I usually ask more scientific kinds of questions, but this concerns me. The lifespan of humans is not long enough, in my opinion, but dogs get even less. Most dogs don't live past 16 years. The love from a dog can be so intense that it compares to the love that humans have for their children. It's not right that such a loving being should have such a short life. Was nature wrong about this?
Dear L.D. Edmonds
I am not in a position to answer about injustice towards dogs, but one has to bear in mind that, as far as one knows, the existence of dogs is an evolutionary consequence of the domestication of wolves by humans, so I think any claim has to be made not against nature but against the human species.
The same for any loving character of dogs: it is a consequence of domestication, and that can be interpreted as something that actually happened, as a good consequence - for dogs and humans - of that domestication, or as a result of a violent attitude against nature that led humans to generate a species suited to their needs.
Sergio Aramburu is on the right track. Domestic dogs already have a longer lifespan than wild canines. However, if we didn't care so much about the appearance and physical features of dogs we could probably breed them for longevity. But that would require selecting across the boundaries of many breeds, resulting in a mongrel with a long lifespan. There are vested interests against such crossbreeding.
L.D. Edmonds
RE: "The short life is man-made, not nature-made."
Not exactly. Domestic animals often have longer lifespans than their evolutionary wild ancestors. Some of that is due to living in a domestic environment, and some of it may be an accidental side effect of breeding (large dogs seem to have shorter lives than smaller dogs).
There is a book "Animal Contract" that discusses the tacit agreement between humans and dogs, on the one hand, and humans and cats, on the other.
We humans definitely got advantage over dogs.
Cats is a totally different matter.
Antonio Lucero
RE: "We humans definitely got advantage over dogs.
Cats is a totally different matter."
Yes, indeed. The cartoon sums it up nicely. 🤡
https://scontent.fmel12-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/274771272_4782682628497581_8652913960634043528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=kRozq1G7Cl0AX_IsNlM&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel12-1.fna&oh=00_AfBIYaXmYAEMKPLgtzc77paRGvWPU4dcK_jANjOSFc0UXQ&oe=63F2AE5B
The lifespan of a dog is determined by a number of factors, including genetics, nutrition, exercise, and environment. Smaller dogs tend to have longer lifespans than larger dogs, and some breeds are more prone to certain health issues that can affect their lifespan. While it is true that many dogs do not live as long as humans, some breeds can live up to 20 years or more with proper care.
Evolutionarily speaking, the lifespan of a species is largely determined by its reproductive strategy. Dogs, like many other animals, have evolved to invest a significant amount of energy in producing offspring and caring for them during the early stages of life. Once their offspring are able to survive on their own, dogs have fulfilled their primary biological purpose, and their lifespan is not as critical for the continuation of the species.
It is natural to feel a sense of loss when a beloved pet passes away, but the love and joy that they bring into our lives is a testament to the special bond that can exist between humans and animals. While we cannot change the natural lifespan of a dog, we can cherish the time that we have with them and provide them with the best possible care and companionship during their time with us.
I think I also get what you said Ahmad Al Khraisat , that "Once their offspring are able to survive on their own, dogs have fulfilled their primary biological purpose, and their lifespan is not as critical for the continuation of the species."
It sounds like cold hard logic but I guess nature can follow logic even when it is cold. From earlier posts I guess dogs could have been bred for longevity, but they were not, and that is the fault of humans. So humans can take some of the blame, and the cold hard logic followed by nature takes the rest of the blame.
It is a very anthropomorphic approach to personify "nature" and invest it with intention. Agree with answers above and would add that it is likely that dogs experience the longevity of their lives in the same way as we do in that they go through similar developmental stages and therefore feel "young", middle-aged" and "old", so the fact that this takes place over a shorter timespan than humans is irrelevant.
Dogs attachment to humans and vice versa is mostly to their evolutionary advantage; certainly in terms of their numbers globally, although we have not helped with the extremes of selective breeding, we have by vastly improved nutrition for the small percentage of dogs that live as companion animals.
Regarding:
"It is a very anthropomorphic approach to personify "nature" and invest it with intention."
I can still be happy or unhappy about it. To go even further, I think nature is cruel when an animal suffers an agonizing death just to be lunch for another animal. I know a lot of people will argue with that but we all have a right to our own personal feelings.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction