Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#31

Post by JulianMorrison »

johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

It's not just animals. Wheat has been ridiculously successful by adapting itself to feed humans, who seed it in good growing soil and drive off its competitors and predators.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#32

Post by cJ0th »

dimitar wrote: post #22
johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

I've noticed the same thing about some car owners, I'm not sure who is doing more servicing, the car or the owner. Makes me wonder if cars are in fact domesticated.

James Carse writes about how machines are controlling us in "Finite and Infinite Games" Here are some quotes. There is some more in the book and some of it is (imo) quite a bit over the top. Interesting thoughts,though.

> While a machine greatly aids the operator in such tasks, it also disciplines its operator. As the machine might be considered the extended arms and legs of the worker, the worker might be considered an extension of the machine. All machines, and especially very complicated machines, require operators to place themselves in a provided location and to perform functions mechanically adapted to the functions of the machine. To use the machine for control is to be controlled by the machine.

(Apart from cars, the relationship between people and their smartphone comes to my mind)

>[..] We do not purchase an automobile, for example, merely to own some machinery. Indeed, it is not machinery we are buying at all, but what we can have by way of it: a means of rapidly carrying us from one location to another, an object of envy for others, protection from the weather.

> I cannot use machinery without using it with another. I do not talk on the telephone; I talk with someone on the telephone. I listen to someone on the radio, drive to visit a friend, compute business transactions. To the degree that my association with you depends on such machinery, the connecting medium makes each of us an extension of itself. If your business activities cannot translate into data recognizable by my computer, I can have no business with you. If you do not live where I can drive to see you, I will find another friend. In each case your relationship to me does not depend on my needs but on the needs of my machinery. If to operate a machine is to operate like a machine, then we not only operate with each other like machines, we operate each other like machines. And if a machine is most effective when it has no effect, then we operate each other in such a way that we reach the outcome desired-in such a way that nothing happens. [...]

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#33

Post by k-mcgrady »

ekianjo wrote: post #13
johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true? You don't consider that animals provide emotional comfort? And make owners exercise, as well, since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

>> "since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?"

If you don't want to go for a walk the pet isn't going to make you. If pet requires walks you're now a bad owner but you aren't forced to exercise with your pet.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#34

Post by VLM »

comex wrote: post #14
johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true? As someone who's lived in a household with dogs and a cat, I never saw it that way. After all, most pets do not provide any practical service to their owners. When I threw a stick over and over to have the puppy bring it back to me, I may have been the one running the show, supposedly the master, but I al…

>but humans get tired of repetition a lot faster than dogs

Adult humans, specifically. Thus the natural pairing of kids and dogs. Note this goes both ways, if the kids are driving the parents crazy, "go play fetch with the hound".

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#35

Post by brc »

johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

Well, it's true. Many a stray has adopted an owner. The relationship is symbiotic. All relationships have to be if they are to last.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#36

Post by putzdown »

It's an interesting article, but its use of "tool" is spurious. It appears in the title and is plunked down in front of us on the last line, but nowhere is the case made that dogs' greater social acceptance of humans amounts to anything like tool use. Great article; too bad about "tool."

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#37

Post by arethuza »

johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

When one of our cats (we have two Burmese) gives me a long hard stare, I am reminded of War of the Worlds:

minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#38

Post by Igglyboo »

johnloeber wrote: post #4

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it. I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelte…

Evolutionarily, domestication seems to be a jackpot.

Re: Dogs, but Not Wolves, Use Humans as Tools

#39

Post by Xylakant »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #33
ekianjo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true? You don't consider that animals provide emotional comfort? And make owners exercise, as well, since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

>> "since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?" If you don't want to go for a walk the pet isn't going to make you. If pet requires walks you're now a bad owner but you aren't forced to exercise with your pet.

That's not entirely true. I specifically notice that owning a dog structures the day in a specific way. The dog does not force me to go, but one effect of owning a dog is that it needs to go out multiple times a day, so I do. Even on days where I'd ordinarily not feel like, when it's raining, when I'm tired. I go for a longer hike every weekend, things that I'd not do or prioritize lower if I had no dog. And I don't think that respecting and caring for my pets needs by performing acts that I'd ordinarily not do makes me a bad owner.
Post reply on HN