If you count being literally owned by humans and subject to their every whim, with unowned animals or those that do anything harmful to humans or their other owned animals being routinely shot or poisoned as “trade with animals”, then yes.
(I do think this would still count as a “win” in the scale of possible outcomes from unaligned AGI)
It’s not a view on the nature between dog and owner. It’s a view on the relationship between the two species.
I’m not saying that owners routinely shoot the dogs, but that unowned dogs are routinely killed and that if an owned dog harms a human or other pets or livestock, it is common that other people will kill that dog.
Furthermore dogs have pretty much the best relationship with humans. Almost all of the many thousands of animal species have very much worse outcomes of interaction with humans, a substantial fraction of those including extinction.
We weren’t discussing all dogs extant in the world, which would obviously include dogs that were never pets in the first place, dogs that were never subject to human control, and probably some population of wild dogs that never interacted with humans at all.
You claimed that “Dogs being pets is actually only the norm in a few countries”. I’ve personally been to over 20 countries where this is the norm. And I’m reasonably sure the more well travelled folks on LW have been to more.
So unless there is rock solid proof it really is difficult to believe the claim.
The relevant point being that dogs being treated badly isn’t an “edge case”
The original assertion in question was more specific and is as follows:
If you count being literally owned by humans and subject to their every whim, with unowned animals or those that do anything harmful to humans or their other owned animals being routinely shot or poisoned as “trade with animals”, then yes.
No dog-owner relationship that I’m personally aware, or have heard of, of can be classified as the dog “being subject to their every whim”.
Since it is simply not possible for humans to exercise 100% control over any organism.
And in the case of larger mammals with capacity for independent action and some degree of independent reflection, such as most dogs, even exercising actual control to reflect the owner’s “every whim” over 50% of a 24 hour day is practically impossible.
In fact it would be extremely unusual for this to be the case, hence an ‘edge case’.
I don’t see ‘ability to trade with animals’ as a binary variable. I think our ability to trade with animals could increase further even though it’s not zero.
Sure, we have some rudimentary forms of dog-human communication. But there’s plenty of room for improvement.
This already counts as ‘trade with animals’ then.
If you count being literally owned by humans and subject to their every whim, with unowned animals or those that do anything harmful to humans or their other owned animals being routinely shot or poisoned as “trade with animals”, then yes.
(I do think this would still count as a “win” in the scale of possible outcomes from unaligned AGI)
Your views on the nature of relationships between dog and owner does not reflect the actual situation in most cases.
It’s not a view on the nature between dog and owner. It’s a view on the relationship between the two species.
I’m not saying that owners routinely shoot the dogs, but that unowned dogs are routinely killed and that if an owned dog harms a human or other pets or livestock, it is common that other people will kill that dog.
Furthermore dogs have pretty much the best relationship with humans. Almost all of the many thousands of animal species have very much worse outcomes of interaction with humans, a substantial fraction of those including extinction.
I’m confused at why this is criticized, since this actually happens?
Elaborating on edge cases as if it was the norm is usually frowned upon in polite online discussions.
Quick Googling suggests that 80% of the dogs in the world are wild dogs living in the streets of villages or agricultural areas.
We weren’t discussing all dogs extant in the world, which would obviously include dogs that were never pets in the first place, dogs that were never subject to human control, and probably some population of wild dogs that never interacted with humans at all.
How do you think a wild dog can live in a village without interacting with humans at all?
Because they might live in the “agricultural areas” as you stated?
It’s not too difficult to imagine as wild dogs don’t universally approach humans whenever they are spotted.
Dogs being pets is actually only the norm in a few countries, and in many countries they are routinely shot, have rocks thrown at them, etc.
Source?
Have heard this first hand from people who travel to countries with large wild dog populations e.g Guatemala
You claimed that “Dogs being pets is actually only the norm in a few countries”. I’ve personally been to over 20 countries where this is the norm. And I’m reasonably sure the more well travelled folks on LW have been to more.
So unless there is rock solid proof it really is difficult to believe the claim.
Sorry, I’ve amended to “some”. The relevant point being that dogs being treated badly isn’t an “edge case”
The original assertion in question was more specific and is as follows:
No dog-owner relationship that I’m personally aware, or have heard of, of can be classified as the dog “being subject to their every whim”.
Since it is simply not possible for humans to exercise 100% control over any organism.
And in the case of larger mammals with capacity for independent action and some degree of independent reflection, such as most dogs, even exercising actual control to reflect the owner’s “every whim” over 50% of a 24 hour day is practically impossible.
In fact it would be extremely unusual for this to be the case, hence an ‘edge case’.
I observed this for myself in rural Madagascar
I don’t see ‘ability to trade with animals’ as a binary variable. I think our ability to trade with animals could increase further even though it’s not zero.