The posthuman dog
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
The posthuman dog
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The posthuman dog
What's your take on this?Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The posthuman dog
Wild canids often have intricate societies: wolves and African wild dogs often (although not always) live in packs in which there is only one breeding pair. The remainder of the pack (most of whom are biological uncles and aunts to the pups) help feed the pups, and are subsurvient to the alphas.
Is this what the authors mean when they say that one way in which wild dogs have it better than tame ones is that they can choose with whom to mate? It doesn't seem to me that many of them have much of a choice.
Also, pack behavior is "cultural" -- it's learned and passed on from one generation to another. Same with communication skills. There's no doubt that feral dogs could learn adaptive behaviors, and could develop effective coping mechanisms -- but I'm guessing that there would be huge problems (probably 90%+ early death rates) in the first couple of generations. After that, the dogs would probably learn to cope. Like all mammals, dogs learn from their parents how to hunt, how to find water, and how to communicate and develop a community. Since first (and second and third) generation parents wouldn't know these things very well, neither would the ensuing generations.
If there are hundreds of millions of feral dogs (which, again, I doubt), they are probably still dependent on humans -- eating garbage and rats that accompany human societies. Even wild canids do this. Coyotes thrive in the vicinity of human populations because they benefit from the proximity.
According to a quick internet search (I have no idea how accurate the numbers are), there are 400,000 coyotes in North America and only 6000 African Wild dogs in (you guessed it) Africa. I didn't look up wolves or dholes or any other wild canines. Those numbers don't bode well for the 200 million homed dogs who suddenly become homeless. If the carrying capacity of the environment in North America supports 400,000 coyotes -- many of whom live in proximity to humans and benefit from that proximity --how many feral dogs can it support? One million at most? Coyotes, after all, are probably better equipped to survive without humans than feral dogs, both in terms of biological features and culturally learned behaviors. It may also be true that without human impact on the environment, the coyote and wolf populations would surge. I'm not sure if coyotes can produce fertile offspring breeding with dogs (I'm pretty sure wolves can). Perhaps there would be a merging of the species. My internet site that listed the population of African Wild Dogs said that there used to be "hundreds of thousands" of them roaming Africa. Still, hundreds of thousands is a far cry from 200 million (or the 40 million that would be Africa's share).
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: The posthuman dog
That is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: The posthuman dog
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.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pmThat is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: The posthuman dog
I don't know how accurate the numbers are or how it could even be ascertained. Nevertheless, I found the article logical in the arguments made. Of course, no one ultimately knows how dogs could develop without human interference, but one thing's for certain, they will survive and be neither wolf nor what they were under humans. They are, after all, a highly intelligent and adaptive species. That is, if the planet is still capable of supporting life or larger organisms after humans get through with it.Ecurb wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 10:25 am I'm not sure I buy the notion that there are 800 million "un homed" dogs roaming the earth (vs. 200 million homed dogs). I'd like to see how the author arrived at this number (I know nothing about it -- but I'm still skeptical).
Wild canids often have intricate societies: wolves and African wild dogs often (although not always) live in packs in which there is only one breeding pair. The remainder of the pack (most of whom are biological uncles and aunts to the pups) help feed the pups, and are subsurvient to the alphas.
Is this what the authors mean when they say that one way in which wild dogs have it better than tame ones is that they can choose with whom to mate? It doesn't seem to me that many of them have much of a choice.
Also, pack behavior is "cultural" -- it's learned and passed on from one generation to another. Same with communication skills. There's no doubt that feral dogs could learn adaptive behaviors, and could develop effective coping mechanisms -- but I'm guessing that there would be huge problems (probably 90%+ early death rates) in the first couple of generations. After that, the dogs would probably learn to cope. Like all mammals, dogs learn from their parents how to hunt, how to find water, and how to communicate and develop a community. Since first (and second and third) generation parents wouldn't know these things very well, neither would the ensuing generations.
If there are hundreds of millions of feral dogs (which, again, I doubt), they are probably still dependent on humans -- eating garbage and rats that accompany human societies. Even wild canids do this. Coyotes thrive in the vicinity of human populations because they benefit from the proximity.
According to a quick internet search (I have no idea how accurate the numbers are), there are 400,000 coyotes in North America and only 6000 African Wild dogs in (you guessed it) Africa. I didn't look up wolves or dholes or any other wild canines. Those numbers don't bode well for the 200 million homed dogs who suddenly become homeless. If the carrying capacity of the environment in North America supports 400,000 coyotes -- many of whom live in proximity to humans and benefit from that proximity --how many feral dogs can it support? One million at most? Coyotes, after all, are probably better equipped to survive without humans than feral dogs, both in terms of biological features and culturally learned behaviors. It may also be true that without human impact on the environment, the coyote and wolf populations would surge. I'm not sure if coyotes can produce fertile offspring breeding with dogs (I'm pretty sure wolves can). Perhaps there would be a merging of the species. My internet site that listed the population of African Wild Dogs said that there used to be "hundreds of thousands" of them roaming Africa. Still, hundreds of thousands is a far cry from 200 million (or the 40 million that would be Africa's share).
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The posthuman dog
Ultimately, the loss of all humans would be even more problematic for dogs than the reverse, although there's probably not much in it, given the mental benefits they provide in an ever more fractious world.
I find dogs grounding, directing me just a little closer to my animal self, away from the meta domain of human opinion. I'm sure I'm far from the only one. City life seems to be ever more detached from nature. It's sad to see how often small children today shrink away in fear from the most small, docile and teddy bear-ish dogs. We might have shaped dogs in our image for the best part of 30,000 years but, generally, they are still closer to nature than most humans.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The posthuman dog
The most populous wild canids (if we discount the 800 million unhomed dogs the authors claim exist) are foxes. I couldn't find any definitive answers about the population of wild foxes, but there appear to be several million in Australia alone, where they are a non-native species. Foxes range in size from less than ten pounds (Fennecs) to a maximum of about 30 pounds (12-13 kg). Maybe that would be the optimum size for dogs -- although probably (as Sy suggests) size would differ in different environments. Dogs and foxes cannot interbreed, and "coydogs" are only occasionally fertile. There are about 200,000 wolves world-wide, and the vast majority of them live in North America. Most live in the arctic or sub-arctic, which suggests (as Sy does also) that large canids may be best adapted to cold climates (although there were probably many wolves farther south until humans wiped them out).
The social structure that would develop is uncertain, and problematic. Wild canid fathers generally play an active role in parenting and providing for the pups. Domestic dog fathers do not -- but who knows what would develop in the wild? Dogs may retain some innate propensity for fatherhood. "Pack" culture varies considerably both between and within species (for wild canids). Most other wild carnivore and omnivore fathers do not care for their children (bears, cats -- with the exception of lions -- , I don't know about weasels, hyenas are an exception). Dogs are social animals, and from what I know about feral dogs they often live in packs -- but I wonder what the breeding and child-rearing tactics of the feral dog packs are. It would be interesting to find out.
The development of a sound social structure and breeding environment would be the most important issue for the success of the species -- and it's hard to speculate exactly what shape that would take. There are many possibilities, and many examples from wild canids.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The posthuman dog
In what way specifically?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pmThat is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: The posthuman dog
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...Tegularius wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 6:45 pmI 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.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pmThat is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
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."...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."
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The posthuman dog
Aside from puppies, old dogs, sick dogs, disabled dogs. Even small dogs capable of finding their own food would, without humans to protect them, become prey for hungry large dogs. Further, dogs would change markedly in just a few generations.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 7th, 2021, 10:46 pmThe 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...Tegularius wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 6:45 pmI 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.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pmThat is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: The posthuman dog
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?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 7th, 2021, 10:46 pmThe 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...Tegularius wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 6:45 pmI 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.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pmThat is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 4th, 2021, 8:45 pm An interesting article on what dogs could become without humans...
https://aeon.co/essays/who-could-dogs-b ... ket-newtab
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."...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."
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 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.
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.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: The posthuman dog
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.Tegularius wrote: ↑November 8th, 2021, 1:41 amCertainly 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?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 7th, 2021, 10:46 pmThe 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...Tegularius wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 6:45 pmI 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.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2021, 9:18 pm
That is a strangely naive article, one that you would expect from a person that is completely out of touch with the real world.
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."...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."
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 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.
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.
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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The posthuman dog
Given this scenario begs the question what are the criteria upon which dogs would be "better off"? SInce dogs are not in a postion to assess and evaluation the conditions pre- disaster and post disaster the question is utterly mute.
If the very survival of a massive range of dog varieties, warm and dry shelter, access to medical treatment, safe food, protection from predators including other dogs and a longer life, then there is no doubt that dogs would be significantly worse off without humans.
SO let us imagine what would happen when humans disappeared in an instant. It would make a massive difference what time of year it happened and what time of day.
At any given time most domestic dogs are inside a locked house which they would not be able to be free from. The only dogs with a long term chance of survival would be the ones who at that moment were outside being walked, or in the back yard. If the event happened at night then close to 100% of house dogs would be dead within the few weeks it would take touse up any available food.
Taking as an example the UK where there are few feral dogs. There are around 50,000 dogs handed in per year to sanctuaries. If we imagine that dogs are normally only stray for an average of a week, then that would mean only a thousand dogs would be outside at night.
Of the 12 million dogs cared for by owners, perhaps at any given time around 1 million would be outside when the event occurred.
With humans disappearing in the middle of the day there would soon be a million dogs crying ourside their homes waiting to be let in with little or no experience how to find their own food.
Soon they would turn to robbing bins and some might be lucky enough to gain entry to supermarkets and shops proving that they were able to gain access.
There would be a few thousand working dogs such as sheep dogs would would be highly successful at packing up and recruiting dumb town dogs to help kill sheep. Fox hounds would also be very successful but small in number.
Small dogs: pinchers, Chihuahuas, toy dogs, pugs, french bulldogs- would all soon fail, either killed by fox hounds, or relying on the scraps left by big packs.
Medium to large size dogs would do well if they were able to muster enough agression to control smart hunters by taking their food exploiting their gregarious natures to make friends.
For example Labradors who are highly gregarious would be matrons and patrons of the packs recruiting collies who would be the best hunters.
After a few generations massive dogs such as Great Danes and Rottweillers; fancy breeds like corgis, afghan hounds, poodles would all die off. All digs with genetic defects would be finished; bulldogs, boxers and pugs would die out because of breathing problems, and may other genetic weaknesses such as hip dysplasia would soon becme a thing of the past in a a few generations, unless the expression of these defects were late (3 years old) onset.
Now here is the biggest problem for the vast majority of variations - Most of the dogs surviving the event will be neutered - possibly as many as 60-80%.
After a few generations, all short legged or very long legged dogs would not survive. All very small dogs or very large dogs would not survive. No toy dogs, lap dogs or poochie poos would make it to the next generation.
There would emerge a sturdy collie/cross, smart resourceful and gregarious hunting in packs of 10-20. Their success would depend on the fortunes of the 15 million sheep, and a growing population of wild deer, as well as opportunistic predation upon rodents which would be flourishing.
If the world became full of the rotting corpses of humans then the rats would do very well indieed giving ample opportinities for Jack Russells and other tough smaller breeds.
Quite possibly the packs might consist of a range of types from strudy jack Russell terrier dogs exploiting smaller pray to the medium size dogs in the collie labrador range.
What else would happen? other domestic animals would escape to the wild but I would be skeptical of pigs surviving the first bad winter since their coats have be bred completely out. There is rumoured to be a wild population of boar roaming the South Downs - they would do very we indeed.
Dogs are the most adaptable of species. Most dogs change their coats with the seasons, and there may well be epigenetic effects that are ready to exploit the new regime absent of central heating and the other uxuries of civilisation.
Given their great propensity at variation a new hardy breed would emerge.
They would be strong light of foot and short lived. A five year old dog would be old.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The posthuman dog
Your comments might apply to street dogs of Panama, but the world is a big place, and you have not really thought things through.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 8th, 2021, 11:46 am 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.
So naive???
Most pots are as black as kettles.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023