Which mammal species are suitable to be kept as pet?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jul 13, 2016.

  1. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Yes... an its still the top of the food chain humans who purposfully make use of other animals for our own benifit... an i queston the ethics of havin any animal as a pet.!!!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Some will, some won't. Evolution is a powerful force - and if a niche exists for scavengers, they will often take it, since they have evolved for that over thousands of years. That's how feral dogs survive in cities even though there isn't much wild game for them.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Kinda like we do with our own children now.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Yes... which has its own ethical issues... an wit the examples below i rate them all a Zero on the 1 to 10 morality scale.!!!

    On you'r personal morality scale... say from 1 to 10... 10 bein the most moral... how woud you rate the examples below:::

    A human buyin a healthy "happy" dog for a pet an takin good care of it ---

    A human buyin a healthy "happy" Orangitan for a pet an takin good care of it ---

    A highly advanced alian takin a healthy happy human for a pet an takin good care of 'em ---
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That would all depend on how said creature was taken care of.

    Let's take the "highly advanced alien" case, which you included specifically to make a point. If said alien took a human, put them on another planet with millions of other humans with their consent, and then let them live their own lives - and then observed them from afar, because advanced aliens like to do that with their pets - then I would have no moral issues with that.
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Yeah... with their consent makes the diference for me.!!!
    Whare woud my 3 examples rate on you'r morality scale (an say that the human example includes all that you said except for consent).???

    On you'r personal morality scale... say from 1 to 10... 10 bein the most moral... how woud you rate the examples below:::

    1. A human buyin a healthy "happy" dog for a pet an takin good care of it ---

    2. A human buyin a healthy "happy" Orangitan for a pet an takin good care of it ---

    3. A highly advanced alian takin a healthy happy human (wit-out ther consent) "put them on another planet with millions of other humans with their consent, and then let them live their own lives - and then observed them from afar, because advanced aliens like to do that with their pets" ---
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Most people choose not to stay in that life.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    What other method is there for understanding how animals feel?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Exactly. And if a dog chooses to stay with you? Or an orangutan? They are consenting as well, in the only way they know how.
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    I thank the ethics of those in power come into queston when they take advantage of others... an even other species.!!!
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Someone will ALWAYS question the ethics of anyone in any position of power.

    In my book, consent is the issue. As long as they give their informed consent it's morally acceptable. Animals cannot give consent the same way people can, but you can use alternatives (i.e. does the animal willingly stay with its owner?) to determine something similar.
     
  15. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    There were no horses in the Western Hemisphere, and this fact is often presented as a possible reason for the slow development of civilization on our side of the world. All of the cities in Mesoamerica (where civilization first arose in the Americas) were built by human labor! The largest domesticated animal north of the equator was the turkey. The people in South America had three species of camelids (llama, alpaca and guanaco), but they are not as large and sturdy as horses. In addition, their females produce so little milk that they cannot be used for dairy farming--which was a tremendous impetus for larger human populations in the Old World.

    Apparently no one in this hemisphere tried to domesticate the moose, the mountain goat or the bison. Frankly, I don't blame them!

    Although... there are plenty of caribou in northern Europe. The Sami (a Finno-Ugric people formerly known as "Lapplanders") domesticated them, but we call them "reindeer." The Native Americans never got around to it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2016
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So you would employ a method knowing its inaccurate conclusions???
     
  17. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    An rightly so.!!!
    So wit-out consent... an advanced alian messin wit a humans DNA woud be unethical -- I agree.!!!

    But a dog not runnin away from the human that feeds it is effectivly givin its consent to have its genes tampered wit in order to make its off spring better fit its human owners needs.!!!

    Hmmm... i forget what the last issue was... but this is just anuther one in which our morals differ

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    What human - ever - has "tampered with the genes" of their dog?
     
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    The way its selectivly bread.!!!
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Hmm. So again, just like people.

    "Georgie, I want you to meet Julie. She's wonderful! So pretty, and her family is just so upstanding. And she is so selective about her homemade bread! Now you two talk and I'll give you some time."

    "Georgie, you are NOT bringing that Keesha woman home, and I don't want you seeing her any more. She doesn't come from good stock. Sorry, that's just the way our family is."
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I question the ascription of purpose to the human adaptations that have made us such good, willing, and mutually beneficial bonders with animals. I doubt humans adapted to symbiotic or commensal associations with animals on purpose.

    As far as questioning the ethics of human nature - normally it's the expression, not the basic nature, that one governs by ethical principle.
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Too many people can't seem to separate reality from unconscious projection. Projection is where content from the unconscious mind shines onto reality as an overlay, so what one sees is a composite affect; half real and half imaginary.

    Many people will empathize with an animal, as though it has human feelings, which is out touch with reality. If you could put yourself in the shoes of any animal, see it for what it was, you would be able to train it to of anything. If your skills are in science, but I project that you are an athlete, there will be communication problem. But if I see you, we would speak of science.

    One needs to see an animal for who they are. Dogs have been bred to enjoy being with humans. A puppy will make you take the place of his mother. You have to go out of your way to discourage their natural affinity for you. If you project that owning a dog is like having a slave, you are punishing the dog, since this is not who a dog is.

    People who own dogs realize that dogs give unconditional love. That is not slavery. In anything that unconditional love allows many dogs to make their owners the slave. If you can see any animal for who it is, you can coexist with it. That requires calibrating the mind so one is not using projection of what you want it to be.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Obviously, genetics had not been established as a realm of scholarship in the Paleolithic Era. Nonetheless, our distant ancestors were, indeed, changing the genetic makeup of wolves/dogs by the ancient, tried-and-true process of selective breeding. The ones who stayed close to the human community; keeping the place (relatively) clean by eating the garbage; going out on hunting trips with the men and using their superior hearing and sense of smell to find game; following the women and children to protect them as they foraged for herbs and fruits; using their superior night vision and hearing to keep us safe while we slept, which allowed us to have longer periods of REM to catalog the day's new information... these were the wolves who were adopted by the tribe, while the others ended up in the stew pot.

    As I noted earlier, the result of all this was an animal that looks like a wolf, but has a smaller brain requiring less precious protein in his diet, has a much weaker alpha instinct and doesn't compete with the head human to be leader of the pack, and spends a lot of time playing with the children, keeping them out from under foot, and eventually becoming a contented member of a multi-species community, protecting the cattle, goats, swine, horses and sundry other species from predators.

    All these years later (there's no solid evidence to determine when the human/canine partnership began, possibly as early as 30KYA but surely by 10KYA), there are distinct differences between wolf DNA and dog DNA. They are the same species and can interbreed easily, but they are different enough to be classified as separate subspecies: Canis lupus lupus (the wolf) and Canis lupus familiaris (the dog).

    You can call this "genetic tampering" or "selective breeding." The results are the same.
     

Share This Page