[vitally3643]

That's not really how it worked. It's more accurate to say that dogs co-evolved with humans in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. We've only been actively selectively breeding dogs for a few thousand years.

It's a pretty good relationship for the dogs from an evolutionary perspective. All of their needs are met forever, they experience essentially no hardship or struggle, and their species gets a free ride to survive indefinitely into the unimaginably distant future by being attached to a more successful species.

Being cute is a strategy to get attached to humans. Selective breeding amplified this in recent times, but humans evolved to find dogs cute and dogs evolved to be cute in order to enforce the symbiosis. Humans didn't subjugate dogs, the presence of the human species created an ecological niche and dogs evolved to take advantage of it.

Remember that we didn't just create dogs. Wolves initially filled the role that dogs now take. Over evolutionary time, wolves adapted to better fit the niche. Not because humans wanted that, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for a companion species to be more compatible with its host. Wolves got smaller, more friendly to humans, more protective. Wolves that didn't protect their humans lost the benefits humans provide and died. Wolves that attacked in-group humans were excluded or killed. Wolves that didn't obey their humans died due to hazards to themselves or their humans.

We only started breeding them after they became dogs. They evolved from wolves to dogs on their own.

[ksymph]

One's perspective on this discussion really hinges on the question you raise: if an animal has a 'better' life in captivity by various metrics -- lifespan, access to food, safety from predators, etc. -- is it morally right to keep them captive? What exactly are the metrics by which we judge quality of life and what values do we assign? Does a dog (or cat, or gorilla, or selectively bred human, ) have a concept of freedom or independence that carries weight? And what if that drive is extinguished through genetic modification?

There aren't clean answers to these questions, of course. We've essentially just described the same process of wolf-to-dog evolution from the two ends of the spectrum, and neither perspective is entirely wrong or right. I would like to point out a couple things, though:

> Over evolutionary time, wolves adapted to better fit the niche. Not because humans wanted that, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for a companion species to be more compatible with its host.

Take a step back and consider that statement. What made it evolutionarily advantageous is that humans wanted it. If humans didn't want a more compatible companion species, it wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous. You can't separate the advantage from human desires.

Selective breeding doesn't have to be entirely intentional. Early humans weren't practicing pedigree breeding on wild wolves, of course, but nonetheless it was artificial selection that drove evolutionary change. And for the past few thousand years, we very much have been actively and intentionally breeding them. Also -- this is beside the point, really, and total speculation, but -- given how early humans understood selective breeding in plants, it seems likely that they had some awareness of the knock-on effects of favoring friendlier wolves.

Regardless, the moral unease I feel is primarily about the current state of having another species tailored to serve our emotional needs, not how we got here. Even looking at dog to wolf evolution as an entirely natural process, does that justify everything we've done and are still doing to modify them to suit our desires? Dogs as a species may benefit from our ownership, but does that make all the individual suffering we cause okay? We think of dogs living a life of privilege and comfort, and many do, but just as many have abusive owners or are living on the streets, often with worse quality of life than wild wolves today.