Special Bond between Dogs and Humans?

[WWGD]

I see where you’re coming from now. Well put.

To answer your question why it matters to me, at bottom I’m fascinated by the science and what it portends for the advancement of our understanding about the neurobiology/psychology of other animals as well. I’m not as focused on what it signals in terms of our preferences around pet selection, or what value a given animal might offer to us in other respects (I’m vehemently opposed to the use of dolphins for human entertainment). I do think this greater understanding of animal behavior should inform how we relate to them in turn— the greater our knowledge, the greater our responsibility to ensure we’re treating them with dignity.

Though animal rights isn’t the point of this thread, the science around how dogs perceive and relate to us should nevertheless inform discussions about our ethical obligations to them, for example, whether the dog should be derogated to the status of “food item”,
Beyond that, the take-away for me is simply the recognition that dogs are truly something special.

EDIT How is using them as food derogatory? As part of society they are, as are all of us, expected to contribute to its survival, as are all members of it, albeit all in different ways. Why should any group be considered to be above carrying their own weight? It is then up to you to prove that dogs do provide something significant-enough beyond their ability to serve as sustenance to justify their benefiting from domesticated life EDIT :Without being required to serve as sustenance..

 

[Klystron]

Modern societies produce an abundance of food; enough that humans do not need to devour "special" animals and with surplus to feed those millions of pets. Consider the status of cattle in predominantly Hindu cultures. Have Americans elevated Dogs to a similar protected; i.e., sacred, cultural status?

 

[WWGD]

Modern societies produce an abundance of food; enough that humans do not need to devour "special" animals and with surplus to feed those millions of pets. Consider the status of cattle in predominantly Hindu cultures. Have Americans given Dogs a similar protected cultural status?

But I don't think this is true for all Eastern Asian countries ; they have large patches of poverty in Vietnam and China. I am not advocating for it, I don't believe this is derogatory, as Activist stated. EDIT: Why would we distinguish between, say, Cows, Chickens, Turkeys, etc. and Dogs? Again, I would personally have trouble eating dogs, but I am trying to step away from my perspective in this issue. The abundance of food includes the "acceptable-to-kill" animals. Why and how do we distinguish between these two groups?

 

[Klystron]

Yes, I should separate those two statements as they are not directly connected.

Have dogs achieved a status in American culture analogous to "sacred cattle" in predominantly Hindu cultures?

Examples:

• Dogs are not an allowed food source. People who butcher dogs for food can be prosecuted and fined.
• Dogs are allowed in otherwise animal-free zones including food area, hospitals, public transport.
• Dogs are venerated in song and story, often heroically and nearly always anthropomorphically. (Old Yeller, Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin [really showing my age ;-])
  
• Though highly popular in sub-cultures, dog fights are strictly prohibited (but not human 'fights').

 

[WWGD]

Yes, I should separate those two statements as they are not directly connected.

Have dogs achieved a status in American culture analogous to "sacred cattle" in predominantly Hindu cultures?

Examples:

• Dogs are not an allowed food source. People who butcher dogs for food can be prosecuted and fined.
• Dogs are allowed in otherwise animal-free zones including food area, hospitals, public transport.
• Dogs are venerated in song and story, often heroically and nearly always anthropomorphically. (Old Yeller, Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin)
• Though highly popular in sub-cultures, dog fights are strictly prohibited (but not human 'fights').

But I think we are debating whether there is some "intrinsic" reason for this distinction and not just a random/accidental one. One of the standards is that this reason should apply throughout the world. It seems it does not , e.g., in Eastern Asian countries. Maybe it ought to apply there , but it does not seem to. EDIT And this last seems to argue against the intrinsic value of dogs; if there was such a thing, it seems dogs would be given the same level of treatment in different cultures. Can one argue that East Asian cultures are somehow misguided in the way they treat dogs? Or are the Western ones?

 

[russ_watters]

How is using them as food derogatory? As part of society they are, as are all of us, expected to contribute to its survival, as are all members of it, albeit all in different ways. Why should any group be considered to be above carrying their own weight? It is then up to you to prove that dogs do provide something significant-enough beyond their ability to serve as sustenance to justify their benefiting from domesticated life.

I think there are a number of us in here who would all answer this the same, based on previous discussion:

Dogs and humans have a "special" relationship that merits them not being eaten for no more or less complicated a reason than that we - in the USA anyway - have by consensus declared it to be so. There's nothing to "prove". It's a chosen/declared fact/status.

 

[WWGD]

I think there are a number of us in here who would all answer this the same, based on previous discussion:

Dogs and humans have a "special" relationship that merits them not being eaten for no more or less complicated a reason than that we - in the USA anyway - have by consensus declared it to be so. There's nothing to "prove". It's a chosen/declared fact.

I agree on that, but, if I understood correctly Advocate's point, she believes/claims that there is a special/intrinsic relationship that goes beyond cultural filtering and that is why she opposes dogs being used as food in some Eastern countries. Maybe she can clarify this.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree on that, but, if I understood correctly Advocate's point, she believes/claims that there is a special/intrinsic relationship that goes beyond cultural filtering and that is why she opposes dogs being used as food in some Eastern countries. Maybe she can clarify this.

If the claim is being made that dogs' status is (a) earned by an objective criteria that therefore (b) conveys certain objective rights and that is what you are objecting to, I think most here would agree with you. I would say that neither position is logical. Both contain arbitrary choices. E.G., we can declare a criteria and then measure it, but that doesn't make the measured result objective because the choice of criteria wasn't objective.

 

[WWGD]

If the claim is being made that dogs' status is (a) earned by an objective criteria that therefore (b) conveys certain objective rights and that is what you are objecting to, I think most here would agree with you. I would say that neither position is logical. Both contain arbitrary choices. E.G., we can declare a criteria and then measure it, but that doesn't make the measured result objective because the choice of criteria wasn't objective.

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

 

[russ_watters]

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.

 

[WWGD]

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.

Ouch? Self-preservation?

 

[russ_watters]

Self-preservation?

That's a perfectly viable (actionable) reason, but that doesn't make it objective.

 

[WWGD]

That's a perfectly viable (actionable) reason, but that doesn't make it objective.

A can of Soylent Green sent your way...

 

[Klystron]

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And old favorite kuru: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm

 

[WWGD]

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And some humans can be said to be detrimental to the survival of the species.

 

[WWGD]

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And old favorite kuru: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm

Still, in all fairness, humans have regulated themselves into lowering the overall population rate recently, excepting some parts of the world where sons are used to help one's survival , e.g. Africa.

 

[BillTre]

The spectre of infections with things like the prion diseases that @Klystron mentioned provide a good reason not to eat conspecifics (members of the same species).

In addition, lethal conflicts among members of the same species are often limited by evolved behaviors of the species in questionto limit such activity . However, this does not seem to limit the eating of dead offspring by parents after they die (such as mice or foxes (which I recently saw on a TV documentary)).

 

[russ_watters]

The spectre of infections with things like the prion diseases that @Klystron mentioned provide a good reason not to eat conspecifics (members of the same species).

Fair enough. That's a good reason, and if phrased right can be said to be objective. Maybe I need to add the word "definitive" or "enforceable" to my statement. We can also say (and vegans often do), that eating red meat carries certain health risks. That's measurably, objectively true.

[takes a bite of his PF Chang's Mongolian Beef, not dog or human, Stir-Fry]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

 

[symbolipoint]

but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

PERFECT!

 

[WWGD]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

Agreed. Sorry to go over this point again, but I believe Activist claimed there was such thing and would ultimately define what she meant and argue for why it would/should be such a standard.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed. Sorry to go over this point again, but I believe Activist claimed there was such think and would ultimately define what she meant and argue for why it would/should be such a standard.

Usually, the hope is that the judgement is negotiated and agreed to and then scored...

We're largely talking about the debate, not having it, so I'm going to sum up how the debate typically goes and why it is futile (which is also why we don't host such debates here).

The lack of objective or if preferred enforceable/definitive criteria is only part of the problem, and even doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Because these judgement can be declared "true" by convention, it is possible to arrive at a conclusive decision by agreeing up front to the criteria and then checking what the data says. For example, with @BillTree's statement we can say that *if* we agree the health risks as measured by risk of death from certain health concerns are higher eating people than eating beef, then we can measure that risk and agree that eating beef is preferable to eating people.

The logic of the debate works the same for "special" as for "unhealthy":
1. Agree that we should decide not to eat "special" or "unhealthy" things.
2. Negotiate and declare a criteria for measuring "special"/"unhealthy".
3. Research and score.
4. Judge the conclusion as agreed.

Something to keep in mind then when entering such a debate is that the person who is experienced in the debate often proposes the groundrules, often simply by stating the conclusion with a quick summary of the logic ("dogs are 'special' so we should not eat them"). And if the're any good, they already know the data, so they also propose the scoring system (a certain type of test/competition that dogs scored highest on). And that makes the label and criteria a trap. The debate is won or lost by negotiation, at its start. Recognizing that in some sense looks to me like why you brought this debate here (I hope, however this started, that you didn't agree at the outset to "we should not eat 'special' things").

But, as we've all seen in the news the past couple of years, humans tend not to accept negotiated outcomes when the outcome is unexpected. For this debate, I think that's actually fine. The debate is moot, so if it takes losing to realize it, so be it.

 

[WWGD]

Usually, the hope is that the judgement is negotiated and agreed to and then scored...

We're largely talking about the debate, not having it, so I'm going to sum up how the debate typically goes and why it is futile (which is also why we don't host such debates here).

The lack of objective or if preferred enforceable/definitive criteria is only part of the problem, and even doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Because these judgement can be declared "true" by convention, it is possible to arrive at a conclusive decision by agreeing up front to the criteria and then checking what the data says. For example, with @BillTree's statement we can say that *if* we agree the health risks as measured by risk of death from certain health concerns are higher eating people than eating beef, then we can measure that risk and agree that eating beef is preferable to eating people.

The logic of the debate works the same for "special" as for "unhealthy":
1. Agree that we should decide not to eat "special" or "unhealthy" things.
2. Negotiate and declare a criteria for measuring "special"/"unhealthy".
3. Research and score.
4. Judge the conclusion as agreed.

Something to keep in mind then when entering such a debate is that the person who is experienced in the debate often proposes the groundrules, often simply by stating the conclusion with a quick summary of the logic ("dogs are 'special' so we should not eat them"). And if the're any good, they already know the data, so they also propose the scoring system (a certain type of test/competition that dogs scored highest on). And that makes the label and criteria a trap. The debate is won or lost by negotiation, at its start. Recognizing that in some sense looks to me like why you brought this debate here (I hope, however this started, that you didn't agree at the outset to "we should not eat 'special' things").

But, as we've all seen in the news the past couple of years, humans tend not to accept negotiated outcomes when the outcome is unexpected. For this debate, I think that's actually fine. The debate is moot, so if it takes losing to realize it, so be it.

And yours is the best case, or at least not the worse one. There is also the "Infinite Regress" part: Why are dogs special? A: Because x_1. Why is x_1 the case? A: Because of x_2. Why is x_2 the case? ...At best, people will agree at a low value of x_@ . If not, you have a rabbit hole .

 

[symbolipoint]

Another look at the original post:

Hi All,
In a recent discussion ananimal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a special bond between humans and dogs, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn; wild , undomesticated dogs do not ,afaik, display any such bond. Can anyone clarify the issue for me here, please?

Okay so you wanted some clarification. A few posts point to this clarification.

Making this discussion any more productive seems difficult. There are a few others possible but I made reference mainly or only to Ray Coppinger. He gave a reasonable speculative discussion in beginning at time point 11:36, and at a few other points through the video.
Enjoy and learn as best you can, and look for other information or sources if member/s interested.

 

[russ_watters]

Making this discussion any more productive seems difficult. There are a few others possible but I made reference mainly or only to Ray Coppinger. He gave a reasonable speculative discussion in [MEDIA] beginning at time point 11:36, and at a few other points through the video.

Interesting. I only listened to a few minutes there, but basically he's arguing for passive (circumstantial and by choice of the "dogs") vs active (by our concerted effort) domestication. He's pretty vehement about it. Personally I don't see what the fuss is - they don't even appear to me to be mutually exclusive!

My transcription; "The idea that stone age people could tame and then train and then domesticate a dog is just ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. When I think of how much time it takes to train a dog, and think that those people back then, who have their own problems and they've got to spend weeks, months, training wolves, and the wolves are going to put up with this kind of thing..."

As shown in the earlier part of the video and quite obviously, a baby wolf is not entitled to choose not to "put up with" anything. People(particularly kids) taking care of sick or orphaned baby animals is practically a rite of passage that a huge fraction of even today's kids experience, even with our vastly reduced interactions with animals. His argument that animals followed around our waste streams and trained themselves to be able to handle being close to us for the purpose of enhancing that symbiosis is also perfectly reasonable. But that seems like an obvious entry-point to active domestication to me: wolves get close, humans kill the adults, kids adopt the orphans. If it goes well, you keep the adult as a pet, if it doesn't, you don't; selection.

 

[BillTre]

While it's true that dogs were likely the first pets and have long been the most or one of the most common, our reasons for picking them have of course evolved over time and the level of preference for other animals with it. I suppose it is impossible to know for sure, but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

I have long been interested in domestication, what it is and how its done (evolved).
That comparison with an owner/pet relationship would seem to involve a close physical relationship, often with behavioral give and take.
Other than plants and maybe fungi which are rarely considered pets, there are a collection of animals that have been domesticated.

However, not all pets are domesticated animals: turtles, many kinds of fish, for example, or any animal that has been collected, not bred, would automatically be ruled out as far as being domesticated since their breeding is not under human control.

This is wikipedia's initial definition of domestication:

Domestication has been defined as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1][12][29][30][31] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication process and the effects on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication have included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with resources that they could more predictably and securely control, move, and redistribute, which has been the advantage that had fueled a population explosion of the agro-pastoralists and their spread to all corners of the planet.[12]

Two things strike me about it:

1. Humans get at least some (intentional or unintentional (probably usually the case) control of breeding of the domesticee and therefore having intentional or unintentional influences upon the genetics of the domesticated animal. This is a powerful thing which over hundreds of generations can cause large changes.
   The reciprocal is also possible, for example: there are selective forces on humans to deal with cow milk digestively.
   
2. The relationship between humans and domesticated animals, resulting in benefits to both as well as changes to both, is similar to endosymbiosis where the two different cells (an achraea and a bacteria) fuse together, each (eventually) achieves a "better" situation WRT reproduction, and the environment of the large cell determines much of the reproduction of the contained archaea (now know as mitochondria).
   As a result of this relationship, the genetics of both entites (the larger cell and the mitochondria) are changed. The same relationships can be found in useful domesticated animals. The un-useful pet's return in the relationship might be limited to psychological perhaps combined with other behavioral traits (guarding, etc.).

His argument that animals followed around our waste streams and trained themselves to be able to handle being close to us for the purpose of enhancing that symbiosis is also perfectly reasonable. But that seems like an obvious entry-point to active domestication to me: wolves get close, humans kill the adults, kids adopt the orphans. If it goes well, you keep the adult as a pet, if it doesn't, you don't; selection.

An alternative scenario (not saying yours is wrong) is that those wolves the were following the humans around became selected as a separately from the main wolf population, became selected by an extension of the mechanisms you mentioned to become more domesticated to the extent that killing the adults would not be necessary.

Animals moving away from any early close human care and control of their breeding to the neighboring, less domesticated population of more loosely human associated animals would provide gene flow going in the other direction between these two populations.
Thus, they were genetically distinct from the normal wolves that were not associating with humans.

 

[russ_watters]

I have long been interested in domestication, what it is and how its done (evolved).
That comparison with an owner/pet relationship would seem to involve a close physical relationship, often with behavioral give and take.

I haven't, but for some reason this has piqued my interest. And because I haven't put long thought into this, it strikes me that what I just said that you quoted (from earlier today) contradicts the post immediately preceding. I'll mull that over...

However, not all pets are domesticated animals: turtles, many kinds of fish, for example, or any animal that has been collected, not bred, would automatically be ruled out as far as being domesticated since their breeding is not under human control.

Granted. They are captive, wild animals. I don't think we need to quibble over whether the word "pet" should include domestication in its definition [avoids reaching for his dictionary], or if captive, wild animals should be called something other than pets, so I'll go with considering them a subset of pets as you suggest. Either way, it is an important difference between types of pets.

1. The relationship between humans and domesticated animals, resulting in benefits to both as well as changes to both, is similar to endosymbiosis...

I started writing my response before reading your whole post and was researching parasites and symbiants before even getting to this part of your post. We're thinking along the same lines. My understanding of the definitions is that if another organism takes something from you its a parasite. If you get something in return and it is a net benefit, it is a symbiant.

An alternative scenario (not saying yours is wrong) is that those wolves the were following the humans around became selected as a separately from the main wolf population, became selected by an extension of the mechanisms you mentioned to become more domesticated to the extent that killing the adults would not be necessary.

Agreed. That sounds like what he proposes; by evolving behaviors that induce less conflict with humans, they could get closer - for improved access to the food - with lower risk of being killed. I think that's likely at least part of it, but I proposed a hybrid because that doesn't sound like a complete solution to me: if not raised from birth as a pet, at some point a human would have had to put a leash on a full-grown adult wolf, which seems like a necessary and difficult step in that logic. Though I said it, my hybrid doesn't actually require humans killing the adult wolves. Maybe the adult wolves died for other reasons. Maybe they abandoned the runt of the litter. But I think at some point a human had to make the decision; "I need to put this wolf on a leash/in a cage for my protection or his/hers."

Animals moving away from any early close human care and control of their breeding to the neighboring, less domesticated population of more loosely human associated animals would provide gene flow going in the other direction between these two populations.
Thus, they were genetically distinct from the normal wolves that were not associating with humans.

Agreed. "Those females are too close to those humans, I don't want to go over there looking for a mate". And vice vice vice versa.

 

[BillTre]

it strikes me that what I just said that you quoted (from earlier today) contradicts the post immediately preceding. I'll mull that over...

I think not.
There would have been many (thousands or more) interactions like this during the transition time when some wolves hanging out around human camps became more closely associated with humans.
I would guess all these different events happened many times in the evolving population as wolves and proto-dogs gradually separated genetically.

Here is a scenario I thought up which I think is interesting in this issue:

Proto-dogs become separated (somewhat) genetically, with different behavioral and morphological (size and shape) traits from wolves.
This might have included:

• behavioral traits of various kinds including nice behavior toward people
• size
• coloration and pattern

A population of proto-dogs living around a human camp detects an approaching bunch of wolves.
The smaller proto-dogs are potential prey form the wolves.
The proto-dogs raise a lot of noise as an alert (guard function). This rouses both proto-dogs and humans.
The proto-dogs, not being a physical match for the wild wolves, retreat into the human camp, where they are already somewhat accepted.
The humans (who consider wolves as enemies) fight off the wolves. Everyone (non-wolf) is happy.
The proto-dogs have a a stronger (psychological) bond with the humans.
This would create a situation where (through many repetitions of many generations) the proto-dog's coat color and pattern might be selected to be obviously different from wolves, in order to make them visually distinct to humans, and therefore less likely to be killed.​

 

[Rive]

This might be interesting in this regard.

A 2014 study found that 20% of wolves and 37% of dogs shared the same mitochondrial haplotypes in Georgia. More than 13% of the studied wolves had detectable dog ancestry and more than 10% of the dogs had detectable wolf ancestry.

For me this means that even with relative frequent crossbreeding the 'dog' and the 'wolf' can be kept separated simply by selection (the mentioned 'dogs held in a traditional way' includes killing off the 'incompatible' puppies and beating away the dangerous adults).

The proto-dogs, not being a physical match for the wild wolves

I don't think we can/have to say this. The traditional (livestock) guardian dogs are kept to guard against wolves and bears. The question is the actual function of the proto-dog in the human society. Hunting and guarding both required strong ones which could at least keep their own against other predators for some time.

 

[BillTre]

It may have been that before they were used to guard herds and battle predators, they just hung around human settlements and had to have a non-threatening relationship with the local humans.
Behavioral changes and smaller size would two major ways to be perceived as non-threatening, IMO.

Other paths to this acceptance might exist, but initially following around your herds (also know as your food) and being larger than wolves and able to fight them off (thereby also being a threat to humans, especially small ones) do not seem to promote human acceptance to having them in your midst.
Herd protection seems, to me, to be something that would show up later.

 

[Rive]

Herd guarding was just an existing example for the general function 'guard against the wild'. Existing ancient hunt breeds (the ones which are excepted to fight) are an example too. Both has examples for the same size as volves.

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.