Live data from Hacker News

Why are there so many canines in fine art?

theatlantic.com

31–33 of 33 posts

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#31
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

That's not really how it worked. It's more accurate to say that dogs co-evolved with humans in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. We've only been actively selectively breeding dogs for a few thousand years. It's a pretty good relationship for the dogs from an evolutionary perspective. All of their needs are met forever, they experience essentially no hardship or struggle, and their species gets a free ride…

One's perspective on this discussion really hinges on the question you raise: if an animal has a 'better' life in captivity by various metrics -- lifespan, access to food, safety from predators, etc. -- is it morally right to keep them captive? What exactly are the metrics by which we judge quality of life and what values do we assign? Does a dog (or cat, or gorilla, or selectively bred human, ) have a concept of freedom or independence that carries weight? And what if that drive is extinguished through genetic modification?

There aren't clean answers to these questions, of course. We've essentially just described the same process of wolf-to-dog evolution from the two ends of the spectrum, and neither perspective is entirely wrong or right. I would like to point out a couple things, though:

> Over evolutionary time, wolves adapted to better fit the niche. Not because humans wanted that, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for a companion species to be more compatible with its host.

Take a step back and consider that statement. What made it evolutionarily advantageous is that humans wanted it. If humans didn't want a more compatible companion species, it wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous. You can't separate the advantage from human desires.

Selective breeding doesn't have to be entirely intentional. Early humans weren't practicing pedigree breeding on wild wolves, of course, but nonetheless it was artificial selection that drove evolutionary change. And for the past few thousand years, we very much have been actively and intentionally breeding them. Also -- this is beside the point, really, and total speculation, but -- given how early humans understood selective breeding in plants, it seems likely that they had some awareness of the knock-on effects of favoring friendlier wolves.

Regardless, the moral unease I feel is primarily about the current state of having another species tailored to serve our emotional needs, not how we got here. Even looking at dog to wolf evolution as an entirely natural process, does that justify everything we've done and are still doing to modify them to suit our desires? Dogs as a species may benefit from our ownership, but does that make all the individual suffering we cause okay? We think of dogs living a life of privilege and comfort, and many do, but just as many have abusive owners or are living on the streets, often with worse quality of life than wild wolves today.

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#32
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worded that poorly. It’s a bit of a tautology but what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position. I’m doing this to illustrate why the man:dog relationship is easy. The dog automatically subjugates itself. Of course humans will find that very co…

> there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position To extend your analogy, is there more violence and cruelty against dogs (by humans) today compared with when wolves and men were more or less equals? Even scaled for populations, I think the answer reveals itself simply. Being in a subservient position means being a recipient of violence. Because humans, like it or not, a…

I don’t disagree with the take. In retrospect a cult could have been a better analog. In any case the main point I was trying to make initially is that the human:dog relationship is admired by many because it is “easy”, the dog forgiving and unconditional but that mostly stems from its instinct to be subservient and submissive. If the dog were more independent and an equal in the relationship with humans there could be less warmth and affection. I think there is also similarity to people’s feelings towards toddlers and rebellious teens —by some people.

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#33
post #5

The human-dog relationship is maybe my favorite thing about being human. We've bred this companion animal that we're able to bond with so deeply, and I so appreciate the simplicity of the bidirectional unconditional love. So rare between humans, so common human-to-dog. This article makes an interesting point about dog attention as a focal point in art - not something I'd noticed before, but I enjoy having it pointed…

That the dogs are just about always subordinates and subservient makes the relationship easier to work -and of course, dogs are happy to comply since it's part of their instinct to be subordinate in the presence of a dominant being (canine or person). Human to human is a little more difficult since outside of structured organization, we don't tend to play subordinate in most Western culture. You do see some cultures…

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife

Aside from morality police arresting or even whipping women on the street for infractions of the sexist laws... Yeah, places like Iran are a virtual Heaven on Earth for women.

Post reply on HN