(December 20, 2022 at 7:03 am)Jehanne Wrote: Absolutely true in the case of cats, but, much less so in the case of dogs. But if a cat owner would die in their home and not be noticed, the surviving cats will sometimes scavenge the remains of their now dead owners. Once consumed the cats may be trapped in their owner's hone unable to escape and succumb to natural causes, likely, dehydration.
This is all believable about dogs and cats. But both animals kept as pets and animals in the wild die of natural causes if they get trapped in something. So I don't see any biological difference there.
Nothing so far works against the idea that the concept of "pet" is a social construct. Even if it's a construct made by scientists, it's not something you can determine by DNA analysis.
Suppose a pair of animals are identical twins, or clones. You keep one as a pet, and the other lives feral outside. If the DNA is identical, then the pet-ness of one is a social construct.
Likewise with weeds. One man's weed is another man's cash crop. What determines the weed-ness of a plant is desirability to gardeners, not DNA.
