“Kazakh never barked or played with other dogs or investigated interesting smells or noises or chased animals which had been the natural prey of her ancestors because, when she was a puppy, big-brained human beings showed her hate and withheld food whenever she did any of those things. They let her know from the first that that was the kind of planet she was on: that natural canine activities were against the law — all of them.
They removed her sex organs so that she would never be distracted by sexual urgencies. And I was about to say that the cast of my story would soon boil down to just one male and a lot of females, including a female dog. But Kazakh wasn’t really a female anymore, thanks to surgery. Like Mary Hepburn, she was out of the evolutionary game. She wasn’t going to leave her genes to anyone”
– Galapagos, Kurt Vonnegut
So herewith is another conundrum.
For those currently in cohabitation with animals, or in the future, or even those with a wee bit of fondness for various cretins (in this case, dogs):
A. Would you choose to go with the belief and practice that a responsible pet owner/ cohabitant must take control over factors and circumstances to avoid the potential circumstances that result to animal cruelty (very broad, very relative) – ex. overpopulation, owner’s limited capacity to care for offspring and their offspring, rampant homeless starving dogs, shelters and pounds reaching maximum capacity and the average ratio of euthanized animals?
or, B. do you agree with the late Mr. Vonnegut’s rationale – that it is all just in those “big brains” that humans take it upon themselves to take control over everyone’s (animals, plants included) natural activities and evolutionary systems in earnest attempts to be responsible and maintain order in this big bad world? Examples: Planned reproduction/ breeding, surgical neutering/spaying, etc.
I’ve been chewing on this question myself.
Wonder what you think?