Animal Rights (Chile)

[Sculptor1]

Are you suggesting that a certain person who has equated dog ownership to slavery is comparable to a Confederate racist?
Anyway Rusty has some idiosyncrasies from his old life. When I walk him out, and we get to a place where the grass is mowed he habitually rolls on his back with his legs in the air and then slides along. I think he is collecting scent. He can get a bit high in that respect. He is also a major expert in collecting cleavers stems burs, seedpods and thistle head on his coat. Until I had Rusty I did not appreciate just how "clever" nature is at spreading her seed pods. He also has the habit deciding to stop dead on the path and refusing to move. I think the previous owners used to treat him too much - that's why he was so overweight.
But Rusty had not yet learned how to control his slaves to give treats all the time!!!

Noooo. Rather, it's people who don't like dogs, who scowl at them for the crime of not being human. That's not uncommon, and it always reminds me of Brave New World and how the characters were conditioned to be disgusted by all non-human life.

My old mutt is 15 yo and about 8 months past her liver cancer diagnosis, so she gets exactly what she wants, when she wants it. At this stage it's all about making sure she has a good outro. I did poorly with Dad's end-of-life care, which was bitterly disappointing, so I'm pretty determined not to screw up like that again.

I'm sorry to hear about your Old mutt. I've imagined my dog's last moment. She absolutely loves to visit the Vet and I Plan to be with her in her last moments - though I know with will be hard on me.
As for people who do not like dogs. I have a friend who was bitten as a child, but he does not dislike as such. Aside from him I know no one like that. I live in a very dog friendly sub, the first part of whose name lends itslef to be changed to "woof".
There are many walks in the area.

Yes, you hear of people who have been badly bitten by dogs (I think we've all been bitten at some stage or another, just as we've all been hit by other humans).
...

While my natural response is imperfect, this last response is a major problem for the world. Generalised hostility and prejudice is the mindset of war, which is why it's so thoroughly inappropriate when applied to a pet species.

Tribalism thrives to feed the war machine, suspicion and hatred. It is mobilised by those whose interests are more monetary.
Ukraine is basically a proxy war for big money concerns in the US, EU and Russia. Little people die to feed greed, such is the case for all wars ultimately.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, modern tribalism is, to some extent, a by-product of the unhealthy mental habits inculcated in the people by self-interested and manipulative VIPs.

In these wars, again and again, it's not only people who die but animals and plants, sometimes in unexpected ways, like cetacean strandings seemingly caused by the Ukraine war: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -black-sea

I'm guessing that, in unclear waters, mass vibrations render animals that use echolocation temporarily blind. The strandings are akin to a person walking off a cliff in a thick fog.

[LuckyR]

Do boys want to be circumcised and do girls want FGM? Do children want to be thrown in a room with a group of semi-civilised strangers to be "educated"? Do adults want to slog on at the office for decades?

There are reasons why Benetar recommended antinatalism.

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

[Sy Borg]

Do boys want to be circumcised and do girls want FGM? Do children want to be thrown in a room with a group of semi-civilised strangers to be "educated"? Do adults want to slog on at the office for decades?

There are reasons why Benetar recommended antinatalism.

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

How so?

[LuckyR]

Do boys want to be circumcised and do girls want FGM? Do children want to be thrown in a room with a group of semi-civilised strangers to be "educated"? Do adults want to slog on at the office for decades?

There are reasons why Benetar recommended antinatalism.

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

How so?

Because unlike the master/slave, jailer/prisoner etc relationships, the parent's goal with children is not static, it is to assist the child (over whom the parent has authority) transition to adulthood (where the parent does not have authority).

[Pattern-chaser]

Do boys want to be circumcised and do girls want FGM? Do children want to be thrown in a room with a group of semi-civilised strangers to be "educated"? Do adults want to slog on at the office for decades?

There are reasons why Benetar recommended antinatalism.

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

How so?

Because unlike the master/slave, jailer/prisoner etc relationships, the parent's goal with children is not static, it is to assist the child (over whom the parent has authority) transition to adulthood (where the parent does not have authority).

Yes. And it is often the parent, not the child, who has difficulty with that final transition. It isn't easy; to that I can attest.

[Sy Borg]

Do boys want to be circumcised and do girls want FGM? Do children want to be thrown in a room with a group of semi-civilised strangers to be "educated"? Do adults want to slog on at the office for decades?

There are reasons why Benetar recommended antinatalism.

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

How so?

Because unlike the master/slave, jailer/prisoner etc relationships, the parent's goal with children is not static, it is to assist the child (over whom the parent has authority) transition to adulthood (where the parent does not have authority).

Yes, like children, pets are not slaves. Similarly, humans guide, protect and feed their family dogs, helping them to eventually transition to old age.

It would be a lucky slave who goes to her master and asks to go for walk, and the master takes her where she wants to go, and then waits around while the slave socialises with other slaves and masters. Then they go home and the slave decides to take a nap for a few hours. Later the slave awakens and is provided with dinner by the master. She later asks the master if she can go out and the master gets up and lets her go outside. Later she scratches at the door and the master gets up and lets her back in. The slave sits around on the couch for a while, occasionally getting her masters to pass over some of their dinners, almost like a daily tithe. The the slave goes to bed for a snooze. It's a dog's life!

[LuckyR]

The relationship of child to parent is dissimilar to all of the analogies previously proposed.

How so?

Because unlike the master/slave, jailer/prisoner etc relationships, the parent's goal with children is not static, it is to assist the child (over whom the parent has authority) transition to adulthood (where the parent does not have authority).

Yes, like children, pets are not slaves. Similarly, humans guide, protect and feed their family dogs, helping them to eventually transition to old age.

It would be a lucky slave who goes to her master and asks to go for walk, and the master takes her where she wants to go, and then waits around while the slave socialises with other slaves and masters. Then they go home and the slave decides to take a nap for a few hours. Later the slave awakens and is provided with dinner by the master. She later asks the master if she can go out and the master gets up and lets her go outside. Later she scratches at the door and the master gets up and lets her back in. The slave sits around on the couch for a while, occasionally getting her masters to pass over some of their dinners, almost like a daily tithe. The the slave goes to bed for a snooze. It's a dog's life!

Exactly, and the unlucky slave, say gladiators in Roman times, might be treated as fighting dogs and chickens are now. The point isn't benelovent mastery vs malevolent mastery, it's the presence of mastery.

[Belindi]

How so?

Because unlike the master/slave, jailer/prisoner etc relationships, the parent's goal with children is not static, it is to assist the child (over whom the parent has authority) transition to adulthood (where the parent does not have authority).

Yes, like children, pets are not slaves. Similarly, humans guide, protect and feed their family dogs, helping them to eventually transition to old age.

It would be a lucky slave who goes to her master and asks to go for walk, and the master takes her where she wants to go, and then waits around while the slave socialises with other slaves and masters. Then they go home and the slave decides to take a nap for a few hours. Later the slave awakens and is provided with dinner by the master. She later asks the master if she can go out and the master gets up and lets her go outside. Later she scratches at the door and the master gets up and lets her back in. The slave sits around on the couch for a while, occasionally getting her masters to pass over some of their dinners, almost like a daily tithe. The the slave goes to bed for a snooze. It's a dog's life!

Exactly, and the unlucky slave, say gladiators in Roman times, might be treated as fighting dogs and chickens are now. The point isn't benelovent mastery vs malevolent mastery, it's the presence of mastery.

Power relation is integral to natural selection. The sooner this is understood the sooner we can enable democracy to reduce excess power.

[value]

The following video documentary might be of interest:

[Sy Borg]

The following video documentary might be of interest:

It was of interest. Thanks for the link.

While I completely sympathise with the views expressed. The Maori woman at the start nailed it when she said that we do not own the land. Rather, we are part of it.

And we so happen to the be part of the land that is restructuring it. This happens from time to time. Cyanobacteria caused a huge extinction event 2.3 billion years ago, but it also made multicellularity possible.

Two influential competing attitudes are shaping the world and will shape it into the future. One is modernist and materialist, seeking progress and development with a rapacious approach to nature. The other is postmodern and meditative, seeking harmony and decency. It's like a dance. Materialism is reshaping the world, but meditativeness will reshape materialism.

The sad, yet exciting, fact is that the world will never be the same after the Anthropocene Extinction Event, just as it was never the same after the Great Oxygenation Event. The idea that humans are altering nature is a bit backward, like teenagers believing that their hormonal glands are at fault for the changes they experience. The child dies so that the adult may live, so to speak, and the process is not without losing some of the positive attributes of childhood - energy, creativity, innocence, enthusiasm, playfulness, curiosity, natural charm, good naturedness, etc.

While I accept that humanity is creating a Brave New World and there's nothing I can do about it, my sympathies lie firmly with animals and plants. Change is hard and most of nature - including humans - will struggle.

[GE Morton]

The point isn't benelovent mastery vs malevolent mastery, it's the presence of mastery.

Is it? That seems to suggest that because it would be (in most cases) immoral for one human (a moral agent) to exert mastery over another, it is also immoral for humans to exert it over other animals. But that is not obvious, and requires some argument.

Animals are moral subjects, or "patients," not moral agents. There are substantial differences between those, some arguably relevant to what is and is not moral with respect to human-animal interactions. It can't be merely assumed that constraints upon interactions between moral agents also apply to human-animal relations.

[Sy Borg]

I am not sure that humans are so much more in control of themselves than other animals. Human control is tenuous, and regularly fails, and our civilised veneer is always nine (or fewer) meals from breaking down.

[LuckyR]

The point isn't benelovent mastery vs malevolent mastery, it's the presence of mastery.

Is it? That seems to suggest that because it would be (in most cases) immoral for one human (a moral agent) to exert mastery over another, it is also immoral for humans to exert it over other animals. But that is not obvious, and requires some argument.

Animals are moral subjects, or "patients," not moral agents. There are substantial differences between those, some arguably relevant to what is and is not moral with respect to human-animal interactions. It can't be merely assumed that constraints upon interactions between moral agents also apply to human-animal relations.

Perhaps I confused you. I'm not saying that the master/slave relationship is identical to the masyer/pet relationship, in the sense that pets are equal to humans.

I'm saying that there are similarities between the two, animals being equal to humans not being among them.

[Pattern-chaser]

The point isn't benevolent mastery vs malevolent mastery, it's the presence of mastery.

Yes, that's my position too.