Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

<snip>
>>Not keeping "pets" (or actually, companion animals) is a long-term goal,
>>not anything that is going to happen any time soon. But this shows the
>>poverty of imagination non-ARAs have: you can only imagine humans
>>interacting with animals in ways that dominate and control them. I can
>>think of many ways to interact with animals on terms of mutual freedom.
>>So can PETA (of which I am a long-term member, since 1984).

> Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with us?

Where they please.

Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals,
both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose
here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an
answer. AR does not require that companion animals and livestock be
shooed into the streets and abandoned; that would violate the obligation
we have toward them, one which we have because we have made them
helpless and dependent on us. Many breeds cannot now survive on their
own; no domestic-born animal has much of a chance on his/her own, even
if suitable wild habitat existed now. However, every domestic animal
once had wild ancestors, animals who were perfectly capable of
surviving on their own. Most domestic animals have some less overbred
breeds which are close enough to the original that they could be
successfully reintroduced into the wild, or if not (like, perhaps,
sheep) some close wild cousin which could successfully fill the
ecological niche of the domestic animal in a wild ecology (say, red
sheep, Dall sheep, Barbary sheep, bighorns, and so on.) Feral cats,
dogs, pigs, goats, burros, horses, etc., (semi) feral chickens,
cattle, etc., show how easily many domestic animals may establish
feral populations. So, the process of returning domestic animals
to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable
habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a
balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get
the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong
ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away
population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to
survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could
certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be
required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those
animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their
line end with them.

> And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact, she
> even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3 year
> old grandson.

And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?

> In point of fact, by insisting that other people follow your beliefs, aren't
> *you* the ones who wants control?

I present my beliefs; I do believe they are correct and others should
follow them, but I do not impose them by force. Is that not true of
every person with strong ethical convictions? If you believe murder is
wrong, or theft is wrong, do you not "insist" that others should
follow that belief? I suspect, unless you are an anarchist, you would
even impose such beliefs with force ( police, Army, etc.) If I believe
meat is murder, should I not try to convince others? The remarkable
thing is that most ARAs do NOT try to "impose" their beliefs; they try
only to persuade.

<snip>
Rat