I think the reason people don't like to eat horse and dog, and other companion animals, is that they form emotional bonds with a member of that species, and see them as intelligent individual beings. They aren't necessarily the number-one smartest animals, but we see their intelligence and emotion and it fosters empathy. We see them as comrades, and thus their consumption is tinged with a tiny bit of the same taboo that we reserve for the eating of our own species.
So, it makes total sense that we also developed a sympathetic attachment to the animals we use to help us. Killing off the things that help you on a day-to-day basis is bad for survival.
While I doubt it's instinctual, this is certainly part of the reason for most of our feelings toward dogs.
A weird example: I had rats growing up, and they were all funny and different, affectionate and smart. To this day, while I don't aid wild rats or stand in the way of people practicing practical vermin extermination, I would not be cruel to a rat. I have a respect for them as animals.
I had many different pet rats when I was younger, I think they're wonderful pets, really sweet, intelligent and fun. I've also eaten roasted rat on a stick on the street in Thailand.
The two things couldn't be more different in my mind.
My point was simply that eating a rat doesn't remind me of my pet rats or make me feel guilty, wistful, sentimental or in any way bad.
The two thoughts don't mingle naturally for me since on one hand there are these animals I love and on the other there's this dead thing that's delicious and skewered and comes with chili & lime sauce.
While I see and understand the point of view of most people on the issue, I must say I do share the same position personally, though in a less extreme fashion - I wouldn't eat one of my pets, since I have an emotional connection to that animal, but something of the same species, I have no problem with, because I have no emotional connection to that particular animal.
I wouldn't eat one of my pets, since I have an emotional connection to that animal, but something of the same species, I have no problem with, because I have no emotional connection to that particular animal.
That position makes good sense to me. It's probably one I'd share if I had any pets in the first place.
you've got no argument as to why they should be there or what purpose they serve us now, which is none.
Because that's an inherently impossible argument to make. You claimed that the feelings were "irrational;" I provided you with the rational basis for those feelings.
Here's a question: tell me "why" any given biological mechanism "should" be present. Here's a hint: any argument you make is wrong. Biological systems don't develop mechanisms because they "should."
And dogs still serve a useful purpose to lots and lots of people for lots and lots of reasons. Working dogs are still one of the best ways we have to herd sheep, cattle, chickens, and other such animals. Not to mention the innate tracking ability that many dogs have. How about guard dogs? Police dogs?
I guess it's just that many people extrapolate "my dog was an affectionate and complex individual. Therefore I know first hand that dogs have the capacity to possess these traits. I do not know the dog I am eating personally, but it is possible that it was as cool as my dog." Some people say "There is no way to know, this dog is a stranger, therefore, I do not care." Kinda like how you would risk your life to prevent your little sister from getting stabbed, but you may be more wary of risking everything for a complete stranger. Depends on how far your empathy extends. Some people are more empathetic toward the general populace, both of humans and of animals, and some focus only on individuals.
To clarify, I don't technically have an issue with eating dogs, horses, cats, or what have you. I just understand why most people do, and consider it to be a totally valid and rational stance to take.
You wouldn't eat a monkey, though. You told me so. And you said it wasn't just worries of interspecies disease transferral.
That one makes even more sense than not eating cats or dogs, honestly. If I wanted to get reductionist, it's probably an instinctual aversion to cannibalism; we're programmed to find eating our own species distasteful, and I'm sure that our programming doesn't readily distinguish between one ape and another.
Other animals are on a sliding scale of "nearly people." It all depends on where you want to draw the line.
We draw the line where it makes the most sense: at our nearest genetic neighbor who also happens to exhibit shockingly similar behavior to our own.
Don't fall into the evo-psych trap.
The only "trap" with evo-psych is extrapolating to value and/or moral judgements. Eating monkeys isn't wrong, but it's pretty fucking weird. Eating people isn't wrong, but it's distasteful and also objectively a bad idea.
There are plenty of cultures that encouraged cannibalism.
Sure we do, but does that mean they're not averse to it? A lot of cultures that practice cannibalism also have a lot of rituals and traditions about it. It takes a lot of psychological manipulation to convince people to do it.
You can manipulate people into fighting their instincts. The church does it all the time, demonizing sex and homosexuality to the point that they inflict psychological trauma on people. Once you start messing around with the brain like that, you can get all kinds of weird stuff. That does nothing to downplay the existence of those instincts.
Pigs are way smarter and more complex animals than dogs.
They're also only useful to us as food. Pigs are possibly the most ill-tempered creatures that exist, and they're not easily trained to do anything except eat and fucking kill you. They're far less useful in the roles that we normally reserve for dogs, so instead, we give them different roles, and train dogs to be useful.
Only when cured and smoked, or when barbequed, or slathered in brown sugar and apples. I do find plain pork to be rather bland.
Pork bred in North America is meant to be bland because of a change in attitudes earlier in America's history that motivated pig farmers to breed pigs with more lean, homogeneous flavored meat so it would taste more like chicken.
Comments
A weird example: I had rats growing up, and they were all funny and different, affectionate and smart. To this day, while I don't aid wild rats or stand in the way of people practicing practical vermin extermination, I would not be cruel to a rat. I have a respect for them as animals.
The two things couldn't be more different in my mind.
The two thoughts don't mingle naturally for me since on one hand there are these animals I love and on the other there's this dead thing that's delicious and skewered and comes with chili & lime sauce.
Here's a question: tell me "why" any given biological mechanism "should" be present. Here's a hint: any argument you make is wrong. Biological systems don't develop mechanisms because they "should."
And dogs still serve a useful purpose to lots and lots of people for lots and lots of reasons. Working dogs are still one of the best ways we have to herd sheep, cattle, chickens, and other such animals. Not to mention the innate tracking ability that many dogs have. How about guard dogs? Police dogs?
No, the feelings are far from useless.
Some people say "There is no way to know, this dog is a stranger, therefore, I do not care." Kinda like how you would risk your life to prevent your little sister from getting stabbed, but you may be more wary of risking everything for a complete stranger.
Depends on how far your empathy extends. Some people are more empathetic toward the general populace, both of humans and of animals, and some focus only on individuals.
You can manipulate people into fighting their instincts. The church does it all the time, demonizing sex and homosexuality to the point that they inflict psychological trauma on people. Once you start messing around with the brain like that, you can get all kinds of weird stuff. That does nothing to downplay the existence of those instincts.