Not anarchist or vegan but i kind of agree with that. Animals are supposed to be either in the wild or fulfilling a practical function like providing food, security, pest control, transportation or labor. Not being kept as property purely for selfish entertainment and gratification. I also think zoos should not exist now that we have technology with which we can observe animals from a distance and they are no longer necessary for educational purposes.
Exactly. Obviously animal welfare needs to be at the forefront of any human-nonhuman relationship (and aesthetic breeding should have been made illegal by now), but having a pet dog/cat/rodent/etc. that benefits from being fed and loved by a human is not some 1984 terror relationship.
Dogs evolved (or rather more accurately, they were selectively bred) alongside humans to fulfil specific purposes like protection from attackers and predators, or aid with pulling things or help with hunting. Same for cats whose purpose was to keep your home and your granary free of rodents. Most pets don’t do those things anymore, with some notable exceptions like sheep dogs, rescue/service dogs, etc. Those are worthwhile purposes to keep them around for. But cats surely have become redundant, no?
I would like to think the compromise is just improving the conditions for animals that are pets or in zoos to a golden standard.
Zoos should be as open air, integrated and, most importantly, natural and large as possible. I think it can be a invaluably positive experience for humans to see exotic animals and interact with them where possible, and if zoo conditions were excellent I don’t think the animals would mind too too much. Most zoo conditions presently, though, I would agree are insufficient at best.
As far as pets, I mostly follow Italian Messiah. I would even be good with measures some would see as extreme, such as requiring a pet license and making a social service to ensure the quality treatment of pets (when resources for such a thing are easy to spare, of course). When pets are treated well they are often indistinguishable from family and lead very happy lives. I know our cats love us and my only treatment of them that I hate is that we don’t let them go outside (coyotes, lots of traffic, petnappers; they would be gone very fast here), and I would definitely also want a world where pets have more autonomy where possible–transitioning from cars to trains/other public transport would make a huge difference in this regard. I already think, as an example, indoor-outdoor cats are essentially free individuals who stay in houses of their own free will, to whatever extent they possess it. What you call “entertainment” or “gratification” I would call love on par with having a child, which many people also certainly have for very poor, selfish reasons–many, not all. I have seen pets (and children, but I digress) all across my life who are treated in a way that greatly disturbs me. I would like to think the goal should be ensuring proper treatment, though, not abolition, just like I would want parents to teach their kids right, not to sterilize them (minus when I’m making raunchy jokes).
I do respect your perspective and I have even been there myself at some times. But it’s a tough call to make. Which is worse, being trapped in a confined area or dying of disease and swallowing a bone? Which is better, complete freedom or human love? How exactly emotional and intelligent are animals (I’m definitely not saying zero)? The ethics of either can be argued for.
I am uncomfortable with the concept of loving a living being that you consider property. Regardless how comfortably a slave lives, they are still a slave, no? Plenty of slave owners said they “loved” their slaves. Some maybe genuinely thought they did.
That’s why for me it is important to draw a distinction between humans and animals and why i find the comparison with children disturbing. I do not own my child, they are not my property. If animals are to be property then they are not “family”.
I know it’s clichee but don’t you think the expression “if you love them, set them free” applies?
I can respect that perspective.
For me it’s different because most animals are not very smart. We certainly don’t give a 4 year old child the same freedom as a 17 year old child, for example.
That being said, I do agree that I think animals should be given as much autonomy as they can. But it’s hard when, in many parts and places, that essentially just means instant death.
Zoos can help with preservation of species that are at the risk of extinction by giving them extra care and medical attention, so they have some function. But yeah probably shouldn’t just imprison random animals just for the purpose of entertainment.
Not anarchist or vegan but i kind of agree with that. Animals are supposed to be either in the wild or fulfilling a practical function like providing food, security, pest control, transportation or labor. Not being kept as property purely for selfish entertainment and gratification. I also think zoos should not exist now that we have technology with which we can observe animals from a distance and they are no longer necessary for educational purposes.
deleted by creator
Exactly. Obviously animal welfare needs to be at the forefront of any human-nonhuman relationship (and aesthetic breeding should have been made illegal by now), but having a pet dog/cat/rodent/etc. that benefits from being fed and loved by a human is not some 1984 terror relationship.
Dogs evolved (or rather more accurately, they were selectively bred) alongside humans to fulfil specific purposes like protection from attackers and predators, or aid with pulling things or help with hunting. Same for cats whose purpose was to keep your home and your granary free of rodents. Most pets don’t do those things anymore, with some notable exceptions like sheep dogs, rescue/service dogs, etc. Those are worthwhile purposes to keep them around for. But cats surely have become redundant, no?
deleted by creator
I would like to think the compromise is just improving the conditions for animals that are pets or in zoos to a golden standard.
Zoos should be as open air, integrated and, most importantly, natural and large as possible. I think it can be a invaluably positive experience for humans to see exotic animals and interact with them where possible, and if zoo conditions were excellent I don’t think the animals would mind too too much. Most zoo conditions presently, though, I would agree are insufficient at best.
As far as pets, I mostly follow Italian Messiah. I would even be good with measures some would see as extreme, such as requiring a pet license and making a social service to ensure the quality treatment of pets (when resources for such a thing are easy to spare, of course). When pets are treated well they are often indistinguishable from family and lead very happy lives. I know our cats love us and my only treatment of them that I hate is that we don’t let them go outside (coyotes, lots of traffic, petnappers; they would be gone very fast here), and I would definitely also want a world where pets have more autonomy where possible–transitioning from cars to trains/other public transport would make a huge difference in this regard. I already think, as an example, indoor-outdoor cats are essentially free individuals who stay in houses of their own free will, to whatever extent they possess it. What you call “entertainment” or “gratification” I would call love on par with having a child, which many people also certainly have for very poor, selfish reasons–many, not all. I have seen pets (and children, but I digress) all across my life who are treated in a way that greatly disturbs me. I would like to think the goal should be ensuring proper treatment, though, not abolition, just like I would want parents to teach their kids right, not to sterilize them (minus when I’m making raunchy jokes).
I do respect your perspective and I have even been there myself at some times. But it’s a tough call to make. Which is worse, being trapped in a confined area or dying of disease and swallowing a bone? Which is better, complete freedom or human love? How exactly emotional and intelligent are animals (I’m definitely not saying zero)? The ethics of either can be argued for.
I am uncomfortable with the concept of loving a living being that you consider property. Regardless how comfortably a slave lives, they are still a slave, no? Plenty of slave owners said they “loved” their slaves. Some maybe genuinely thought they did.
That’s why for me it is important to draw a distinction between humans and animals and why i find the comparison with children disturbing. I do not own my child, they are not my property. If animals are to be property then they are not “family”.
I know it’s clichee but don’t you think the expression “if you love them, set them free” applies?
I can respect that perspective. For me it’s different because most animals are not very smart. We certainly don’t give a 4 year old child the same freedom as a 17 year old child, for example. That being said, I do agree that I think animals should be given as much autonomy as they can. But it’s hard when, in many parts and places, that essentially just means instant death.
Zoos can help with preservation of species that are at the risk of extinction by giving them extra care and medical attention, so they have some function. But yeah probably shouldn’t just imprison random animals just for the purpose of entertainment.
That would be a legitimate use, but i wouldn’t call them zoos then, i would call them “animal conservatories” or something like that.