Special Bond between Dogs and Humans?

[WWGD]

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.

Ouch? Self-preservation?

 

[russ_watters]

Self-preservation?

That's a perfectly viable (actionable) reason, but that doesn't make it objective.

 

[WWGD]

That's a perfectly viable (actionable) reason, but that doesn't make it objective.

A can of Soylent Green sent your way...

 

[Klystron]

Fair enough. In the meantime, I'll roll in a little hand grenade: there is no objective criteria for not eating people either.

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And old favorite kuru: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm

 

[WWGD]

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And some humans can be said to be detrimental to the survival of the species.

 

[WWGD]

This also crossed my mind. Also, that animal population control should include homo sapiens.

Some human parts are considered dangerous to eat. See the following list of prion diseases in human organs.
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/index.html

And old favorite kuru: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm

Still, in all fairness, humans have regulated themselves into lowering the overall population rate recently, excepting some parts of the world where sons are used to help one's survival , e.g. Africa.

 

[BillTre]

The spectre of infections with things like the prion diseases that @Klystron mentioned provide a good reason not to eat conspecifics (members of the same species).

In addition, lethal conflicts among members of the same species are often limited by evolved behaviors of the species in questionto limit such activity . However, this does not seem to limit the eating of dead offspring by parents after they die (such as mice or foxes (which I recently saw on a TV documentary)).

 

[russ_watters]

The spectre of infections with things like the prion diseases that @Klystron mentioned provide a good reason not to eat conspecifics (members of the same species).

Fair enough. That's a good reason, and if phrased right can be said to be objective. Maybe I need to add the word "definitive" or "enforceable" to my statement. We can also say (and vegans often do), that eating red meat carries certain health risks. That's measurably, objectively true.

[takes a bite of his PF Chang's Mongolian Beef, not dog or human, Stir-Fry]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

 

[symbolipoint]

but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

PERFECT!

 

[WWGD]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

Agreed. Sorry to go over this point again, but I believe Activist claimed there was such thing and would ultimately define what she meant and argue for why it would/should be such a standard.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed. Sorry to go over this point again, but I believe Activist claimed there was such think and would ultimately define what she meant and argue for why it would/should be such a standard.

Usually, the hope is that the judgement is negotiated and agreed to and then scored...

We're largely talking about the debate, not having it, so I'm going to sum up how the debate typically goes and why it is futile (which is also why we don't host such debates here).

The lack of objective or if preferred enforceable/definitive criteria is only part of the problem, and even doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Because these judgement can be declared "true" by convention, it is possible to arrive at a conclusive decision by agreeing up front to the criteria and then checking what the data says. For example, with @BillTree's statement we can say that *if* we agree the health risks as measured by risk of death from certain health concerns are higher eating people than eating beef, then we can measure that risk and agree that eating beef is preferable to eating people.

The logic of the debate works the same for "special" as for "unhealthy":
1. Agree that we should decide not to eat "special" or "unhealthy" things.
2. Negotiate and declare a criteria for measuring "special"/"unhealthy".
3. Research and score.
4. Judge the conclusion as agreed.

Something to keep in mind then when entering such a debate is that the person who is experienced in the debate often proposes the groundrules, often simply by stating the conclusion with a quick summary of the logic ("dogs are 'special' so we should not eat them"). And if the're any good, they already know the data, so they also propose the scoring system (a certain type of test/competition that dogs scored highest on). And that makes the label and criteria a trap. The debate is won or lost by negotiation, at its start. Recognizing that in some sense looks to me like why you brought this debate here (I hope, however this started, that you didn't agree at the outset to "we should not eat 'special' things").

But, as we've all seen in the news the past couple of years, humans tend not to accept negotiated outcomes when the outcome is unexpected. For this debate, I think that's actually fine. The debate is moot, so if it takes losing to realize it, so be it.

 

[WWGD]

Usually, the hope is that the judgement is negotiated and agreed to and then scored...

We're largely talking about the debate, not having it, so I'm going to sum up how the debate typically goes and why it is futile (which is also why we don't host such debates here).

The lack of objective or if preferred enforceable/definitive criteria is only part of the problem, and even doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Because these judgement can be declared "true" by convention, it is possible to arrive at a conclusive decision by agreeing up front to the criteria and then checking what the data says. For example, with @BillTree's statement we can say that *if* we agree the health risks as measured by risk of death from certain health concerns are higher eating people than eating beef, then we can measure that risk and agree that eating beef is preferable to eating people.

The logic of the debate works the same for "special" as for "unhealthy":
1. Agree that we should decide not to eat "special" or "unhealthy" things.
2. Negotiate and declare a criteria for measuring "special"/"unhealthy".
3. Research and score.
4. Judge the conclusion as agreed.

Something to keep in mind then when entering such a debate is that the person who is experienced in the debate often proposes the groundrules, often simply by stating the conclusion with a quick summary of the logic ("dogs are 'special' so we should not eat them"). And if the're any good, they already know the data, so they also propose the scoring system (a certain type of test/competition that dogs scored highest on). And that makes the label and criteria a trap. The debate is won or lost by negotiation, at its start. Recognizing that in some sense looks to me like why you brought this debate here (I hope, however this started, that you didn't agree at the outset to "we should not eat 'special' things").

But, as we've all seen in the news the past couple of years, humans tend not to accept negotiated outcomes when the outcome is unexpected. For this debate, I think that's actually fine. The debate is moot, so if it takes losing to realize it, so be it.

And yours is the best case, or at least not the worse one. There is also the "Infinite Regress" part: Why are dogs special? A: Because x_1. Why is x_1 the case? A: Because of x_2. Why is x_2 the case? ...At best, people will agree at a low value of x_@ . If not, you have a rabbit hole .

 

[symbolipoint]

Another look at the original post:

Hi All,
In a recent discussion ananimal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a special bond between humans and dogs, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn; wild , undomesticated dogs do not ,afaik, display any such bond. Can anyone clarify the issue for me here, please?

Okay so you wanted some clarification. A few posts point to this clarification.

Making this discussion any more productive seems difficult. There are a few others possible but I made reference mainly or only to Ray Coppinger. He gave a reasonable speculative discussion in beginning at time point 11:36, and at a few other points through the video.
Enjoy and learn as best you can, and look for other information or sources if member/s interested.

 

[russ_watters]

Making this discussion any more productive seems difficult. There are a few others possible but I made reference mainly or only to Ray Coppinger. He gave a reasonable speculative discussion in [MEDIA] beginning at time point 11:36, and at a few other points through the video.

Interesting. I only listened to a few minutes there, but basically he's arguing for passive (circumstantial and by choice of the "dogs") vs active (by our concerted effort) domestication. He's pretty vehement about it. Personally I don't see what the fuss is - they don't even appear to me to be mutually exclusive!

My transcription; "The idea that stone age people could tame and then train and then domesticate a dog is just ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. When I think of how much time it takes to train a dog, and think that those people back then, who have their own problems and they've got to spend weeks, months, training wolves, and the wolves are going to put up with this kind of thing..."

As shown in the earlier part of the video and quite obviously, a baby wolf is not entitled to choose not to "put up with" anything. People(particularly kids) taking care of sick or orphaned baby animals is practically a rite of passage that a huge fraction of even today's kids experience, even with our vastly reduced interactions with animals. His argument that animals followed around our waste streams and trained themselves to be able to handle being close to us for the purpose of enhancing that symbiosis is also perfectly reasonable. But that seems like an obvious entry-point to active domestication to me: wolves get close, humans kill the adults, kids adopt the orphans. If it goes well, you keep the adult as a pet, if it doesn't, you don't; selection.

 

[BillTre]

While it's true that dogs were likely the first pets and have long been the most or one of the most common, our reasons for picking them have of course evolved over time and the level of preference for other animals with it. I suppose it is impossible to know for sure, but it is likely that originally most if not all animal domestication was for food or service, not for relationships (except as a means to improve the service). But humans form relationships quickly. And today, pets are almost exclusively for relationships, though the lines may blur with explicitly designated "service animals".

I have long been interested in domestication, what it is and how its done (evolved).
That comparison with an owner/pet relationship would seem to involve a close physical relationship, often with behavioral give and take.
Other than plants and maybe fungi which are rarely considered pets, there are a collection of animals that have been domesticated.

However, not all pets are domesticated animals: turtles, many kinds of fish, for example, or any animal that has been collected, not bred, would automatically be ruled out as far as being domesticated since their breeding is not under human control.

This is wikipedia's initial definition of domestication:

Domestication has been defined as "a sustained multi-generational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest, and through which the partner organism gains advantage over individuals that remain outside this relationship, thereby benefitting and often increasing the fitness of both the domesticator and the target domesticate."[1][12][29][30][31] This definition recognizes both the biological and the cultural components of the domestication process and the effects on both humans and the domesticated animals and plants. All past definitions of domestication have included a relationship between humans with plants and animals, but their differences lay in who was considered as the lead partner in the relationship. This new definition recognizes a mutualistic relationship in which both partners gain benefits. Domestication has vastly enhanced the reproductive output of crop plants, livestock, and pets far beyond that of their wild progenitors. Domesticates have provided humans with resources that they could more predictably and securely control, move, and redistribute, which has been the advantage that had fueled a population explosion of the agro-pastoralists and their spread to all corners of the planet.[12]

Two things strike me about it:

1. Humans get at least some (intentional or unintentional (probably usually the case) control of breeding of the domesticee and therefore having intentional or unintentional influences upon the genetics of the domesticated animal. This is a powerful thing which over hundreds of generations can cause large changes.
   The reciprocal is also possible, for example: there are selective forces on humans to deal with cow milk digestively.
   
2. The relationship between humans and domesticated animals, resulting in benefits to both as well as changes to both, is similar to endosymbiosis where the two different cells (an achraea and a bacteria) fuse together, each (eventually) achieves a "better" situation WRT reproduction, and the environment of the large cell determines much of the reproduction of the contained archaea (now know as mitochondria).
   As a result of this relationship, the genetics of both entites (the larger cell and the mitochondria) are changed. The same relationships can be found in useful domesticated animals. The un-useful pet's return in the relationship might be limited to psychological perhaps combined with other behavioral traits (guarding, etc.).

His argument that animals followed around our waste streams and trained themselves to be able to handle being close to us for the purpose of enhancing that symbiosis is also perfectly reasonable. But that seems like an obvious entry-point to active domestication to me: wolves get close, humans kill the adults, kids adopt the orphans. If it goes well, you keep the adult as a pet, if it doesn't, you don't; selection.

An alternative scenario (not saying yours is wrong) is that those wolves the were following the humans around became selected as a separately from the main wolf population, became selected by an extension of the mechanisms you mentioned to become more domesticated to the extent that killing the adults would not be necessary.

Animals moving away from any early close human care and control of their breeding to the neighboring, less domesticated population of more loosely human associated animals would provide gene flow going in the other direction between these two populations.
Thus, they were genetically distinct from the normal wolves that were not associating with humans.

 

[russ_watters]

I have long been interested in domestication, what it is and how its done (evolved).
That comparison with an owner/pet relationship would seem to involve a close physical relationship, often with behavioral give and take.

I haven't, but for some reason this has piqued my interest. And because I haven't put long thought into this, it strikes me that what I just said that you quoted (from earlier today) contradicts the post immediately preceding. I'll mull that over...

However, not all pets are domesticated animals: turtles, many kinds of fish, for example, or any animal that has been collected, not bred, would automatically be ruled out as far as being domesticated since their breeding is not under human control.

Granted. They are captive, wild animals. I don't think we need to quibble over whether the word "pet" should include domestication in its definition [avoids reaching for his dictionary], or if captive, wild animals should be called something other than pets, so I'll go with considering them a subset of pets as you suggest. Either way, it is an important difference between types of pets.

1. The relationship between humans and domesticated animals, resulting in benefits to both as well as changes to both, is similar to endosymbiosis...

I started writing my response before reading your whole post and was researching parasites and symbiants before even getting to this part of your post. We're thinking along the same lines. My understanding of the definitions is that if another organism takes something from you its a parasite. If you get something in return and it is a net benefit, it is a symbiant.

An alternative scenario (not saying yours is wrong) is that those wolves the were following the humans around became selected as a separately from the main wolf population, became selected by an extension of the mechanisms you mentioned to become more domesticated to the extent that killing the adults would not be necessary.

Agreed. That sounds like what he proposes; by evolving behaviors that induce less conflict with humans, they could get closer - for improved access to the food - with lower risk of being killed. I think that's likely at least part of it, but I proposed a hybrid because that doesn't sound like a complete solution to me: if not raised from birth as a pet, at some point a human would have had to put a leash on a full-grown adult wolf, which seems like a necessary and difficult step in that logic. Though I said it, my hybrid doesn't actually require humans killing the adult wolves. Maybe the adult wolves died for other reasons. Maybe they abandoned the runt of the litter. But I think at some point a human had to make the decision; "I need to put this wolf on a leash/in a cage for my protection or his/hers."

Animals moving away from any early close human care and control of their breeding to the neighboring, less domesticated population of more loosely human associated animals would provide gene flow going in the other direction between these two populations.
Thus, they were genetically distinct from the normal wolves that were not associating with humans.

Agreed. "Those females are too close to those humans, I don't want to go over there looking for a mate". And vice vice vice versa.

 

[BillTre]

it strikes me that what I just said that you quoted (from earlier today) contradicts the post immediately preceding. I'll mull that over...

I think not.
There would have been many (thousands or more) interactions like this during the transition time when some wolves hanging out around human camps became more closely associated with humans.
I would guess all these different events happened many times in the evolving population as wolves and proto-dogs gradually separated genetically.

Here is a scenario I thought up which I think is interesting in this issue:

Proto-dogs become separated (somewhat) genetically, with different behavioral and morphological (size and shape) traits from wolves.
This might have included:

• behavioral traits of various kinds including nice behavior toward people
• size
• coloration and pattern

A population of proto-dogs living around a human camp detects an approaching bunch of wolves.
The smaller proto-dogs are potential prey form the wolves.
The proto-dogs raise a lot of noise as an alert (guard function). This rouses both proto-dogs and humans.
The proto-dogs, not being a physical match for the wild wolves, retreat into the human camp, where they are already somewhat accepted.
The humans (who consider wolves as enemies) fight off the wolves. Everyone (non-wolf) is happy.
The proto-dogs have a a stronger (psychological) bond with the humans.
This would create a situation where (through many repetitions of many generations) the proto-dog's coat color and pattern might be selected to be obviously different from wolves, in order to make them visually distinct to humans, and therefore less likely to be killed.​

 

[Rive]

This might be interesting in this regard.

A 2014 study found that 20% of wolves and 37% of dogs shared the same mitochondrial haplotypes in Georgia. More than 13% of the studied wolves had detectable dog ancestry and more than 10% of the dogs had detectable wolf ancestry.

For me this means that even with relative frequent crossbreeding the 'dog' and the 'wolf' can be kept separated simply by selection (the mentioned 'dogs held in a traditional way' includes killing off the 'incompatible' puppies and beating away the dangerous adults).

The proto-dogs, not being a physical match for the wild wolves

I don't think we can/have to say this. The traditional (livestock) guardian dogs are kept to guard against wolves and bears. The question is the actual function of the proto-dog in the human society. Hunting and guarding both required strong ones which could at least keep their own against other predators for some time.

 

[BillTre]

It may have been that before they were used to guard herds and battle predators, they just hung around human settlements and had to have a non-threatening relationship with the local humans.
Behavioral changes and smaller size would two major ways to be perceived as non-threatening, IMO.

Other paths to this acceptance might exist, but initially following around your herds (also know as your food) and being larger than wolves and able to fight them off (thereby also being a threat to humans, especially small ones) do not seem to promote human acceptance to having them in your midst.
Herd protection seems, to me, to be something that would show up later.

 

[Rive]

Herd guarding was just an existing example for the general function 'guard against the wild'. Existing ancient hunt breeds (the ones which are excepted to fight) are an example too. Both has examples for the same size as volves.

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.

 

[symbolipoint]

Herd guarding was just an existing example for the general function 'guard against the wild'. Existing ancient hunt breeds (the ones which are excepted to fight) are an example too. Both has examples for the same size as volves.

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.

As in post #83 and a few others requested,

..., look for other information or sources if member/s interested.

-----which can or should also include scientific references, or other formally qualified experts.

 

[BillTre]

As I see, we have a chicken or the egg problem here. To have pre-dogs accepted through being different qualities than wolves we need an already accepted population subject to selection to produce those qualities. So that 'hung around' is quite tempting approach and it might actually fit if we stretch the timescale with some 10k years.

I don't doubt that there are some early kinds of dogs that had/have those traits at some time in their evolutionary journey to today's many varied kinds of modern dogs.
Nor do I think they were little wimpy dogs

However, in any evolutionary scenario, every little step toward a later form will have to be adaptive for the conditions and circumstances of its time.

Large proto-dogs, threatening to wolves, and not behaviorally or visually distinctive from wolves would not be well adapted to integration into a human society.
Combined with that, I think likely that a general vermin hunting,prey tracking, and alarm generating traits might be benefit enough for humans to get things started towards domestication.
The first steps will establish the relationships where humans gain greater control over reproduction and thereby speed up the rate and directing of further evolution.

Once those traits are established and human acceptance has been developed (over many generations), there will be still be plenty of generations for herders to develop dog lines suited to fighting off wolves. This be based on the proto-dogs inherent genetic variability, but also wolf genes, since be some frequency of breeding with wolves would introduce wolf traits (which might have been lost during the initial steps of domestication) into the proto-dog population's genomes.

Fossil evidence of early dogs:
Fossils frequently don't show the earliest steps, but they can show morphological features, contain DNA (useful for determining relationships with wolves and other kinds of digs), and establish time points.
The earliest dog fossils show smaller skulls and shorter snouts that wolves and are thought to be 33,000 years old, predating agriculture and perhaps herding.
Later (~15,000 years ago), there is some evidence of dog breeds specialized for different purposes.

 

[Rive]

Large proto-dogs, threatening to wolves

This here I think rings a bell. I'm a bit in a hurry, so I'll make some digging only later on, but actually why do we think that pre-dogs were against wolves? Right now wolves are apex predators, but that was not always the case.
The suspected timeframe is exactly the end of the Pleistocene, which is famous about its megafauna. There were some pretty big predators there to compete for the title of 'apex'.

Might be interesting:

...tigers depress wolf numbers, either to the point of localized extinction or to such low numbers as to make them a functionally insignificant component of the ecosystem. Wolves appear capable of escaping competitive exclusion from tigers only when human persecution decreases tiger numbers.

Saber-tooth tigers are not close relatives to modern tigers, but the cat-dog (feline-canine) relations seems to be universally bad. Maybe there was a reason for wolves to 'hang around' humans (and develop tolerant gene variations for later selection)?

 

[activist in the know]

As I understand she is opposed to using dogs as food on the grounds that there _is_ an objective criterion. But I have not seen any layout on her part to this effect. I think the existence of said criterion would be necessary to have objective grounds to using dogs as food in the East and in general. I guess we have to wait for her to clarify this.

I never made such a claim. The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

 

[WWGD]

I never made such a claim. The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

Hence the "As I understand it". While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be, but "Special", I don't think is an objective term. EDIT: As I remember it, when I brought up the issue, you stated that bringing up this issue was "inane". Difficult for me to be clear with a higher level of precision, given answers of this sort.

 

[activist in the know]

Hence the "As I understand it". While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be, but "Special", I don't think is an objective term.

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Try “special” or “unique” as in, the dog’s neurobiological connection to us is distinct from other nonhuman animals.

 

[WWGD]

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Try “special” or “unique” as in, the dog’s neurobiological connection to us is distinct from other nonhuman animals.

No, not just me. I think if you take even a small sample of people few would agree on just-about anything being called "special". I believe this is culture- and many-other-variable- dependent and not as objective or even mostly objective as you seem to bellieve. EDIT If not, please do provide a "Specialnessmeter" to assess the "specialness" of different entities. Or do you intend to use something like a study of latency to assess this? EDIT2: Or please give me a working definition of "Special" that is not vague and/or inherently general to cover a great variety of cases.

 

[activist in the know]

Now you’re back to conflating topics. The science is objective and the science shows that the dog’s affinity for humans is distinct or special or unique or out of the ordinary. See studies and canine neuroscientists’ statements above.

 

[symbolipoint]

The argument about what "special" means, is useless.

How about making part of the original post, like this:

animal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a different kind of bond between humans and dogs, unlike the bond between humans and other animals, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn;

EDIT: Since italicization of the changed parts does not work, a different font effect in the above 'quote' is used instead. (changed font size to 5)

 

[PeterDonis]

The question you posed was whether a special/unique human-dog biological bond exists. I pointed to objective evidence to show that it does. I then asserted that this objective fact should be taken into consideration on the separate questions of whether dogs should be used as food, or chained outside for hours on end, or milled for puppies.

While the evidence is objective, the claim of the uniqueness/specialness of the bond, I believe, is not. Terms like "Special" are not objective. Unique, could be

I think the substance of the discussion does not depend on whether we can agree on a meaning for the word "special". We have two separate questions under discussion, neither of which needs to have that word defined. The first question is, what evidence do we have about dogs and their interactions with humans, and how those interactions compare with those between humans and other animals? The main evidence that I can see in this thread is the evidence referenced by @activist in the know here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...en-dogs-and-humans.963333/page-3#post-6113371

There is a lot to digest there, but there is also the question of how much of most people's attitudes towards dogs are informed by such evidence; my sense is that the answer to that is "not much, if any", since the evidence is so new.

The second question is, given whatever evidence we have, what, if any, ethical implications are there? @activist in the know has raised several possibilities for such implications; @WWGD raised a question about the first of those here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...en-dogs-and-humans.963333/page-4#post-6113874

Again, I think these questions can be discussed without having to argue about the meaning of the word "special" (or "unique"). I would ask participants to focus on the substance of the questions, and to make an effort not to use words whose meaning might be ambiguous or disputed, even if that means having to be more verbose to explain what you mean.

 

[nitsuj]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

 

[symbolipoint]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

This is going onto the wrong track. Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes; to breed something that could help humans with hunting, guarding, pulling for transport. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

 

[.Scott]

... However, this does not seem to limit the eating of dead offspring by parents after they die (such as mice or foxes (which I recently saw on a TV documentary)).

In the case of alligators and most fish, live young are tasty bites.

 

[.Scott]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

In the context of this discussion, I believe this is "special":

It is also known as oxytocin.

Among mammals, what makes that someone-special "special" is oxytocin:
from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858648/

Across the animal kingdom, affiliative social relationships exist between individuals and their parents, offspring, mates, and non-related conspecifics. While most mammals interact prosocially only to mate or rear young, in some cases the benefits of group living have led to the evolution of complex social structures. The behaviors exhibited may vary from species to species and between individuals within a species, but the neurobiological substrates of many of these behaviors likely share common elements. The peptide oxytocin (OT) has been investigated and implicated in the context of a wide variety of social behaviors. While the majority of research on social behavior in mammals has focused on the role of OT in reproductive attachments—between a mother and her young, or between male and female mates—this review focuses on the roles of OT in mammalian social groups, and behaviors that promote group living (sociality).

But can this occur across species? And more specifically can oxytocin induce a dog to see his human with rose-colored glasses?
Why, yes it can: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01854/full

The pupil diameters of dogs were also measured as a physiological index of emotional arousal. In a placebo-controlled within-subjects experimental design, 43 dogs, after having received either oxytocin or placebo (saline) nasal spray treatment, were presented with pictures of unfamiliar male human faces displaying either a happy or an angry expression. We found that, depending on the facial expression, the dogs’ gaze patterns were affected selectively by oxytocin treatment. After receiving oxytocin, dogs fixated less often on the eye regions of angry faces and revisited (glanced back at) more often the eye regions of smiling (happy) faces than after the placebo treatment. Furthermore, following the oxytocin treatment dogs fixated and revisited the eyes of happy faces significantly more often than the eyes of angry faces. The analysis of dogs’ pupil diameters during viewing of human facial expressions indicated that oxytocin may also have a modulatory effect on dogs’ emotional arousal. While subjects’ pupil sizes were significantly larger when viewing angry faces than happy faces in the control (placebo treatment) condition, oxytocin treatment not only eliminated this effect but caused an opposite pupil response. Overall, these findings suggest that nasal oxytocin administration selectively changes the allocation of attention and emotional arousal in domestic dogs. Oxytocin has the potential to decrease vigilance toward threatening social stimuli and increase the salience of positive social stimuli thus making eye gaze of friendly human faces more salient for dogs. Our study provides further support for the role of the oxytocinergic system in the social perception abilities of domestic dogs. We propose that oxytocin modulates fundamental emotional processing in dogs through a mechanism that may facilitate communication between humans and dogs.

(Leave it to a psychologist to dissect puppy love down to the point of tedium)

What about wolves? Well, because of genetics, they are not so friendly with humans.
From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X16304810?via=ihub

The oxytocin system may play an important role in dog domestication from the wolf. Dogs have evolved unique human analogue social skills enabling them to communicate and cooperate efficiently with people. Genomic differences in the region surrounding the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene have previously been associated with variation in dogs' communicative skills. Here we have utilized the unsolvable problem paradigm to investigate the effects of oxytocin and OXTR polymorphisms on human-directed contact seeking behavior in 60 golden retriever dogs. Human-oriented behavior was quantified employing a previously defined unsolvable problem paradigm. Behaviors were tested twice in a repeated, counterbalanced design, where dogs received a nasal dose of either oxytocin or saline 45 min before each test occasion.

I don't have access to that full article, but this article is based on it:
https://liu.se/en/article/hundars-samspel-med-agaren-kopplat-till-kanslighet-for-oxytocin

The researchers suggest that these results help us understand how dogs have changed during the process of domestication. They analysed DNA also from 21 wolves, and found the same genetic variation among them. This suggests that the genetic variation was already present when domestication of the dogs started, 15,000 years ago.

“The results lead us to surmise that people selected for domestication wolves with a particularly well-developed ability to collaborate, and then bred subsequent generations from these,” says Mia Persson.

Now, regarding that issue of cuisine:
Subject 1: a cute baby or puppy
Subject 2: a oxytocin-affected person gazing at subject 1
Subject 3: a hungry person gazing at subject 1
With this set up, the interactions between Subject 2 and Subject 3 will be supported with another hormone: adrenaline

 

[nitsuj]

Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

I completely agree with your last sentence, and my point requires it, a dog doesn't need to be a "companion breed" to be a companion. I was using hyperbole (pugs, chihuahuas) to highlight how far this has gone. From "day one" we've been selecting for traits that lead to dogs being "companions", you refer to this a "easy enough to work with", no difference semantically; both involve spending time together in a "cohesive" way.

Then just the simple statement that companionship is something "special". In turn I figure the dog is just the "medium" of our our choices. Dogs being "pack animals" likely predisposed them to being good companions.

I know with pugs personality is big part of the breed, not just the "deformed" frame.