The posthuman dog

[Tegularius]

I have no idea how the article is strangely naive. I found the opposite to be true. Admittedly there is some theory involved as the essay itself states a few times. Since you haven't given any reason(s) as to why you think it comes from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world, you needn't have responded at all.

The first two paragraphs give you the firsts hints to the author's naivety. What else could be said of someone seriously considering that dogs (or any other domesticated animal) might not survive without humans. An such animals feeling lonely? Please...

Doesn't seem that such a trivial question would need a long article, especially when the authors already ackknowledge the key insight:

"...roughly 20 per cent of the world’s dogs live as pets, or what we call ‘intensively homed dogs’. The other 80 per cent of the world’s dogs are free-ranging, an umbrella term that includes village, street, unconfined, community, and feral dogs. In other words, most dogs on the planet are already living on their own, without direct human support within a homed environment."

So yes, it's pretty obvious dogs will do fine. They living their lives as free wild animals is perfectly fine.

Certainly many domesticated smaller and host of larger dogs likewise will NOT survive the disappearance of humans; of that there is no doubt. Ever think of reading the whole article and not just the first two paragraphs?

This is stated a little further on.

The answer to our first question – would dogs survive the abrupt loss of human beings – is almost certainly yes, assuming dogs are left with a planet that hasn’t become completely uninhabitable because of the climate crisis. A more intriguing question is who dogs might become, once decoupled from humans.

Is there something here you don't understand? It would be obvious to most that domesticated animals would have the least chance of survival; that does not mean NO chance. Feral animals, being least dependent but not completely independent, would by far have the best chances of survival.

The essay mentions all of this and how the canine population may adapt, change and be quite successful surviving after a transitional period. But certainly they will be around, but not as they were in the past, domesticated or not.

Had you read more than two paragraphs you would have been better informed.

I already gave (first) my opinion on the whole article. Being asked for more detail, I pointed at the two first paragraphs and quoted a key statement. Your implication that I only read the first 2 paragraphs is preposterous and a fallacy on purpose.

It is always possible to interpret the article as refering to the fate of particular dogs, but that would reinforce its naivety. All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years. Many dogs are already common food for humans and many are sacrificed for no other reason than fun and lack of care. Absent humans, many "intensely homed" pets, which as the article correctly states, are a minority, will obviously have a hard time surviving. Nevertheless, the dog population as a whole will just go through natural changes as it becomes wild again. This is so very obvious, that I find the article merely revolving around truisms, which the author doesn't seem to be aware of.

...but you're so incredibly intelligent you know all this for a fact, right? Any data on the statement All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years aside from it being presented as only your opinion?

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the article was not about whether dogs would survive without their big apes providing protection, shelter, comfort and food. It was about how dogs may change in the future without human influence.

When it comes to future evolution, the big question is if any animals will adopt the "big brain strategy" as happened with hominids, sacrificing physical abilities for mental ones. However, an abundant food supply is needed to maintain large energy-hungry brains. A world subject to climate change would offer fewer supplies than today - at least once the poodles, pugs, cavvies and Pekineses have been consumed by Shepherds, pitties, Rotties and Dobermans, even Labradors.

Once the weaker dogs have fallen by the wayside, canine evolution would probably slow down with ever more cross-breeding, and thoroughbreds would be soon disappear.

[Tegularius]

Yes, the article was not about whether dogs would survive without their big apes providing protection, shelter, comfort and food. It was about how dogs may change in the future without human influence.

When it comes to future evolution, the big question is if any animals will adopt the "big brain strategy" as happened with hominids, sacrificing physical abilities for mental ones. However, an abundant food supply is needed to maintain large energy-hungry brains. A world subject to climate change would offer fewer supplies than today - at least once the poodles, pugs, cavvies and Pekineses have been consumed by Shepherds, pitties, Rotties and Dobermans, even Labradors.

Once the weaker dogs have fallen by the wayside, canine evolution would probably slow down with ever more cross-breeding, and thoroughbreds would be soon disappear.

That's what makes the article interesting; how something as domesticated as dogs would thrive in a world bereft of humans. Even feral dogs depend on humans to some extent based on the waste they produce and shelters they may inadvertently provide through dereliction, etc. What's ironic, there would be much more shelter available after we're gone since many structures would still remain for a long time and considered home, not so much for individual dogs, but family packs capable of defending their territory.

Where "big brain strategy" is concerned, I think that possibility could be more ocean based than land based. If we're no-longer around depleting and polluting the oceans it may recover much faster than anything on land with a greater ability to feed energy-hungry brains; in spite of that possibility, something like the emergence of the human brain would be astronomically unlikely to happen twice.

[Count Lucanor]

The first two paragraphs give you the firsts hints to the author's naivety. What else could be said of someone seriously considering that dogs (or any other domesticated animal) might not survive without humans. An such animals feeling lonely? Please...

Doesn't seem that such a trivial question would need a long article, especially when the authors already ackknowledge the key insight:



So yes, it's pretty obvious dogs will do fine. They living their lives as free wild animals is perfectly fine.

Certainly many domesticated smaller and host of larger dogs likewise will NOT survive the disappearance of humans; of that there is no doubt. Ever think of reading the whole article and not just the first two paragraphs?

This is stated a little further on.

The answer to our first question – would dogs survive the abrupt loss of human beings – is almost certainly yes, assuming dogs are left with a planet that hasn’t become completely uninhabitable because of the climate crisis. A more intriguing question is who dogs might become, once decoupled from humans.

Is there something here you don't understand? It would be obvious to most that domesticated animals would have the least chance of survival; that does not mean NO chance. Feral animals, being least dependent but not completely independent, would by far have the best chances of survival.

The essay mentions all of this and how the canine population may adapt, change and be quite successful surviving after a transitional period. But certainly they will be around, but not as they were in the past, domesticated or not.

Had you read more than two paragraphs you would have been better informed.

I already gave (first) my opinion on the whole article. Being asked for more detail, I pointed at the two first paragraphs and quoted a key statement. Your implication that I only read the first 2 paragraphs is preposterous and a fallacy on purpose.

It is always possible to interpret the article as refering to the fate of particular dogs, but that would reinforce its naivety. All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years. Many dogs are already common food for humans and many are sacrificed for no other reason than fun and lack of care. Absent humans, many "intensely homed" pets, which as the article correctly states, are a minority, will obviously have a hard time surviving. Nevertheless, the dog population as a whole will just go through natural changes as it becomes wild again. This is so very obvious, that I find the article merely revolving around truisms, which the author doesn't seem to be aware of.

...but you're so incredibly intelligent you know all this for a fact, right? Any data on the statement All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years aside from it being presented as only your opinion?

OMG, if you think it requires someone to be incredibly intelligent to figure out what is the typical lifespan of dogs, no wonder why you find the article insightful and revealing.

But if you want to dissent from what appears to you to be merely my "opinion", go on...you're entitled to yours.

https://www.petmd.com/dog/wellness/evr_ ... _dogs_live

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the article was not about whether dogs would survive without their big apes providing protection, shelter, comfort and food. It was about how dogs may change in the future without human influence.

When it comes to future evolution, the big question is if any animals will adopt the "big brain strategy" as happened with hominids, sacrificing physical abilities for mental ones. However, an abundant food supply is needed to maintain large energy-hungry brains. A world subject to climate change would offer fewer supplies than today - at least once the poodles, pugs, cavvies and Pekineses have been consumed by Shepherds, pitties, Rotties and Dobermans, even Labradors.

Once the weaker dogs have fallen by the wayside, canine evolution would probably slow down with ever more cross-breeding, and thoroughbreds would be soon disappear.

That's what makes the article interesting; how something as domesticated as dogs would thrive in a world bereft of humans. Even feral dogs depend on humans to some extent based on the waste they produce and shelters they may inadvertently provide through dereliction, etc. What's ironic, there would be much more shelter available after we're gone since many structures would still remain for a long time and considered home, not so much for individual dogs, but family packs capable of defending their territory.

Where "big brain strategy" is concerned, I think that possibility could be more ocean based than land based. If we're no-longer around depleting and polluting the oceans it may recover much faster than anything on land with a greater ability to feed energy-hungry brains; in spite of that possibility, something like the emergence of the human brain would be astronomically unlikely to happen twice.

There are some drawbacks to the newly opened up shelters or waters. Displaced dogs would be competing with wild animals like snakes for the shelters and the waters (at least here) would be busy with crocodiles and jellyfish, at least until jellyfish eating fish recover from overfishing.

I agree that humanlike intelligence emerging again seems unlikely, especially since we humans will last a very long time yet. If we do blow it, my money would be on a new clade starting with rats rather than dogs; they already have hands. Mammals today are ancestors of ancient shrews, and I suspect that today's rats would be much smarter than them, so the process might occur more quickly, depending on evolutionary pressures.

Marine animals are limited by their inability to harness fire, so their tools will always be basic. For all we know, they may already be smarter than us, especially with human brains losing about 10% of size in the last 40k years. It may be that, as humans pour ever more of their intellect into technology, the need to retain mental information reduces. Thus, societies as a whole can advance rapidly even while most of their people regress. By contrast, marine animals may become ever more more intelligent individually, but each of their societies as a whole will always be relatively basic.

It's a bit like comparing indigenous tribes with moderns societies. It's not that modern societies are more necessarily more sophisticated than indigenous societies, rather than they are sophisticated in different ways, the former being vastly more physically capable thanks to technology than the latter.

[Tegularius]

Certainly many domesticated smaller and host of larger dogs likewise will NOT survive the disappearance of humans; of that there is no doubt. Ever think of reading the whole article and not just the first two paragraphs?

This is stated a little further on.



Is there something here you don't understand? It would be obvious to most that domesticated animals would have the least chance of survival; that does not mean NO chance. Feral animals, being least dependent but not completely independent, would by far have the best chances of survival.

The essay mentions all of this and how the canine population may adapt, change and be quite successful surviving after a transitional period. But certainly they will be around, but not as they were in the past, domesticated or not.

Had you read more than two paragraphs you would have been better informed.

I already gave (first) my opinion on the whole article. Being asked for more detail, I pointed at the two first paragraphs and quoted a key statement. Your implication that I only read the first 2 paragraphs is preposterous and a fallacy on purpose.

It is always possible to interpret the article as refering to the fate of particular dogs, but that would reinforce its naivety. All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years. Many dogs are already common food for humans and many are sacrificed for no other reason than fun and lack of care. Absent humans, many "intensely homed" pets, which as the article correctly states, are a minority, will obviously have a hard time surviving. Nevertheless, the dog population as a whole will just go through natural changes as it becomes wild again. This is so very obvious, that I find the article merely revolving around truisms, which the author doesn't seem to be aware of.

...but you're so incredibly intelligent you know all this for a fact, right? Any data on the statement All currently existing dogs will dissappear anyway in aproximately 20 years aside from it being presented as only your opinion?

OMG, if you think it requires someone to be incredibly intelligent to figure out what is the typical lifespan of dogs, no wonder why you find the article insightful and revealing.

But if you want to dissent from what appears to you to be merely my "opinion", go on...you're entitled to yours.

https://www.petmd.com/dog/wellness/evr_ ... _dogs_live

We're all aware of the lifespan of dogs and miscellaneous creatures co-habiting with humans. What does your link have to do with the consequences of an afterlife without humans? Obviously the essay contains some truisms but also speculation as to how canines could survive in a post-human world and the stages of that process.

I found it interesting; for you it's beneath your attention. That's okay, we don't need to discuss it further.

[Count Lucanor]

We're all aware of the lifespan of dogs and miscellaneous creatures co-habiting with humans.

Everyone except you seemed to be aware of that just a few hours ago.

What does your link have to do with the consequences of an afterlife without humans?

The answer is: it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with you challenging my statement that all dogs currently living will have died in about 20 years.

Obviously the essay contains some truisms but also speculation as to how canines could survive in a post-human world and the stages of that process.

I found it interesting; for you it's beneath your attention. That's okay, we don't need to discuss it further.

OK. It can be that and also strangely naive.

[Tegularius]

I agree that humanlike intelligence emerging again seems unlikely, especially since we humans will last a very long time yet. If we do blow it, my money would be on a new clade starting with rats rather than dogs; they already have hands. Mammals today are ancestors of ancient shrews, and I suspect that today's rats would be much smarter than them, so the process might occur more quickly, depending on evolutionary pressures.

I agree with the rat prognosis in case we should fail. They are paradoxically toxic enough to evolutionize into a higher form of intelligence if the opportunity presents itself. The saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is especially true for the rat. They even manage to thrive in highly radioactive areas as was confirmed on the island of Engebi in 1950. That story is amazing. I wouldn't doubt that the augmentation of brain power among early humans had a lot of rat-like qualities inherent in the process.

It may be that, as humans pour ever more of their intellect into technology, the need to retain mental information reduces. Thus, societies as a whole can advance rapidly even while most of their people regress. By contrast, marine animals may become ever more more intelligent individually, but each of their societies as a whole will always be relatively basic.

That's a good comparison; each scenario being opposite to each other only by containing opposites within themselves...each condition being an inversion.

It's a bit like comparing indigenous tribes with moderns societies. It's not that modern societies are more necessarily more sophisticated than indigenous societies, rather than they are sophisticated in different ways, the former being vastly more physically capable thanks to technology than the latter.

Yes, and if our technologies ever fail for whatever reason we'll need the indigenous tribes (if there are any left) teaching us how to survive.

[Sy Borg]

I agree that humanlike intelligence emerging again seems unlikely, especially since we humans will last a very long time yet. If we do blow it, my money would be on a new clade starting with rats rather than dogs; they already have hands. Mammals today are ancestors of ancient shrews, and I suspect that today's rats would be much smarter than them, so the process might occur more quickly, depending on evolutionary pressures.

I agree with the rat prognosis in case we should fail. They are paradoxically toxic enough to evolutionize into a higher form of intelligence if the opportunity presents itself. The saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is especially true for the rat. They even manage to thrive in highly radioactive areas as was confirmed on the island of Engebi in 1950. That story is amazing. I wouldn't doubt that the augmentation of brain power among early humans had a lot of rat-like qualities inherent in the process.

In defence of rats, they are actually charming little animals and they make delightful pets, just that they are too effective a competitor for humans to tolerate uninvited rats in our space.

It may be that, as humans pour ever more of their intellect into technology, the need to retain mental information reduces. Thus, societies as a whole can advance rapidly even while most of their people regress. By contrast, marine animals may become ever more more intelligent individually, but each of their societies as a whole will always be relatively basic.

That's a good comparison; each scenario being opposite to each other only by containing opposites within themselves...each condition being an inversion.

It's a bit like comparing indigenous tribes with moderns societies. It's not that modern societies are more necessarily more sophisticated than indigenous societies, rather than they are sophisticated in different ways, the former being vastly more physically capable thanks to technology than the latter.

Yes, and if our technologies ever fail for whatever reason we'll need the indigenous tribes (if there are any left) teaching us how to survive.

Failing that, natural selection will apply to survivors. If our technologies fail, the old and infirm (at least) would see little point in clinging on to life.

[Tegularius]

In defence of rats, they are actually charming little animals and they make delightful pets, just that they are too effective a competitor for humans to tolerate uninvited rats in our space.

Nothing to defend. They're also among the cleanest creatures away from cities and humans always grooming themselves. They only become dirty rats when forced underground living among humans. It seems we're not a very good influence.

[Sculptor1]

In defence of rats, they are actually charming little animals and they make delightful pets, just that they are too effective a competitor for humans to tolerate uninvited rats in our space.

Nothing to defend. They're also among the cleanest creatures away from cities and humans always grooming themselves. They only become dirty rats when forced underground living among humans. It seems we're not a very good influence.

Rat are keen groomers. I think you might want to have more than that to call them the "cleanest creatures", they are certianly not that. Rats will eat anything and they are germ factories. They are keen groomers because they are at constant risk from the food they eat.
The cleanest creatures are humans as they are the only ones that habitually clean themselves in clean water and surfactants.

In a similar way to dogs most rats are dependant on human civilisation. Originating is central Asia they have followed humans across the world on ships, and through the towns, often carry diease with them or on the fleas they carry.