us, use us as slaves, indoctrinate us in a cat worshipping cult, …

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Cats are ancient aliens. That’s why Egyptians worshipped them, that’s why their pee glows and why their scratches and bites are so toxic. They’re not of this earth. Don’t trust them! They’re trying to take over and they’re being allowed to win!!

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    But then what about, say, cows? They were domesticated too, but to the extent that they subjectively like and trust humans (and I’ve seen very friendly cows) they have been deceived, with very few exceptions. Maybe we deserve them in the purely material sense since they are the products of our labor, but they don’t deserve us…

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Perhaps not individually - although even there, what is the average lifespan of a cow in the wild? - but collectively there have been far more cow offspring than there would have been if they had not been domesticated.

      Also, looking at every other wild species that we’ve eradicated, they seem to have decided to get in on our good side, which since they aren’t extinct may have worked out well for them.

      And even individually, if they live >3x longer, in a more comfortable environment where food is provided routinely… it’s arguably not as bad a trade-off as it first appears.

      A lifetime of slavery ending in death, or try to outcompete the species that invented guns? We might each make a different choice, but they made theirs.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, that’s what we want to believe, that it all started with someone feeding a hungry wolf, but knowing humanity it’s just as possible it started with a captured wolf and copious amounts of animal abuse.

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s most likely that dogs/wolves just kept eating our waste, staying close to us, and after initial fights humans noticed the dogs/wolves are not being a threat, thus letting them do their thing and observing them.

      Then humans eventually figured out that by observing dogs and their reactions, they could see if dogs smelled/heard something which they couldn’t. And then started to exploit that.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        wolves just kept eating our waste

        You may wanna edit this to say trash, it sounds like you’re saying wolves followed us around eating our shit, which afaik isn’t a theory for dog domestication.

        • kielimieli@r-sauna.fi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          afaik

          Well… it actually is a theory. Like, all modern dogs love to eat human shit, so there’s been some evolutionary theories about how wolves/dogs of old have eaten human shit as an easy meal and thus part of their diets, and that might have aided in domestication and all that.

          And now that I’ve already started to discuss dogs eating shit: My personal theory is, that rural dogs in India have human shit as a major source of their nutrition, since the sanitary conditions in many rural areas there are shitting in the bushes, and there’s a lot of village dogs…

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Monsters”

    Nope

    Did you know that wild wolves make sure the whole pact eats, but when you give dogs in a pen food, it’s every doggo for themselves, and the smallest ones can end up going without?

    Ofc they’re still more sociable towards humans, but yeah, we just changed who their friends were and who they’re aggressive against. Gaslighted them into thinking we’re good for them.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        really just anyone sitting in the wilderness seeing a creature of any kind at the edge of the light cast by a campfire, the creature could be a friendly sheep and i’d still shit myself into low earth orbit

  • whome@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you leave out the fact that we also breed them till their eyes pop out of their sockets, their brains don’t fit in their skulls, they are in constant fear of suffocating. Then yes

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      those breeds are quite new, for the vast majority of our history dogs have been bred to be healthy, since they do important work and having them die on you is annoying after you put in all the work to train them.

    • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re either this or well built, intelligent, and filled anxiety over the impending collapse of the galaxy into a black hole. "What was that?! A small tear in the fabric of the space time continuum? Demons? Maybe the cat next door is finally going to murder all of us! Ok, probably not. But maybe I should bark at whatever it is just in case. "

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    More like we were kind to the helpless pups that were left over after we slaughtered the adults. Unless we were hungry, of course.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      you think people ate wolves lol? yes that certainly sounds appealing and worthwhile.

      i definitely wouldn’t prefer to trap a rabbit, nope.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        People would not normally eat wolves. But in times of famine you can bet your ass they weren’t picky.