[johnloeber]

Huh, interesting. This makes me think about domestication of animals: it's not just about us training or imposing our will on animals, but it's also about animals understanding that they can use us as tools, as the article puts it.

I say this in jest, but it sort of makes you wonder about who is using whom. Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelter, etc. and pretty much do nothing but continuously solicit pleasure. Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

[0] I note that cats are not fully domesticated animals. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/man-cat-...

[dimitar]

I've noticed the same thing about some car owners, I'm not sure who is doing more servicing, the car or the owner.

Makes me wonder if cars are in fact domesticated.

[cJ0th]

James Carse writes about how machines are controlling us in "Finite and Infinite Games" Here are some quotes. There is some more in the book and some of it is (imo) quite a bit over the top. Interesting thoughts,though.

> While a machine greatly aids the operator in such tasks, it also disciplines its operator. As the machine might be considered the extended arms and legs of the worker, the worker might be considered an extension of the machine. All machines, and especially very complicated machines, require operators to place themselves in a provided location and to perform functions mechanically adapted to the functions of the machine. To use the machine for control is to be controlled by the machine.

(Apart from cars, the relationship between people and their smartphone comes to my mind)

>[..] We do not purchase an automobile, for example, merely to own some machinery. Indeed, it is not machinery we are buying at all, but what we can have by way of it: a means of rapidly carrying us from one location to another, an object of envy for others, protection from the weather.

> I cannot use machinery without using it with another. I do not talk on the telephone; I talk with someone on the telephone. I listen to someone on the radio, drive to visit a friend, compute business transactions. To the degree that my association with you depends on such machinery, the connecting medium makes each of us an extension of itself. If your business activities cannot translate into data recognizable by my computer, I can have no business with you. If you do not live where I can drive to see you, I will find another friend. In each case your relationship to me does not depend on my needs but on the needs of my machinery. If to operate a machine is to operate like a machine, then we not only operate with each other like machines, we operate each other like machines. And if a machine is most effective when it has no effect, then we operate each other in such a way that we reach the outcome desired-in such a way that nothing happens. [...]

[Pyxl101]

> Oftentimes, I notice how pets (esp. cats[0]) are looked after 24/7 by their owners, groomed, given food, shelter, etc. and pretty much do nothing but continuously solicit pleasure.

Cats continually police the household to detect and eliminate vermin and other such pests, as well as acting as a deterrent to keep the pests and some other animals away. This function used to be more relevant in the past than it is today, however.

That said, I agree that cats are certainly in it to live a comfortable life. There's not really enough cognitive ability for there to be an exchange of comfort and labor, so humans just took advantage of cats' inherent nature. They require a pittance of food for performing a valuable service that humans struggle with doing directly.

These days, many households no longer require the services of a cat. In those households cats provide companionship. It might sound silly to compare the companionship of an animal to that with other humans, but unlike all relationships with humans, animals are nonjudgmental and always present and affectionate regardless of the circumstances. This might be the pets' adaptation to gaming the humans, but the humans nevertheless still find it to be a valuable service. There may be health benefits as well. I don't have any studies to reference, and I haven't researched the topic, but I've heard it mentioned a number of times: http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/featur...

Describing cats as semi-domesticated seems accurate. They make eye contact and many cats are clearly interested in having a relationship with you individually (not all of them are aloof). They will come to you and meow for help solving problems. They're smart enough to "ask" you to open doors and perform other actions for them. But they don't really have a dog's attentiveness and perceptiveness toward the person, nor the dog's body language and subtlety of interaction. People like cats in part because they are independent and not needy. Owners don't need to worry about a cat going crazy if left alone in a house for a few days. However, I suspect that cats would score somewhere in between dogs and wolves on the tests mentioned in the article.

[lloeki]

Our cat has developed extreme levels (for a cat) of communication skills. From the top of my head there's about 20 meow/maw/mraw/meeaw/mwaw/mwo we can distinguish (possibly 50 if I include variations in tones and length of each phoneme). Combined with subtle (compared to dogs) body language, including various tail and body positions and ears + eyes + eyelids + facial hair movements, the overall palette of "words" and "sentences" is much more rich than I could ever have expected.

The counterpart is that he grew to be extremely dependent on us, even more than a typical dog, including attentiveness and perceptiveness.

The thing is, cats can easily be quite independent (autonomous even if you're leaving by the countryside), so if you don't go towards them, they'll never feel the need to develop any more communication skills towards humans. Contrary to dogs though, they need time alone, just like humans do. Yes, "fuck off, I need to be alone" is definitely part of mine's language (way, way before it includes claws)

[bambax]

My cat is quite autonomous (lives outside, relieves himself outside, goes out for errands that can last days, etc.) but at the same time talks to us for many things.

For instance, there is no flap to our front door so if she needs to go outside during the day, she comes to us and meows.

But if it happens during the night she has noticed (I think) that I hate being woken up by hard "meoooo" in the middle of the night; and so she doesn't emit a sound -- she jumps on the bed and does a very soft "dance" on my legs until I (gently) wake up; then she meows and goes to the door, waiting for me to open it.

[comex]

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

As someone who's lived in a household with dogs and a cat, I never saw it that way. After all, most pets do not provide any practical service to their owners. When I threw a stick over and over to have the puppy bring it back to me, I may have been the one running the show, supposedly the master, but I always thought of it as my service to her; sure, it was enjoyable to me to have something to do outside, and to watch her speed and grace, but humans get tired of repetition a lot faster than dogs (and teaching her to do more interesting things than catch would have been quite a lot of work). Inside the house, it might have been nice seeing the older dog around, and to initiate play when I felt like it, but on the many, many occasions she decided to plop a filthy chew toy next to me on the couch (in the hope that I'd throw it - any attempt to remove the toy from the couch counted as a throw, resulting in her fetching it back to the couch!), I'd hardly associate the resulting exasperation with the feeling of having a servant. And I didn't have many actual duties myself - I'm sure this was felt double by the ones who dealt with their food and daily exercise.

But there's no need to be verbose. A pet is simply a lite version of a human child. Physically, the parent does everything for the child; the reward is emotional, and quite high to make up for the former...

[VLM]

>but humans get tired of repetition a lot faster than dogs

Adult humans, specifically. Thus the natural pairing of kids and dogs. Note this goes both ways, if the kids are driving the parents crazy, "go play fetch with the hound".

[arethuza]

When one of our cats (we have two Burmese) gives me a long hard stare, I am reminded of War of the Worlds:

minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us

[JulianMorrison]

It's not just animals. Wheat has been ridiculously successful by adapting itself to feed humans, who seed it in good growing soil and drive off its competitors and predators.

[tonyarkles]

I do agility training with my dog (hoops, ramps, tunnels, etc) because it's fun for both of us. We get to go out and do an activity that strengthens our bond, and for me it's a different kind of mental exertion than I get day-to-day.

One of the most fascinating parts of the sport, to me, is how much of the training is "people training" vs "dog training". At the start, there's some pretty simple dog training, e.g. if you walk over the ramp, you get a treat. That quickly turns into teaching the human how to use their body language to steer the running dog; when the dog ends up in the wrong place in the field it's, I'd say 90% of the time, the human's fault.

Anyway, on to the point of this. Me and my dog are getting to pretty good at this, and we're currently focusing on distance work; basically, me being able to run the show from half-way across the field instead of running right next to her. She has me trained so well to get closer to her. If she feels like I'm too far away, she'll steer towards me instead of going straight, and then my natural reaction is to walk towards her to help push her back on course. Unless I'm very very focused on what I'm doing, I'll end up right beside her again, even if we start 30 or 40ft away.

[Igglyboo]

Evolutionarily, domestication seems to be a jackpot.

[brc]

Well, it's true. Many a stray has adopted an owner. The relationship is symbiotic. All relationships have to be if they are to last.

[ekianjo]

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

You don't consider that animals provide emotional comfort? And make owners exercise, as well, since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

[k-mcgrady]

>> "since you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?"

If you don't want to go for a walk the pet isn't going to make you. If pet requires walks you're now a bad owner but you aren't forced to exercise with your pet.

[Xylakant]

That's not entirely true. I specifically notice that owning a dog structures the day in a specific way. The dog does not force me to go, but one effect of owning a dog is that it needs to go out multiple times a day, so I do. Even on days where I'd ordinarily not feel like, when it's raining, when I'm tired. I go for a longer hike every weekend, things that I'd not do or prioritize lower if I had no dog. And I don't think that respecting and caring for my pets needs by performing acts that I'd ordinarily not do makes me a bad owner.

[icebraining]

you need to go walk with your pets on a daily basis?

Only for a very restricted definition of "pets"; my turtles never asked for such thing :)

[ikurei]

Both are valid perspectives. I think we are using each other, which might be common to most social interactions.

[lifeisstillgood]

Looking after a puppy - yes, it's stressful and far less rewarding than children. Signed, a cat person.

I do however think this is a brilliant insight and in hindsight so obvious.

[psykovsky]

I always said dogs aren't the man best friends but only put up with us for interest, kind of a "gold-digger" pet.

[danieltillett]

When it comes to who is using who in the natural world then it is best to use the golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules. Ultimately the partner in any relationship who takes more than they give is in the subordinate position.