PETA

[ginckgo]

They overlook the fact that with the exception of the few wild places left on the planet nearly all animals are domesticated and 'systemic' - i.e symbiotic to some extent with human beings. Dogs evolution (and later selective breeding) makes them pretty well totally symbiotic with human beings. They learn to respond to human facial movements innately for example.

Cats. Well we can all fuck right off as far as they are concerned I guess.

I don't think 'domesticated' and 'symbiotic' mean what you think they mean.

Most animals (I'm going to assume that the usual mammalian bias applies) cannot actually be domesticated in the strict sense. Also while some individuals of a species may be successfully kept in captivity, that does not mean the whole species in the wild interacts well with humans.

Symbiotic means that two species both derive benefit from their interactions. Again, the vast majority of animals (and plants) are not benefited by interaction with humans, and in many cases it's distinctly negative.

There is little doubt that humans are, and have been for some time, the cause of a significantly elevated extinction rate among the world's species. This needs to be addressed, not because we want to keep the cuddly koala, but because diverse ecosystems are essential to maintaining our own quality of life.

This doesn't really relate directly to PETA, which seems to be more focused on the humane treatment of domestic animals. I support that agenda, but I'm often not convinced that the members quite understand the topic. With respect to that, I wish there was an extra option in the poll for that opinion.

[floppit]

ginckgo, you might want to offer some reference or expansion to claims such as:

Most animals (I'm going to assume that the usual mammalian bias applies) cannot actually be domesticated in the strict sense.

If you are referring to a number of species majority I suspect you may be correct, ie I suspect there are more wild species than domesticated ones, if you are referring to number of mammals as a whole it would be nice to see where your getting numbers from, if however it was meant as it sounds at a glance, to suggest species we accept as domesticated are unable to be so then evidence would clearly be essential.

Also, there are multiple aspects to our impact on the animal world, one being that we are a highly successful species that has simply over populated, neither PETA or ethical behaviour are going to correct this for some time, if ever - more likely nature or our own stupidity will render our demise. Therefore for any sensible discussion on our interactions with animals needs to begin realistically, ie to accept the reality of our own population - given that reality I would find it implausible to suggest that dogs have not gained an evolutionary advantage through a symbiotic relationship. Given our population what realistic chance would you perceive of dogs existing in the numbers they do without such a relationship? The same would go for many domesticated animals, as we take up inordinate space, something they need to survive, what realistically would have occurred without our 'keeping' them?

Take horses as an example, there are wild equines but only a few in terms of subspecies which is risky in evolutionary terms, yet the domesticated stock have a varied and very healthy gene pool. You may or may not know this but horses unlike cattle or sheep really NEED grass, they cannot diversify to other plants easily or effectively, this has in the past made them vulnerable as a species, but add our human liking for them and they have been offered considerable protection over many millennia.