Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarOnPrivacy | Hacker News Reader

I will apologize to dogs in advance for any insensitivity I might show here.

My relationship with dogs is complicated. Once I read that their eyes rounded in response to their long adaptation to humans, I started feeling a little remorseful. Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.

I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.

In regard to all pets, I've come to feel a debt for sacrificing their independence. I feel an obligation to understand them, to accept them as what they are and to treat them in a way that respects that being. Hopefully they'll receive some fulfillment they otherwise wouldn't have.

But with dogs, that obligation feels uniquely expansive. I don't really know how to do it justice.

View on HN

> Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.

You're assuming we weren't also remolded to them.

Growing up on a farm, the relationship with the dogs made sense to me. They worked, we worked, we both got food and shelter, and were better off than if we didn't have each other. After work, there was time to be friends. A dog who is just a pet that sits in the house all day and waits for the family to come home is harder for me to understand.

I've thought about the same. Dogs have "eyebrow" muscles that wolves do not which make their expressions more human-like. Domesticated dogs have William's syndrome [1], which is a human genetic disorder which leads to many changes, one of which is hypersocial behavior. Essentially, I think that our modern relationships with dogs are just plain weird. I don't think pet ownership is for me but am happy so many people find their companionship valuable.

1. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-makes-dogs-so-f... (Link to the primary text is in here but I find the scientific news articles to be easier to read)

I don't think this is a rational feeling, but I can relate.

I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.

An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.

>And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.

> An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.

I think this respects my position and my intent. You're being a pragmatist, giving her the best life possible.

Speaking to changing her nature and protecting her. They might not be in harmony but they both suggest thoughtful, considerate reasoning. And it's okay if they aren't in harmony; a future understanding might reconcile them.

Dogs are social pack animals. It is their nature to work with the pack following social rules of order and behaviour. That is paramount and fulfilling that obligation is more important than chasing a lagomorphic snack to the detriment of the pack.

By following your (the pack's) rules your dog is being truer to their nature than chasing a rabbit would be.

Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.

Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.

If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.

Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.

While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.

We have dogs because dogs want us to have them.

> Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.

I agree. Outcomes always matter. Not exclusively but they're up there.

> Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves.

True. And I appreciate the existence of dogs. I also appreciate what they gave up to be. One notion doesn't quash the other. The two viewpoints coexist and make the relationship complex.

I should clarify that my perspective doesn't demand that something must happen or that some thing must not be. At most, it suggests 1) that we value the independence of animals - to our benefit as well - and 2) it's okay to morn a little for what dogs gave up to be dogs. The worst you'll get from #2 is finding more reasons to treat dogs well.

>If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.

Second likely goes to a bacterium species, hell they might even be first. There are 10x more bacteria cells in your body than there are human cells.

As humans we've shaped the lives of most animals (pets, livestock, and wild animals). I don't think it's a bad thing to have changed their evolution, every animal is molded to their environment. What I feel bad about is that we've been rather poor stewards of animals, many domestic animals are mistreated but also we've been perpetrators of mass extinctions of wild animals.

The more I'm around animals the more I feel like they really matter, I've looked into their eyes and seen love and frustration and grief. It's a tragedy how callously we treat them in general.

> I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.

This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.

Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.

Well companionship is a type of service too. Dogs that are emotional service animals do many compassionate things for their human owners to make them feel better.

But they aren’t useless. My in-laws had a Doberman and a Chihuahua at one point. The little dog can’t guard you, but she was an excellent watch dog. She woke up the Dobie.

“Yip yip yip yip [lots of scrabbling on wood floor] WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF”

People don’t mess with you when a 90-pound Doberman looks to you for guidance. I used to take her for walks in remote areas. I saw sketchy people. They saw me put her back on her leash when I saw other people. They knew I could drop that leash at any second.

You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity to feel such remorse for the impact we have had on nature/dogs. Doesn't sound healthy

> You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity

I don't. I'm not less for thinking more of something that isn't me. I'm arguably more for embracing more value than I started with.

Your assertion seems stark. Do you really feel my perspective is likely fueled by self-loathing? If so, what is it about human nature that led you to that?

Wow what a weird comment to make.

Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?

Oof what a lame take.

>Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?

Why is "I regret that we domesticated dogs" "compassion"?

It's just the naturalistic fallacy.

Wolves still exist. It's just that some of their babies hung out with us and over ten thousand years some of those babies hung out with us even more and we both changed to accommodate our relationship.

Why was it wrong to build legitimate companionship with other creatures? Why is it morally wrong to adapt over extremely long time periods?

> It's just the naturalistic fallacy. Wolves still exist.

No one here made the argument that because dogs exist, other species don't (or some other similar loss happened). At least, that's what you seem to be pushing back on.

In my OP, I made this observation about dogs. Much of the Family's independence and self-determination has been replaced with subservience to us.

I also shared how I personally felt about that. I hopefully did all that in a way that preserved desires to make dogs happy.

That's pretty much it - except for a sidebar about pets in general.

All the dog owners I know feel the same sense of comradery with their animal companions so your obligation to understand them is not a particularly unusual one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com