#i dont want to use the big S word here but this has racist implications as well

[onyxandemerald]

Thank you for saying all of this! The whole philosophy around pets makes me extremely uncomfortable actually. If our westernized societies are this mentally and emotionally taxing and traumatizing for us, how should our pets feel? Just like humans, they have been stolen from their natural habitats and forced to preform in ways they have no instinct or skill to. Eugenics didn't save them and mold the species to fulfill our bidding, they just look fucky and now we're all confused.

And the sentiment that you can "own," an animal as a pet, I feel, is what's driving a big part of the human vs. nature division and dichotomy. Well those are wild animals, and this is a tame animal. That's a wild animal and I'm a person.

No, that animal has been manipulated into relying on you in the same way our bosses control our lives. We steal their autonomy and tell them that only through me, your loving owner, can you earn it back.

There is no moral or ethical divide between an animal and another animal. I am Homo sapiens sapiens. You are an apex predator and I'm so exhausted trying to act otherwise. There are no animals that are "right" to own and control.

I think sometimes people think eugenics is bad but its still true, like thinking that if people with certain traits have children it will change society for better or worse based upon what traits are promoted. I think its important to emphasize that eugenics is not only wrong morally it's also fake and stupid bullshit

Like eugenics was supposed to be based on the idea that "If it works with animals to select only the best ones to breed, why wouldn't it work with humans?"

well it doesn't work with animals, that's the thing. applying the eugenics ideas to domestic breeds of animals hasn't made better animals it's just made animals with more extreme expression of certain traits. turns out that when you decide which traits are the "best" and become obsessed with the genetic purity of the animals that have the "best" traits, you might well end up with some sad suffering creature like a Pug, or the Persian cats with the smashed faces that are in constant pain because their teeth and airways and brains are getting crushed by their skulls, or those meat chickens that grow so fast they can hardly even stand up after a few weeks old, or inbred race horses with tiny feet and fragile toothpick legs

like almost all traits are neither "good" or "bad" they're way more complex than that. a long tail or a long snout or a stubborn, independent personality can be good or bad depending on the situation. Who gets to decide what is a "good" trait or a "bad" trait? It's arbitrary and selecting for traits that are "good" in your opinion will often have both "good" and "bad" outcomes because the "good" and "bad" are part of each other and not separate its just part of being alive

Obviously oversimplifying everything but you get it. we did eugenics with dogs and how did that go? not very well