There's no point in trying to change the topic, Fester.

>>I take it that means that you think animal trade should have no place in a future civilisation? This would drastically change Maccas and KFC<<

The topic is keeping animals for entertainment purposes. Even human slaves weren't traded for their food value.

While related at the conceptual level, vegetarianism is a whole different ball-game. The opening topic focussed on "animal euthanasia" in the pet-owning arena - if you would like to start another discussion on the treatment of animals by humans in general, go right ahead. I'd be fascinated to hear where you stand.

You make a good point, though...

>>...might civilisation not also be able to ensure that pets are not produced in barbarous circumstances?<<

As has been previously pointed out, the puppy-farm already treads a very fine line with existing cruelty laws. Chasing the practice even further underground by instituting more draconian measures to deter abuse is unlikely to change behaviours. The people who presently run those businesses clearly don't see animal welfare as their concern, so any form of crackdown will simply raise their costs, which will be passed onto the consumer anyway.

Far more effective to close off demand, wouldn't you think, if puppy protection is your goal?

>>...how you think that animals could take part in a working capacity in a future civilisation, yet not be able to be bought or sold? Surely something with an economic function has a monetary value?<<

You missed reading this part:

"With the exception, as I mentioned before, of animals who provide a rewarded service, such as guide dogs for the blind or working farm dogs."

Quick summary: we're talking pets, here. Animals kept for the amusement and entertainment of humans. Yabby's farm dogs, it appears, have the life of Riley, compared to the one in Paris Hilton's handbag.

<There's no point in trying to change the topic>

Not at all, Pericles. I was interested on your view of utility and entertainment. You seem to see the utility of animals as civilised, but their use for amusement as barbaric. Are you suggesting that people of the future will value something for its utility, and not its amusement? Primitive human life was mostly about practicing the skills of survival. Modern life has a much greater place for entertainment. People even pay to see Andre Rieu, so I think it likely that pets will continue to kept by their human owners for the pleasure they bring. But will pets satisfy this need in the future? This article might shed some light on this question.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.ece

Dawkin's article seems to support an analogy for pet ownership more akin to Yabby's pets than yours of the defeated Africans sold off to slave traders by the victorious tribal patriarch. And this brings forth yet another point that your view seems to go against the grain of evolution. Look at how quickly dogs have been bred to satisfy a need. Do you not think it will continue to be the case that pets will be bred to appeal to humans?

You bring up the subject of puppy farms again, but does this really make the ownership of puppies barbaric? It would seem akin to regarding clothes as barbaric because some of them are made by slaves. The production of clothes will always entail some exploitation, but I think it unlikely that wearing clothes will be abandoned as "all too hard" anytime soon. Would you agree that the downside of pets, as with clothes,must be weighed against the value that people see in them?

I can accept that, Fester.

>>I was interested on your view of utility and entertainment. You seem to see the utility of animals as civilised, but their use for amusement as barbaric.<<

Correct.

>>Are you suggesting that people of the future will value something for its utility, and not its amusement?<<

Not as such.

But if we had continued to view the use of slaves for their utility, we would still keep them, would we not.

What I am suggesting is that we will eventually come to regard the keeping of domestic pets for their amusement value, in the same light that we came to regard the keeping of slaves for their economic value.

>>People even pay to see Andre Rieu, so I think it likely that pets will continue to kept by their human owners for the pleasure they bring<<

Andre Rieu can choose to "entertain", or not. We can choose to be entertained by him, or not. Only one of the dog/human pairing has a choice.

(Loved the imagery though. I wonder if there might be a statistical correlation between pet-lovers and people who listen to Andre Rieu. There's a doctoral thesis in there, for sure)

>>Dawkin's article seems to support an analogy for pet ownership more akin to Yabby's pets<<

That's an interesting interpretation. The way I read it was that the dogs first "adapted" to the presence of humans:

"...natural selection had already sculpted wolves into self-domesticated 'village dogs’ without any human intervention... Village dogs are scavengers that frequent middens and rubbish dumps"

We first became part of their feeding world. Only later did we decide they should be adapted to fit into Paris Hilton's handbag.

>> Do you not think it will continue to be the case that pets will be bred to appeal to humans?<<

Only until we come to our senses. As we did with slavery.

>>You bring up the subject of puppy farms again, but does this really make the ownership of puppies barbaric?<<

I didn't link the two. But just for clarity, do you support the existence of puppy farms?

*"...natural selection had already sculpted wolves into self-domesticated 'village dogs’ without any human intervention... Village dogs are scavengers that frequent middens and rubbish dumps"*

That's the official line which I sometimes read, Pericles. Methinks
there is another plausible explanation. Humans hand reared a baby wolf
or two which they found. Wolves are social creatures, adopt their
new "tribe" and join in the hunt. They are soon found to be far
better at hunting then most humans, so more then earn their keep.

My three mutts have no trouble catching rabbits or anything else
that moves. They will bale up even the wildest sheep and only not
sink their fangs in, because that's how they are trained. They would
have no trouble hunting wild goats, wild sheep or anything else,
when they work as a pack. Some people hunt wild pigs with dogs.

So adopting a few young wolves would have been a major strategic
hunting advantage for human hunter gatherers.

Jewely: So no choice which kinda makes me think the way they live has everything to do with that lack of choice. If given the choice would they choose differently.

Hmmmm must lead a very insulated life. That's the way their ansestors lived , so that's the way they live. Not PC, but most of those people are primitive by our standards. If you don't know that you have a choice (bound by your cast) then you haven't.

Yabby: So adopting a few young wolves would have been a major strategic hunting advantage for human hunter gatherers.

One would have thought that these primitave people would have had enough trouble feeding themselves let alone extra mouths. But then again theres the scraps & they could eat the pups once they have grown big enough. I suppose a few escaped being eaten & hung around for the scraps, then the primitaves found them useful in providing early warnings of predators & warmth in the winter. It's adapting to the conditions which is what we humans do. Or die out.

*One would have thought that these primitave people would have had enough trouble feeding themselves let alone extra mouths.*

Err Jayb, the idea is that these animals are far better hunters
then you or I with a spear. They can kill far more food then they
need, leaving a surplus for the humans they have bonded with.

If I set you and a couple of my mutts loose in the wilderness,
you would most likely starve without their help of catching food
for you.