My dog. And yes they might fire him, but they aren't going to keep him from leaving. So saying that he can't leave work during the day isn't exactly true. He does not want to leave because he realizes the possible results.
My dog. And yes they might fire him, but they aren't going to keep him from leaving. So saying that he can't leave work during the day isn't exactly true. He does not want to leave because he realizes the possible results.
As opposed to your dog, who does not realize the possible results, which is why you keep him inside.
Would he be happier if he were free to leave whenever he wanted? I don't know. Would he be happy if he were dead? Probably not.
They lock you in? Like if you tried to go out, the doors would not open?
This inevitably gets into what "freedom" means.
I could leave, obviously, but there would be repurcussions, and in every conceivable universe that is enough negative reinforcement to effectively prevent me from leaving.
Similarly, you could punch a random stranger in the face, but you are never, ever, ever going to do this because of the constraints society and your upbringing have placed on you.
I'm willing to say that pets (ideally, at least—there are some terrible owners) are about as "free" as children. They are physically prevented from free movement and reproduction, for example. However, if you understand "constraints" to freedom beyond simply physical constraints—since, functionally speaking, the effect on behavior is often the same—I think there are lots of similarities between domesticated pets and post-agricultural humans. Both exist in very constrained and structured patterns of behavior, largely sedentary. At the same time, both have almost all of their material needs provided for, and live in lives of comfort undreamed of by wild creatures. Calling the opposite of this existence (i.e. wild) "free" seems very un-nuanced; aren't domesticated animals "free" from the constraints imposed by hunger, by predators and disease and accidents?
I think it's more fruitful to understand "wild" and "domesticated" as two different modes of existence, with different kinds of advantages and constraints, rather than one as "free" and the other as "captive."
So as long as the person doing the keeping has "good intentions" the person being kept can't see it as anything else? Even if they have no idea what said intentions are?
So as long as the person doing the keeping has "good intentions" the person being kept can't see it as anything else? Even if they have no idea what said intentions are?
No, because the difference is that humans are sentient and intelligent, and they understand complex language.
This is why your continuous comparisons of humans and animals are pretty dumb.
No I think you just missed my point. I was talking about freedom. My dog is not free because I keep him confined to my home and a fenced in back yard. Quingu is free, because he can do whatever he wants, he just has to deal with the results.
They've already been bred to be incompatible with the wild
Kind of like if you abandon a human in the north pole it's basically a death sentence for them
Sure, you have theoretical access to the whole globe, but you can't really call that being free
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I had this idea for an SF story where sentient AI storms had "domesticated" humans. The humans all live in orbs attached to this floating city orbiting Jupiter, and spend most of their time in a "Matrix" dreamworld. The orbs prevent the humans from procreating, except every now and then the storms allow a few humans to have kids. Also, the humans are completely cut off from the "wild" (i.e. ancestral earth). To the humans, the AI storms are these inscrutable godlike beings who never communicate directly with them and are only so predictable.
But then, they get to live this magical transhumanist existence in a Matrix dreamworld and ride around orbs in the Skysea of Jupiter and "play" with gigantic sentient storms.
The point of the story was going to be that domestication has its drawbacks but on the whole it's pretty awesome.
No I think you just missed my point. I was talking about freedom. My dog is not free because I keep him confined to my home and a fenced in back yard. Quingu is free, because he can do whatever he wants, he just has to deal with the results.
I can't do whatever I want.
I can do a lot, but my actions are ultimately constrained by a number of factors.
Some of those factors are physical—I can't fly, for example.
Some of those are psychological—I can physically punch a random stranger in the face, but I am never going to do this; my brain, for all intents and purpose, might as well be physically prevented from instructing me to do this.
Some of those are social/economical. I can't afford to do lots of things; I can't afford to go lots of places. I'm not allowed to behave in lots of ways in public.
I disagree with the idea that "dealing with the consequences" is an afterthought to the discussion of freedom and constraint. The consequences draw boundaries that are real, serious forms of constraint and, in some cases, actual confinement. There are obviously differences between physical constraints (i.e. a fence for your dog) and social/psychological constraints, but I don't think it's nearly as black and white as the whole "free/captive" semantics would imply.
Even if it was completely voluntary, you'd still be dead
just about every free dog is a dead dog
Why, just the other month I was driving down the highway and there was this dog trying to cross the highway
I slowed down in anticipation, but the truck ahead of me didn't. The dog ran under the truck and kind of rolled around. I believe it was killed instantly.
Freedom is a value inherent in nature. Sanctity of life isn't. Unless your interpretation of freedom includes being dead, then outside the confines of civilization freedom doesn't exist.
Where am I going with this?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think you are over-analyzing Quingu. I didn't want to start an in-depth discussion on the varying levels of psychological freedom as constrained by norms, moores, and taboos.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No I think you just missed my point. I was talking about freedom. My dog is not free because I keep him confined to my home and a fenced in back yard. Quingu is free, because he can do whatever he wants, he just has to deal with the results.
Dogs aren't people.
Just in case you were unaware of that.
Basing the major choices you unilaterally inflict upon your domesticated animal companion on nothing more than sentimental anthropomorphism is a horrible, horrible idea.
Because, you know, they're not little people in animal suits.
Have we domesticated any asocial predators before? I can't think of any off the top of my head. I suspect it'd be extremely hard to get anything resembling "domestication" from a bear. Lions, maybe... eh, I don't really know.
"Asocial" meaning non-pack predators?
Cats and ferrets.
That's it. For the entirety of human existence.
Two.
And cats only sort of count.
So barring some use of applied phlogiston to domesticate lions, tigers and bears* via magic, I doubt it's going to happen anytime ever.
*Oh my.
Well, cats aren't really "asocial". They don't hunt cooperatively, but feral cats still live together in large groups. If I remember right, they are said to lack a "social survival strategy", but they still have many social behaviors. Like you said, I wouldn't really count them. Something like a bear, on the other hand, avoids other bears (except to mate) and lives the majority of its adult life alone.
I don't know much about ferrets, though; that might be the one good example. Are ferrets actually domesticated, though? Come to think of it, I don't even know if they're social in the wild.
No I think you just missed my point. I was talking about freedom. My dog is not free because I keep him confined to my home and a fenced in back yard. Quingu is free, because he can do whatever he wants, he just has to deal with the results.
Dogs aren't people.
Just in case you were unaware of that.
Basing the major choices you unilaterally inflict upon your domesticated animal companion on nothing more than sentimental anthropomorphism is a horrible, horrible idea.
Because, you know, they're not little people in animal suits.
That would be why I said that Quingus example of not being able to leave work didn't mesh well with an example of my dog not being able to leave my house. Or why I didn't think that my intent on keeping my dog in the house made a difference because he [my dog] doesn't know what the fuck my intentions are.
No I think you just missed my point. I was talking about freedom. My dog is not free because I keep him confined to my home and a fenced in back yard. Quingu is free, because he can do whatever he wants, he just has to deal with the results.
Dogs aren't people.
Just in case you were unaware of that.
Basing the major choices you unilaterally inflict upon your domesticated animal companion on nothing more than sentimental anthropomorphism is a horrible, horrible idea.
Because, you know, they're not little people in animal suits.
That would be why I said that Quingus example of not being able to leave work didn't mesh well with an example of my dog not being able to leave my house. Or why I didn't think that my intent on keeping my dog in the house made a difference because he [my dog] doesn't know what the fuck my intentions are.
I think about this question all the time with my cat, because I love him more than all the jewels beneath the earth, and I worry that I am depriving him—via domestication—of a life he would rather live in the wild.
Your cat wouldn't rather want to live in the wild. Seriously, that's why he comes back every time. It's like "man hell yeah i gets food i don't have to hunt for and mad cozy places to sleep".
Yeah. Freedom sucks.
For a domesticated cat? Fuck yeah, freedom (and by freedom, I mean "starving", because chances are the nearest 'wild' habitat isn't full of hundreds of frequently replaced open cans of tuna, shifting sand dunes and no other mammals larger than mice are actually pretty high) probably sucks a lot.
To be fair, given a human with typical human concerns the choice between living in a society where his or her relationships lead to a supply of food and some degree of shelter, as well as social interaction, and living on its own surrounded by predators who can turn them into human-cabobs, that they're readily aware of...freedom might be less attractive. Of course, that's hardly guaranteed, but the nature of self-determination and concerns of autonomy are rather different between cats and people.
I think about this question all the time with my cat, because I love him more than all the jewels beneath the earth, and I worry that I am depriving him—via domestication—of a life he would rather live in the wild.
Your cat wouldn't rather want to live in the wild. Seriously, that's why he comes back every time. It's like "man hell yeah i gets food i don't have to hunt for and mad cozy places to sleep".
Yeah. Freedom sucks.
For a domesticated cat? Fuck yeah, freedom (and by freedom, I mean "starving", because chances are the nearest 'wild' habitat isn't full of hundreds of frequently replaced cans of tuna, shifting sand dunes and no other mammals larger than mice are actually pretty high) probably sucks a lot.
To be fair, given a human with typical human concerns the choice between living in a society where his or her relationships lead to a supply of food and interaction and living on its own surrounded by predators who can turn them into human-cabobs, that they're readily aware of...freedom might be less attractive. Of course, that's hardly guaranteed, but the nature of self-determination and concerns of autonomy are rather different between cats and dogs.
Cats are known to just leave places if they're not happy being there. Some do it chronically - they depend on being taken in by a series of homes everytime they get bored of being outside.
Most prefer both. Some form strong opinions - old neighbors of mine got a pair of kittens when their old cat died. One was older and had been living on a construction site and had two litters of kittens already, the other was found when she was tiny and basically paired up with this cat so she wouldn't be lonely when they took her kittens.
The young kitten, which hadn't lived outside, tried to stay out as long as she could as often as she could. The kitten which had lived on the construction site, conversely, proceeded to rapidly become rounder and rounder because it had decided that indoors and free food was the best thing that could possibly have happened.
I'd be tempted to say that the practical limitations might be overwhelming. Even if you could turn a bear into a beast of burden in a rather long length of time, and it wouldn't smash your head like a walnut, the disadvantages compared to a dog or a ox are pretty pronounced.
I suppose the larger cats might be a better choice, in terms of their diet and size, but it seems like there'd be rather specific circumstances where'd they'd be preferable to dogs.
I think about this question all the time with my cat, because I love him more than all the jewels beneath the earth, and I worry that I am depriving him—via domestication—of a life he would rather live in the wild.
Your cat wouldn't rather want to live in the wild. Seriously, that's why he comes back every time. It's like "man hell yeah i gets food i don't have to hunt for and mad cozy places to sleep".
Yeah. Freedom sucks.
For a domesticated cat? Fuck yeah, freedom (and by freedom, I mean "starving", because chances are the nearest 'wild' habitat isn't full of hundreds of frequently replaced cans of tuna, shifting sand dunes and no other mammals larger than mice are actually pretty high) probably sucks a lot.
To be fair, given a human with typical human concerns the choice between living in a society where his or her relationships lead to a supply of food and interaction and living on its own surrounded by predators who can turn them into human-cabobs, that they're readily aware of...freedom might be less attractive. Of course, that's hardly guaranteed, but the nature of self-determination and concerns of autonomy are rather different between cats and dogs.
Cats are known to just leave places if they're not happy being there. Some do it chronically - they depend on being taken in by a series of homes everytime they get bored of being outside.
Stray wandering animals bring up an interesting case, but they're a far cry from being able to actually survive in the wild, obviously. The fact that you find stray cats in cities--in circumstances where they could rather easily escape the cities themselves--for example. You could take stray cats, move them to the forests outside of urban/suburban centers, if you were cruel, and the majority of them would promptly make a B-line straight back to where there were people.
Also, I meant "cats and people". That was probably obvious though.
Me and a coworker had this discussion a couple days after the Seaworld thing.
Probably the most important thing about domestication is the ability for an animal to understand people's behavior and expressions. For example, if you have a dog and you point at something, the dog will infer that you mean "look over there." That might not be very impressive, but it doesn't work with wolves or even primates most of the time.
Why is that so important? Because animals have instincts about these sorts of things, and if it incorrectly interprets something that you or someone else does, it could kill you. Primates in general do not show their teeth, the way that people do when they smile, unless they are being threatened (they smile in movies and such because they are trained to do it). They instinctively interpret it the opposite way that humans do, and so even if they've grown up knowing that most humans who show their teeth are not a threat, all it takes is one instance where they are thrown off and they can attack you. I'm sure there are plenty of other body language type things that do not match also.
Remember when that tiger attacked Siegfried & Roy? I forget which one was the victim, but from what I understand the tiger assumed he was in danger of something, and grabbed him by the neck with his teeth to drag him away. A perfectly normal response, for a tiger-- cats have those little pouches of skin on their necks and that is how tigers pick up their cubs (is that the right word? Cubs?). Not being domesticated, though, the tiger did not understand this fundamental difference between human and cat necks, not to mention the incorrect assumption of danger.
And honestly, I have no sympathy for what happened at Seaworld. Maybe I'm a terrible person, but to me, taking something called a "killer whale", an animal that can literally kill a blue whale, putting them in a tiny ass tank and making them do silly tricks for food is super cruel, not to mention stupid. Again, whales are not programmed to function in small tanks. They navigate and communicate through sound waves, and are very social animals. So you stick one in this little tank and he's by himself all day, every day, listening to his own calls and whistles bounce off the walls. Sure, they do the performances, but only because that's the only way for them get food in their little caged-off world. I'm not surprised at all that one decided to snap and kill someone one day.
Doesn't the question sort of come down to why we try to save these old species? Species arise to fill ecological niches and die out when they are out competed or their habitat is destroyed. Shouldn't we be looking more at the species that are arising from the new habitats we form instead of artificially preserving old ones? Species have gone extinct in droves for reasons other than humanity, and other have risen because of humanity creating environments for them. Do we have some obligation to let things like, pandas for instance, live?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doesn't the question sort of come down to why we try to save these old species? Species arise to fill ecological niches and die out when they are out competed or their habitat is destroyed. Shouldn't we be looking more at the species that are arising from the new habitats we form instead of artificially preserving old ones? Species have gone extinct in droves for reasons other than humanity, and other have risen because of humanity creating environments for them. Do we have some obligation to let things like, pandas for instance, live?
Doesn't the question sort of come down to why we try to save these old species? Species arise to fill ecological niches and die out when they are out competed or their habitat is destroyed. Shouldn't we be looking more at the species that are arising from the new habitats we form instead of artificially preserving old ones? Species have gone extinct in droves for reasons other than humanity, and other have risen because of humanity creating environments for them. Do we have some obligation to let things like, pandas for instance, live?
Wait, what? The city?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doesn't the question sort of come down to why we try to save these old species? Species arise to fill ecological niches and die out when they are out competed or their habitat is destroyed. Shouldn't we be looking more at the species that are arising from the new habitats we form instead of artificially preserving old ones? Species have gone extinct in droves for reasons other than humanity, and other have risen because of humanity creating environments for them. Do we have some obligation to let things like, pandas for instance, live?
What new species. Humans change environments faster than most animals can evolve. Some adapt, but they're not new species.
Doesn't the question sort of come down to why we try to save these old species? Species arise to fill ecological niches and die out when they are out competed or their habitat is destroyed. Shouldn't we be looking more at the species that are arising from the new habitats we form instead of artificially preserving old ones? Species have gone extinct in droves for reasons other than humanity, and other have risen because of humanity creating environments for them. Do we have some obligation to let things like, pandas for instance, live?
Wait, what? The city?
I think if we posted a picture of all the animals that humans drove into extinction vs that one, it would be the saddest collage ever made.
That pigeon isn't a new species though, just one that's adapted to its surroundings.
Okay, "new species" no but really how often does a new species arise anyways? I was under the impression new species came about because their progenitors adapted to new environments to the point they were incompatible with their ancestors? If I'm wrong I retract my point.
Posts
Who doesn't?
As opposed to your dog, who does not realize the possible results, which is why you keep him inside.
Would he be happier if he were free to leave whenever he wanted? I don't know. Would he be happy if he were dead? Probably not.
I could leave, obviously, but there would be repurcussions, and in every conceivable universe that is enough negative reinforcement to effectively prevent me from leaving.
Similarly, you could punch a random stranger in the face, but you are never, ever, ever going to do this because of the constraints society and your upbringing have placed on you.
I'm willing to say that pets (ideally, at least—there are some terrible owners) are about as "free" as children. They are physically prevented from free movement and reproduction, for example. However, if you understand "constraints" to freedom beyond simply physical constraints—since, functionally speaking, the effect on behavior is often the same—I think there are lots of similarities between domesticated pets and post-agricultural humans. Both exist in very constrained and structured patterns of behavior, largely sedentary. At the same time, both have almost all of their material needs provided for, and live in lives of comfort undreamed of by wild creatures. Calling the opposite of this existence (i.e. wild) "free" seems very un-nuanced; aren't domesticated animals "free" from the constraints imposed by hunger, by predators and disease and accidents?
I think it's more fruitful to understand "wild" and "domesticated" as two different modes of existence, with different kinds of advantages and constraints, rather than one as "free" and the other as "captive."
No, because the difference is that humans are sentient and intelligent, and they understand complex language.
This is why your continuous comparisons of humans and animals are pretty dumb.
They've already been bred to be incompatible with the wild
Kind of like if you abandon a human in the north pole it's basically a death sentence for them
Sure, you have theoretical access to the whole globe, but you can't really call that being free
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But then, they get to live this magical transhumanist existence in a Matrix dreamworld and ride around orbs in the Skysea of Jupiter and "play" with gigantic sentient storms.
The point of the story was going to be that domestication has its drawbacks but on the whole it's pretty awesome.
Not if you're kidnapped and dropped off up there against your will.
I can do a lot, but my actions are ultimately constrained by a number of factors.
Some of those factors are physical—I can't fly, for example.
Some of those are psychological—I can physically punch a random stranger in the face, but I am never going to do this; my brain, for all intents and purpose, might as well be physically prevented from instructing me to do this.
Some of those are social/economical. I can't afford to do lots of things; I can't afford to go lots of places. I'm not allowed to behave in lots of ways in public.
I disagree with the idea that "dealing with the consequences" is an afterthought to the discussion of freedom and constraint. The consequences draw boundaries that are real, serious forms of constraint and, in some cases, actual confinement. There are obviously differences between physical constraints (i.e. a fence for your dog) and social/psychological constraints, but I don't think it's nearly as black and white as the whole "free/captive" semantics would imply.
just about every free dog is a dead dog
Why, just the other month I was driving down the highway and there was this dog trying to cross the highway
I slowed down in anticipation, but the truck ahead of me didn't. The dog ran under the truck and kind of rolled around. I believe it was killed instantly.
Freedom is a value inherent in nature. Sanctity of life isn't. Unless your interpretation of freedom includes being dead, then outside the confines of civilization freedom doesn't exist.
Where am I going with this?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Dogs aren't people.
Just in case you were unaware of that.
Basing the major choices you unilaterally inflict upon your domesticated animal companion on nothing more than sentimental anthropomorphism is a horrible, horrible idea.
Because, you know, they're not little people in animal suits.
I don't know much about ferrets, though; that might be the one good example. Are ferrets actually domesticated, though? Come to think of it, I don't even know if they're social in the wild.
That would be why I said that Quingus example of not being able to leave work didn't mesh well with an example of my dog not being able to leave my house. Or why I didn't think that my intent on keeping my dog in the house made a difference because he [my dog] doesn't know what the fuck my intentions are.
What is it that you're arguing about?
For a domesticated cat? Fuck yeah, freedom (and by freedom, I mean "starving", because chances are the nearest 'wild' habitat isn't full of hundreds of frequently replaced open cans of tuna, shifting sand dunes and no other mammals larger than mice are actually pretty high) probably sucks a lot.
To be fair, given a human with typical human concerns the choice between living in a society where his or her relationships lead to a supply of food and some degree of shelter, as well as social interaction, and living on its own surrounded by predators who can turn them into human-cabobs, that they're readily aware of...freedom might be less attractive. Of course, that's hardly guaranteed, but the nature of self-determination and concerns of autonomy are rather different between cats and people.
But to the point of the thread. Should we domesticate them? There's not really much of a reason to other than to say "Hey check out my pet lion."
Cats are known to just leave places if they're not happy being there. Some do it chronically - they depend on being taken in by a series of homes everytime they get bored of being outside.
Most prefer both. Some form strong opinions - old neighbors of mine got a pair of kittens when their old cat died. One was older and had been living on a construction site and had two litters of kittens already, the other was found when she was tiny and basically paired up with this cat so she wouldn't be lonely when they took her kittens.
The young kitten, which hadn't lived outside, tried to stay out as long as she could as often as she could. The kitten which had lived on the construction site, conversely, proceeded to rapidly become rounder and rounder because it had decided that indoors and free food was the best thing that could possibly have happened.
I suppose the larger cats might be a better choice, in terms of their diet and size, but it seems like there'd be rather specific circumstances where'd they'd be preferable to dogs.
Still, lot of novelty value.
Stray wandering animals bring up an interesting case, but they're a far cry from being able to actually survive in the wild, obviously. The fact that you find stray cats in cities--in circumstances where they could rather easily escape the cities themselves--for example. You could take stray cats, move them to the forests outside of urban/suburban centers, if you were cruel, and the majority of them would promptly make a B-line straight back to where there were people.
Also, I meant "cats and people". That was probably obvious though.
I guess that doesn't bear directly on the subject of domestication, but it's still an awesome story.
thats pretty awesome
i like this
This is pretty awesome.
Also whoever mentioned seeing eye bears earlier, you win this thread.
You can still preserve a species and keep it relatively free.
Probably the most important thing about domestication is the ability for an animal to understand people's behavior and expressions. For example, if you have a dog and you point at something, the dog will infer that you mean "look over there." That might not be very impressive, but it doesn't work with wolves or even primates most of the time.
Why is that so important? Because animals have instincts about these sorts of things, and if it incorrectly interprets something that you or someone else does, it could kill you. Primates in general do not show their teeth, the way that people do when they smile, unless they are being threatened (they smile in movies and such because they are trained to do it). They instinctively interpret it the opposite way that humans do, and so even if they've grown up knowing that most humans who show their teeth are not a threat, all it takes is one instance where they are thrown off and they can attack you. I'm sure there are plenty of other body language type things that do not match also.
Remember when that tiger attacked Siegfried & Roy? I forget which one was the victim, but from what I understand the tiger assumed he was in danger of something, and grabbed him by the neck with his teeth to drag him away. A perfectly normal response, for a tiger-- cats have those little pouches of skin on their necks and that is how tigers pick up their cubs (is that the right word? Cubs?). Not being domesticated, though, the tiger did not understand this fundamental difference between human and cat necks, not to mention the incorrect assumption of danger.
And honestly, I have no sympathy for what happened at Seaworld. Maybe I'm a terrible person, but to me, taking something called a "killer whale", an animal that can literally kill a blue whale, putting them in a tiny ass tank and making them do silly tricks for food is super cruel, not to mention stupid. Again, whales are not programmed to function in small tanks. They navigate and communicate through sound waves, and are very social animals. So you stick one in this little tank and he's by himself all day, every day, listening to his own calls and whistles bounce off the walls. Sure, they do the performances, but only because that's the only way for them get food in their little caged-off world. I'm not surprised at all that one decided to snap and kill someone one day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNak-6O8lFQ
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Wait, what? The city?
Z0re wants this animal to die
this one too
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What new species. Humans change environments faster than most animals can evolve. Some adapt, but they're not new species.
Though pandas are retarded.
I think if we posted a picture of all the animals that humans drove into extinction vs that one, it would be the saddest collage ever made.
Okay, "new species" no but really how often does a new species arise anyways? I was under the impression new species came about because their progenitors adapted to new environments to the point they were incompatible with their ancestors? If I'm wrong I retract my point.