Dogs are everywhere. Most of them are pets. The affection “between” a person and their pet is the lowest form there is. It isn’t based on any content, only their pleasant appearance or amusing antics. Whether pets give affection back to people is up to debate, but it’s not important. The pets don’t have a choice in the matter. On the other hand, affection between people is at least partly earned.
I know what your thinking. “I love my fuzzy wuzzy dog”. Maybe you do. But why? It’s a lame companion. It will never hold a good conversation with you, it can’t drive you around when you’ve been drinking all Monday morning, and you have to pick up it’s excrement. More importantly, there is likely a human being out there who needs, and deserves, your attention and affection more than your severely mutilated wolf.
That is why dogs are most common amongst single people and people who have settled down(given up). All you need to do to share affection with a dog is withhold it’s food and give it back on the condition that it does what you say. When you do that with humans, It’s called abuse.
Imagine a world without dogs. The single person would just be lonely. They’d either write a blog entry or go find somebody to love, but either outcome is a vast improvement on feeling affinity with a mammal that communicates by thrusting every muscle in it’s throat at once. The married and bored would have to do something to entertain themselves. Maybe they’d talk to each other, or, imagine this; pet each other! Remember when people did that? Maybe they’d pet other people. At least they’d be focusing on what matters: humanity.
It’s a baffling state of affairs when a family, because they are scared of humanity, purchases a dog to defend the house with money that could have gone to natural disaster relief. The dog eats food and consumes resources while humans starve and have nothing. Instead of taking care of one another, or friends, they take turns taking care of the dog. Human companionship and co-dependency has again been alienated. Orphan children remain unhelped. These priorities are skewed.
What they should be doing is buying $900 snakes and caseloads of Facundo Bacardi’s rum, like me.
3 comments:
You've got to have an imagination to love subservient animals such as dogs and to be able to form relationships with them. Which I do. For example when I was a child I was much more able to have "relationships" with animals. My childhood perception my old dog "Blaze" was one that set me as close to her as any of the humans living in my house. You must either have an imagination, be a megalomaniac asshole who gets a "God-trip" from animal ownership, or like you say Cobe, a person who is lonely in some respect that is also warped in their perception of worthwhile activities, to like dogs.
I like the company of dogs and enjoy observing their unique domesticated status in the animal world. In fact Im fascinated by all animals, warm and cold blooded alike. Its only natural for me to acquire a personal relationship or "sentimental familiarity" with things that Im fascinated by and are exposed to on a regular basis. Some may detest my sentimental-ness, arguing that no single object should hold any emotional value. I agree its illogical, but inevitably its a human part of me that at this juncture at least, isn't yet visibly malign to other aspects of my life. Also, I would argue to say that dogs are not just objects, they do have "personalities" as many of the more highly evolved mammals do. In fact most types of animals have some certain characteristics that could be categorized as "personality". Ive actually met dogs with discernibly more of a personality than some people who are simply unwilling or unable to reveal their true personalities. Dogs don't seem like they have the ability lie about their feelings, although maybe they do. There is a welcome sincerity and simplicity to dog's behavior. I think humans are just one aspect of a very intricate and colorful animal world.
In many ways the dog is man's worst enemy, but also their best friend. Just examine the genesis of the man-dog symbiotic relationship, by making each other's lives easier to survive, they in turn lower each of their respective qualities of life. Easiness does not always dictate higher quality of life. Hardship and pain are sometimes positive things, and in my opinion, sometimes obligatory in order to move forward in a positive manner.
Cobe, you'll find Im "in the middle" on almost every topic, and play the devils advocate far too often....I hope my pursuit of finding my own answers through conversation with others (and sometimes at the expense of logic) doesn't offend you too greatly..
I haven't owned a dog since my Chesapeake Bay retriever had a brain Aneurysm in front of me when I was 15, and I was forced to carry her 125 lb carcass out of my house while she was still in the height of rigor mortis. As pathetic as it may sound, I can honestly say in retrospect I loved her. Not only for the reasons you set forth about why humans have dogs, but also for practical ones, like protecting my life on several occasions. I might not be here today if it wasn't for her in those instances.
Excuse any irrationality on my part that I might not be aware of on this subject, but I wanted to comment because it was a blog entry that I enjoyed reading.
-Chris from ACCFFOS
i've thought about this post over the past couple days and thusfar i have managed to produce two, semi-mature criticisms.
1. what if, for whatever reason, dogs provide more pleasure to a lonely single person than finding other people. why is it that human "relationships" are somehow more legitimate simply because they are taking place primate-to-primate?
(which leads to my second objection)
2. what is so great about humanity? even if i could use the money i spend on taking care of my (hypothetical) dog to feed some of the starving people on the planet, why should i?
Humanity is great because beastiality isn't...
Post a Comment