Celivia, in preferring slavery to death ("the choice between being eaten or being part of a family") you would be of a mind with the vast majority of slaves transported from Africa from the seventeenth century onward. It doesn't mean they found it a satisfactory choice to have to make.

It is hardly relevant to the issue though, since the question I was asking was, isn't it preferable to be free? Very few household pets are candidates for the cooking pot anyway, so "animals-for-food" and "animals-as-slaves" are two separate issues.

And yes, I am suggesting we "outbreed" pets completely. Except that in my words, it would be that we make the keeping of animals for recreational or work purposes illegal, and punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both.

A quick walk through the zillions of web sites dedicated to the eradication of cruelty to pets shows a consistent theme. Here's a typical excerpt from thepetitionsite.com discussing an act of animal cruelty:

"Animal abuse by itself should be punished in the same manner as similar treatment towards a human. Please don't forget that animal abusers often "graduate" to human victims. How do you think Jeffrey Dahmer got his start?" [Jessica Cresseveur, 18th June]

If people are encouraged to believe that humans are somehow permitted to enslave animals for their own selfish needs, it is but a short step for them to think that they have the power of life and death over them too.

Think of it this way. We are visited by aliens from a planet where there are no domestic pets. What would you say to them when they asked “why do enslave animals for your private emotional gratification?” How would you explain keeping a dog on a leash, locking hamsters in a hutch, or imprisoning birds in a cage simply because they are colourful and can sing? Doesn't your heart lurch every time you think of the difference between the lorakeets that fly past in the morning, and the canary confined in the corner of the living room?

Pericles, of course it is preferable for a pet to be free as opposed to being a slave. It just depends on your point of view though- I do not see dogs and cats as being slaves. I think I am a slave to my two cats, lol.

I think my point about slavery and death is relevant when we look at the options you have to offer pets:
a) Live with a family who loves you as a companion (or as you call it, ‘slave’)
b) Be outbred and go into extinction. You will have no offspring.
c) Be set free, meaning be dumped somewhere in the wilderness to fence for yourself even though you have lost the ability to look after yourself. (Many animals have been domesticated for so long that they -as a species- have totally lost the ability to look after themselves; they need people to care for them).
Perhaps options b and c will be just as hard to justify to an alien as option a.

So, although I am against caging animals because caged animals aren’t able to act in a natural way, I believe ‘banning’ people from caging animals is not likely to happen because people in almost every culture on earth have been keeping and domesticating animals throughout the centuries. It's a thiong that humans have always done. They are not likely to give up animals, no matter what the viewpoints of animal activists are.
Therefore it would be more realistic and effective to take steps to improve the quality of caged animals. Lots can be done.

For example, to explain my point, lobbying for regulating/increasing the minimum size of a cage will be more successful than lobbying for making the keeping of pets illegal and outbreeding the animal plus jail sentences to perpetrators. How would we justify (to aliens if you like) that we locked up an old lady who was hiding her canary?

PERICLES..... 'WHAT' ? cough.. splutter.. choke.... barf.....

Are you serious ? "keeping domestic pets is slavery" ? I'm incredulous.

Surely you were tongue in cheek there....right ?

Further, you clearly don't have a pet cat :)

There are so many philosophical holes in the idea of 'pets/cruelty/slavery/raised for meat' thing, as expressed here its impossible to know where to begin.

Marilyn.... you need to get out more. Like BEYOND the farm to where your freaking LIFE depends on obtaining protein via the Mouse deer or Goanna or wild pig or deer which you manage to catch. etc etc...

There is so much psycho therapy needed for some of you that you would keep every graduate class of Harvard Psychology school going for 3 lifetimes.

-Eating animals is 'evil' (or, the difference between life and death or at least serious disease for many)
-Domestic pets is 'slavery' (or, teamwork in mutual surivival?)

Pericles.. PLEASE tell me that you don't believe that rot you trotted out about animal slavery.. puh-LEASE... (unless you were trying to redeem slavery) I really would like to continue to consider you a thinking debating opponent. (or at least condemn the Commonwealth Bank for the same reasons in relation to my mortgage)

All I can think of is Romans 1:20 (a-gain)

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—"

The extent that some contributors thoughts have reached is truly mind numbing and bewildering. "Make_it_up_as_you_go" -is on steriods AND Turbo.

P.S. Apart from God,'rights' ....do not exist, only privilages granted by 'power' do.

Under God, you have a 'right'

-to your legally acquired property.
-not to have your wife/husband/donkey/dog/cat/land lusted after by another man/woman.
-for honest testimony about you.
-right to be respected by your children.
-Not to be murdered

Boaz, I'm absolutely serious in my view that keeping animals as pets is abhorrent. Describing it as slavery is the closest I can get to the concept of a person exercising absolute authority over a defenceless creature. Particularly defenceless, I might add, not only through their size, but also their inability to talk, and therefore to discuss and argue. At least African slaves in America had the blues.

You suggest there might be "philosophical holes in the idea", but fail to elaborate - would you care to mount some form of defence of your position that is more than simple cat-lover's bluster?

Your Romans 1:20 reference is highly obscure to one not trained in your method of thinking. And the list of "rights" afforded to you by your God omits any reference to the spaying of cats to prevent them from inconveniently breeding. And don't let's even think about what horse owners allow to be done to their animals in the name of "sport".

For all the huffing and puffing, no-one has yet provided a sane and moral justification for what we do to domestic pets, save the irrelevant "we've always done it", and "they wouldn't know how to survive in the wild". Well, whose fault is that?

Without demand (for pets), there will be no supply. In one generation, we can put this barbaric practice behind us, if only we woke up to the fact that it is a practice that degrades us.

Pericles, let me sum up my view, for your clarity, because you seem to like repetition.

My view is that it will be more effective to take gradual, realistic, practical steps so that we can improve the quality of the lives of pets than it is to insist on radical laws to eradicate the keeping of pets.
My view is that these are unrealistic expectations and will cause resistance from people/communities.

Taking a practical, gradual approach is like being a guide dog leading the blind person to the right destination. Some things will improve and in time, more things will improve.
Demanding unrealistic, extreme changes is like being a lamb entangled in barbed wire. It’s getting nowhere and nothing will improve.

BTW is it relevant who’s fault it was that pets depend on people? The fact is, that they do. We have to deal with facts to solve problems.

Also, I do think it is relevant to take into regard that people have historically always either domesticated or hunted animals because this does strongly indicate that domesticating animals is interweaved into human nature and cultures.

Any repetition, Celivia, was for Boaz's benefit. I think we understand each other perfectly.

But since you have introduced a couple of new angles, I feel that I need to respond.

>>BTW is it relevant who’s fault it was that pets depend on people?<<

Well yes, it is. As a society we condemn the drug pusher more readily than the drug user, and this follows the same logic. Remove the root cause, and you remove the temptation.

The cycle of dependency - as with drugs - needs to be broken by some specific action, otherwise it will continue to drift along through sheer inertia. If we took a stand and said "this is not right, it must stop", at least we set a benchmark towards which we can strive.

>>it is relevant ... that people have historically [domesticated] animals because this does strongly indicate that domesticating animals is interweaved into human nature and cultures.<<

Historically, people have done many things that we are now ashamed of. Drowned witches, exacted indulgences from gullible peasants, hanged people in the town square, conducted cockfights, bear-baited for public amusement - the list is almost endless. Habit doesn't make it right, however, and over time we have become sufficiently civilised to recognize this, and have done something about it.

I am suggesting that it is time that we recognized that keeping domestic animals is in the same category of emotional self-indulgence, and needs to be itself consigned to history.