Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:25 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Social construct.
#11
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 1:37 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(December 20, 2022 at 12:51 am)Jehanne Wrote: A pet is a nonhuman animal that lives with or at least among humans, in a dependent (or, in the case of cats, a feigned dependent) relationship such that the animal in question would likely die of natural causes if the humans did not continue to provide for them.

Is this some kind of official definition? Is there a scientist's glossary? 

Because some pets do quite well on their own if they happen to escape.

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.
Reply
#12
RE: Social construct.
(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.
Reply
#13
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 12:51 am)Jehanne Wrote:
(December 19, 2022 at 11:04 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Likewise you can tell the difference between animal species scientifically, but the category "pet" is a social construction.

Biologists have excellent answers to these questions.  A pet is a nonhuman animal that lives with or at least among humans, in a dependent (or, in the case of cats, a feigned dependent) relationship such that the animal in question would likely die of natural causes if the humans did not continue to provide for them.

that would qualify the human hair or crotch lice as pets.  Indeed so specifically are lice dependent upon humans and would die without humans that the hair and crotch lice would die if just moved into the other’s customary territory on the same human’s body.
Reply
#14
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 7:41 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(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.

Dogs can be kept as pets; wolves, typically, cannot be kept as pets. This process is one of domestication of animals, which was a process over time of artificial selection. The fact that wolves have brains allowed some long ago to begin their long process of cohabitation with Homo sapiens -- wolves that were congenial were kept and allowed to breed while those that were not likely were set back into the wild or even killed. Thus began the slow process of artificial selection and the subsequent domestication of the dog.

Now, is marijuana a weed or a grass? This is the area of taxonomy, the classification of plants and animals. Such is a science and organisms, both living and dead, are classified based upon their evolutionary relationships, phenology, morphology, etc.
Reply
#15
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 8:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(December 20, 2022 at 12:51 am)Jehanne Wrote: Biologists have excellent answers to these questions.  A pet is a nonhuman animal that lives with or at least among humans, in a dependent (or, in the case of cats, a feigned dependent) relationship such that the animal in question would likely die of natural causes if the humans did not continue to provide for them.

that would qualify the human hair or crotch lice as pets.  Indeed so specifically are lice dependent upon humans and would die without humans that the hair and crotch lice would die if just moved into the other’s customary territory on the same human’s body.

They are an invasive species; we did not choose to domesticate them. And, so, I would add the element of conscious human choice to my criteria of what would constitue a pet.
Reply
#16
RE: Social construct.
Snakes can be kept as pets. Turtles can be kept as pets. Hamsters and gerbils and guinea pigs can be kept as pets. 

Tigers can be kept as pets, though it's difficult. Bears have been known to become pets. If wolves, typically, are not considered to be desirable but challenging pets, this is a social construct.

Quote:Now, is marijuana a weed or a grass?

That depends on if you want it growing in your garden.

Kudzu is a big problem on the mountain where I live. In other places, it's cultivated as a cash crop. The vines are woven for traditional crafts and the starch is useful in cooking and laundry. According to science, is this a weed? Is it a weed sometimes? Does something's scientific classification vary from place to place, depending on whether people are glad to see it or not? Is there an international scientific body who decides these things?
Reply
#17
RE: Social construct.
The weed or not a weed question makes me think of the dandelion. While dad cursed them and did the best he could to rid the yard of them, we kids loved to pluck the white puffy ones and blow the fluff away...though it was an act of seeding the area for future dandelions. Seems a matter of perspective and preference.
  
“If you are the smartest person in the room, then you are in the wrong room.” — Confucius
                                      
Reply
#18
RE: Social construct.
Weeds aren't social constructs. They're any wild plant growing in a cultivated space. Pets, also, not social constructs. We don't have to agree that dogs or cats or snakes or snails exist. They exist without our agreement, just like a weed.

Things like race, gender, nationality. These are social constructs.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#19
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 8:21 am)Jehanne Wrote:
(December 20, 2022 at 8:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: that would qualify the human hair or crotch lice as pets.  Indeed so specifically are lice dependent upon humans and would die without humans that the hair and crotch lice would die if just moved into the other’s customary territory on the same human’s body.

They are an invasive species; we did not choose to domesticate them.  And, so, I would add the element of conscious human choice to my criteria of what would constitue a pet.

in what way are they invasive?  they clearly co-evolved with humans over millions of years.  they are as native to the habitats of the human body as any species can be native to the the environment in which they evolved.
Reply
#20
RE: Social construct.
(December 20, 2022 at 8:48 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:
(December 20, 2022 at 8:21 am)Jehanne Wrote: They are an invasive species; we did not choose to domesticate them.  And, so, I would add the element of conscious human choice to my criteria of what would constitue a pet.

in what way are they invasive?  they clearly co-evolved with humans over millions of years.  they are as native to the habitats of the human body as any species can be native to the the environment in which they evolved.

Our distant ancestors consciously and deliberately chose to domestic the ancestors of our modern cats and dogs; no such conscious choice was made with respect to lice. They are not pets (at least for most of us).
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ugliness as a Tool of Social Control Leonardo17 20 1574 April 1, 2023 at 5:33 am
Last Post: Goosebump
  Is developing a strong habit of philosophizing bad for your social skills? Edwardo Piet 31 4019 May 25, 2016 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Gemini
  THE SELF-REINFORCING NATURE OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY: ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF POWER .. nihilistcat 9 3818 June 29, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Last Post: nihilistcat
  Social Approval or Principles? Koolay 26 6943 August 6, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Social Problems Loading Please Wait 10 2786 September 3, 2011 at 12:20 am
Last Post: MilesTailsPrower



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)