Let's wipe dogs off the face of the earth!!

[Tim Gier]

So we've totally messed up the way that dogs (and cats too) live in the world. They're genetically modified organisms that live compromised lives. But is the solution to the problem we've created to eradicate them from the planet? I mean, do dogs live such terrible lives that no dogs could have lives worth living? Would it be better for no dogs to ever live than for dogs to live the lives they are capable of living? Would dogs choose to have their species eliminated if they were able to choose?

It seems to me that some animal advocates look at the mess we've made and rather than try to fix it, they think the easier thing to do would just be to wipe it out - eliminate the dogs and the problem we caused would be eliminated along with them.

Can that be the right answer?

[Susan Cho]

No.

;) OK, OK.  Your question about the preference of dogs distills the whole issue beautifully.  Where do we get off making pronouncements according to our ideas/observations, without their consent, and probably against their wishes?  I think we should withdraw our involvement as much as possible.  Continue to sterilize as least as long as anybody is breeding them.  Some of the more extreme characteristics will disappear, b/c they are incompatible with life.  After that, I'm not sure how/when to hand the control back to them.  Sounds like US-Iraq or GB-Hong Kong!

[Tim Gier]

I don't have any easy answers to these questions, that I am sure of. I remember Alex Pacheco talking about an "infertility pill" that he's trying to get developed - that may be one part of the solution. However, I know what isn't part of the solution, and that's preventing all dogs from ever breeding again. Francione says that if the last two dogs on Earth were under his care, he'd prevent them from reproducing. Let's be glad that lots of people other than Francione care for dogs!!

Susan Cho said:

No.

;) OK, OK.  Your question about the preference of dogs distills the whole issue beautifully.  Where do we get off making pronouncements according to our ideas/observations, without their consent, and probably against their wishes?  I think we should withdraw our involvement as much as possible.  Continue to sterilize as least as long as anybody is breeding them.  Some of the more extreme characteristics will disappear, b/c they are incompatible with life.  After that, I'm not sure how/when to hand the control back to them.  Sounds like US-Iraq or GB-Hong Kong!

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think that when Gary claims that he'd prevent the last two dogs from breeding, he's referring to domesticated dogs who are completely dependent on humans for their every need. I don't know that I'd be willing to force extinction on a species, or deny the rights of other individuals to breed - one of the most basic needs/instincts most individuals have, but I do think that if we can prevent as many individuals (or species) as possible from being completely dependent on humans for their survival, and all other needs, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. 

This is one of the (many) reasons I'm opposed to the idea of altering the biology of free living carnivores in order to prevent them from being, well, carnivorous. Human supremacy and the idea that it's OK to force others to become dependent on us is something we need to avoid, desperately, in my opinion. 

[Andres Grijalva]

I'd have to agree with Fancione on this one. I would do the same and I care about those animals who are alive. The fact that Francione would stop the last two dogs on the planet from breeding, doesn't mean that he would not give them all the care and love they deserve. The suffering of nearly a billion dogs suffering all over the world is the direct consequence of our selfish desire to keep this "artificial" species alive. Does an individual animal really care about the survival of the species or does he care more about its own suffering? 

Let me ask you this: would you encourage the last two dogs on the planet to breed, even though you can almost 100% guarantee that this would sentence future dogs to a life of suffering that it is difficult for us to even imagine?

I think that giving up our desire to keep species alive as opposed to individuals happy is a  must if we hope to ever achieve something meaningful. 

Tim Gier said:

I don't have any easy answers to these questions, that I am sure of. I remember Alex Pacheco talking about an "infertility pill" that he's trying to get developed - that may be one part of the solution. However, I know what isn't part of the solution, and that's preventing all dogs from ever breeding again. Francione says that if the last two dogs on Earth were under his care, he'd prevent them from reproducing. Let's be glad that lots of people other than Francione care for dogs!!

Susan Cho said:

No.

;) OK, OK.  Your question about the preference of dogs distills the whole issue beautifully.  Where do we get off making pronouncements according to our ideas/observations, without their consent, and probably against their wishes?  I think we should withdraw our involvement as much as possible.  Continue to sterilize as least as long as anybody is breeding them.  Some of the more extreme characteristics will disappear, b/c they are incompatible with life.  After that, I'm not sure how/when to hand the control back to them.  Sounds like US-Iraq or GB-Hong Kong!

[Tim Gier]

There are people who don't properly care for dogs. The solution to that problem isn't to eliminate dogs.

Andres Grijalva said:

I'd have to agree with Fancione on this one. I would do the same and I care about those animals who are alive. The fact that Francione would stop the last two dogs on the planet from breeding, doesn't mean that he would not give them all the care and love they deserve. 

[Spencer Lo]

Interestingly, when GF claims that he wouldn't allow the last 2 dogs on the planet to breed, he's imaging an ideal scenario where dogs are no longer property, have a similar legal status to children, and will be guaranteed loving homes. Even then, GF is against domestication. Why? He doesn't provide much of an argument, except to assert that because dogs are life-long dependents, our relationship with them is somehow morally problematic.

However, imagine a one-month pregnant woman finds out that her child will be severely disabled and therefore a life-long dependent. Is she morally obligated to get an abortion? According GF, the answer must be 'yes'; if bringing life-long, dependent non-humans into existence is problematic, then so is bringing life-long, dependent humans into existence (what non-speciesist difference is there between the two?). Yet I doubt GF would object to the latter, which most people believe is okay.

I wrote about GF's position here: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/is-a-pet-free-world-mor...

[Tim Gier]

Thanks Spencer. In your blog post you make a very good argument.

Spencer Lo said:

Interestingly, when GF claims that he wouldn't allow the last 2 dogs on the planet to breed, he's imaging an ideal scenario where dogs are no longer property, have a similar legal status to children, and will be guaranteed loving homes. Even then, GF is against domestication. Why? He doesn't provide much of an argument, except to assert that because dogs are life-long dependents, our relationship with them is somehow morally problematic.

However, imagine a one-month pregnant woman finds out that her child will be severely disabled and therefore a life-long dependent. Is she morally obligated to get an abortion? According GF, the answer must be 'yes'; if bringing life-long, dependent non-humans into existence is problematic, then so is bringing life-long, dependent humans into existence (what non-speciesist difference is there between the two?). Yet I doubt GF would object to the latter, which most people believe is okay.

I wrote about GF's position here: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/is-a-pet-free-world-mor...

[Andres Grijalva]

The first thing we need to be asking ourselves is why we want to keep the species going at the expense of their suffering. Is it for their individual benefit? No! Then why? Why do we have the desire to continue on with the result of our ancestors mistake to tamper with animals? Is it the same reason that a conservationist is willing to "cull", as they call it, thousands of animals in order for the species to be preserved? I think we need to stop worrying about species and start worrying about individual animals. 

You're right that the solution to people not caring for dogs is not to eliminate dogs, but we're not talking about the solution to that problem are we? We're talking about the fact that around 600 million dogs are suffering due to the fact that people feel the desire to keep the species going even though they have seen the consequences. And don't get me started on the fact that if we continue with our ridiculous desire to have animals as companionship we will have to continue killing other animals such as chickens, lambs, cows, etc in order to feed them. 

If people really cared for dogs, they would put their own agendas aside and really consider what is best for each individual animals, because those millions of dogs suffering and those who are well cared for gain nothing from our selfish desire to have their species alive forever. To keep them, would be to keep them for our own benefit. 

Tim Gier said:

There are people who don't properly care for dogs. The solution to that problem isn't to eliminate dogs.

Andres Grijalva said:

I'd have to agree with Fancione on this one. I would do the same and I care about those animals who are alive. The fact that Francione would stop the last two dogs on the planet from breeding, doesn't mean that he would not give them all the care and love they deserve. 

[Andres Grijalva]

Your comparison is not an adequate one. You're talking about taking a life when you talk about abortion, but Gary never mentions the taking of a life when he talks about not letting dogs breed. It would be like comparing a woman getting a hysterectomy with a woman getting an abortion. They're not the same thing. We should focus on what he actually says. A more adequate comparison would have been a woman who is 100% sure that her should she decide to conceive, her child would be severely disabled to the point that the child would depend on her the same way that domesticated animals depend on us. Don't you see anything wrong with domesticating animals?

Spencer Lo said:

Interestingly, when GF claims that he wouldn't allow the last 2 dogs on the planet to breed, he's imaging an ideal scenario where dogs are no longer property, have a similar legal status to children, and will be guaranteed loving homes. Even then, GF is against domestication. Why? He doesn't provide much of an argument, except to assert that because dogs are life-long dependents, our relationship with them is somehow morally problematic.

However, imagine a one-month pregnant woman finds out that her child will be severely disabled and therefore a life-long dependent. Is she morally obligated to get an abortion? According GF, the answer must be 'yes'; if bringing life-long, dependent non-humans into existence is problematic, then so is bringing life-long, dependent humans into existence (what non-speciesist difference is there between the two?). Yet I doubt GF would object to the latter, which most people believe is okay.

I wrote about GF's position here: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/is-a-pet-free-world-mor...

[Tim Gier]

But this isn't a question of us keeping the species going. Francione advocates for altering the reproductive biology of dogs in order to prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them. He is in favor of eliminating the species from the planet. I am not suggesting that we do nothing, I am suggesting that Francione's solution is radical, wrong and impossible. Like the rest of his "theory" of animal rights, it has little or no practical value or application in the real world.

Andres Grijalva said:

The first thing we need to be asking ourselves is why we want to keep the species going at the expense of their suffering. Is it for their individual benefit? No! Then why? Why do we have the desire to continue on with the result of our ancestors mistake to tamper with animals? Is it the same reason that a conservationist is willing to "cull", as they call it, thousands of animals in order for the species to be preserved? I think we need to stop worrying about species and start worrying about individual animals. 

 

[Andres Grijalva]

But we need to remember that he's not talking about altering the reproductive biology of dogs in order to prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them. He's talking about doing it to stop them from suffering. Are you against neutering companion animals? Do you think we should let them breed? Do you know how much suffering not neutering them would caused?

He is in favour of eliminating a man-created species from the planet. What is so wrong with that? There's no cruelty involved in doing so. Fancione's solution is radical, but it is the only solution to this problem, there's no other solution or reasonable alternative with human's current state of evolution. It may be radical and it may even be impossible, but the same is being said about a world without eating animals. The fact that some may consider a suggestion radical or impossible, doesn't mean it is not the correct one. 

We should not be dismissing what he suggests just because it comes from him. The fact that a theory is not practical, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. He is suggesting what should be done in order to minimize, or in this case completely avoid, the suffering of another creature. There's nothing wrong with that! To suggest otherwise would not make sense. The fact that people will never do what he suggest, and what I believe is the right thing to do, does not make his suggestion any less valid or correct - a practical plan of action may be missing, but the suggestion is the right one if our aim is to minimize the suffering cause by us. 

Tim Gier said:

But this isn't a question of us keeping the species going. Francione advocates for altering the reproductive biology of dogs in order to prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them. He is in favor of eliminating the species from the planet. I am not suggesting that we do nothing, I am suggesting that Francione's solution is radical, wrong and impossible. Like the rest of his "theory" of animal rights, it has little or no practical value or application in the real world.

Andres Grijalva said:

The first thing we need to be asking ourselves is why we want to keep the species going at the expense of their suffering. Is it for their individual benefit? No! Then why? Why do we have the desire to continue on with the result of our ancestors mistake to tamper with animals? Is it the same reason that a conservationist is willing to "cull", as they call it, thousands of animals in order for the species to be preserved? I think we need to stop worrying about species and start worrying about individual animals. 

 

[Tim Gier]

Not all dogs live lives of suffering and not all dogs who suffer in life suffer all the time. There are lots and lots of dogs who live perfectly healthy and happy lives. I don't support the endless commercialized breeding of dogs as it happens now, and I don't support eliminating dogs from the planet. Those are not the only two options open to us.  There must be a better way. 

I don't reject anything that Francione advocates just because he advocates it. I reject some things that he advocates for because there are very good reasons to reject them. This is one of those things.

Andres Grijalva said:

But we need to remember that he's not talking about altering the reproductive biology of dogs in order to prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them. He's talking about doing it to stop them from suffering. Are you against neutering companion animals? Do you think we should let them breed? Do you know how much suffering not neutering them would caused?

He is in favour of eliminating a man-created species from the planet. What is so wrong with that? There's no cruelty involved in doing so. Fancione's solution is radical, but it is the only solution to this problem, there's no other solution or reasonable alternative with human's current state of evolution. It may be radical and it may even be impossible, but the same is being said about a world without eating animals. The fact that some may consider a suggestion radical or impossible, doesn't mean it is not the correct one. 

We should not be dismissing what he suggests just because it comes from him. The fact that a theory is not practical, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. He is suggesting what should be done in order to minimize, or in this case completely avoid, the suffering of another creature. There's nothing wrong with that! To suggest otherwise would not make sense. The fact that people will never do what he suggest, and what I believe is the right thing to do, does not make his suggestion any less valid or correct - a practical plan of action may be missing, but the suggestion is the right one if our aim is to minimize the suffering cause by us. 

Tim Gier said:

But this isn't a question of us keeping the species going. Francione advocates for altering the reproductive biology of dogs in order to prevent them from doing what comes naturally to them. He is in favor of eliminating the species from the planet. I am not suggesting that we do nothing, I am suggesting that Francione's solution is radical, wrong and impossible. Like the rest of his "theory" of animal rights, it has little or no practical value or application in the real world.

Andres Grijalva said:

The first thing we need to be asking ourselves is why we want to keep the species going at the expense of their suffering. Is it for their individual benefit? No! Then why? Why do we have the desire to continue on with the result of our ancestors mistake to tamper with animals? Is it the same reason that a conservationist is willing to "cull", as they call it, thousands of animals in order for the species to be preserved? I think we need to stop worrying about species and start worrying about individual animals.