Hacker News Reader

Comment by codingdave | Hacker News Reader

"Somewhere along the line, people shifted from tolerating cats to welcoming them, providing extra food and a warm place to sleep. Why?"

Anyone who lives near fields knows why - they eat the mice. If you have cats, your farm stays rodent-free. And snake-free, with my cats. They are an important part of the ecosystem around here.

View on HN

As anyone who'd read the full paragraph you're quoting knows, that's what they mean by "tolerating" cats. I.e. a non-friendly symbiotic relationship where they eat your mice and you don't kill them.

The question they're posing is why were they eventually fully domesticated, which is not the same thing, nor was necessarily required to get the practical benefits of domestic cats.

To add, domestication may've been counter-productive, diminishing the utility of cats as "mousers." [1]

[1] http://cattime.com/cat-facts/lifestyle/1916-10-facts-about-c... (admittedly not a great source)

In agricultural areas, there's typically a "barn cat" variety that's less domesticated.

but likely suffering from massive birth defects due to inbreeding.

Maybe. But cat mills do that too.

Sure. I think this thread's pointing out the nuance in the article -- i.e. if you don't need to domesticate a "barncat" to get its "mousing" benefits, then why domesticate at all?

Clear as mud, right? ;-)

In my experience, there's a major familial component to domestication of cats. I've adopted feral kittens. If you get them young enough, they tolerate people. But they aren't as friendly as typical house cats. However, their kittens tend to be friendlier.

The answer is: Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. http://thepetbooklady.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8347a49a469e2017c3...

My take too. Even if snakes made breakfast for me I don't think I'd be into them. Felines with their high degree of fluffiness and babyishness are magnets. Even with dangerous allergies I couldn't keep my hands off of them as a kid.

I'm more inclined to say that cats have domesticated humans than the other way around, though...

Spoiler alert: this represents a huge upside for wolf spiders.

Every time I see a big wolf spider running around my house, I pause for a moment, shoe in hand, and wonder whether I'm better off adopting a live and let live approach and letting it live as a domesticated exterminator, or just offing it due to the instinctual spider aversion I possess. The verdict: as long as they stay away from my sleeping quarters and clothes, they have carte blanche.

I also wonder in a century or two, in the suburbs of America, if Hogna aspersa will be as common and as beloved as the house cat.

If you just let it be won't it eventually have hundreds of children?

Are they cannibalistic? If so, problem solved. If not, their progeny die because they've solved the silverfish problem and there's no other food.

Kind of a cats and mice thing, was my point.

The mammal dislike of arthropods goes pretty deep. Most people enjoying seeing live hawks, cats, or other predators, but the percentage of people whose reaction to spiders can only be described as 'visceral' is substantial.

The way I see it, spiders in and around the house are alive and well because they're eating something, and that something is probably way less desirable than the spider.

I thought Toxoplasmosis was an accepted cause for the acceptance of cats.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/do-cats-co...

They also slaughter songbirds and other natural wildlife. Living in the country I'm torn. I like that they kill mice, but the fact they murder anything they stumble upon is pretty disappointing. It's unfortunate they aren't more "programmed" to kill pests vs. anything they see that appears to be weaker than they are.

The important thing from a purely economic perspective is that they kill a lot of things that eat crops, but don't eat crops themselves.

That's some next level anthropomorphism right there. "Slaughter"? "Murder"? Why don't you just call them "Feline Nazi Stormtroopers Baby Killers" and take the hyperbole to 11?

Cat's don't "murder" anything; murder requires cognition and premeditation. They aren't "programmed" in a way that the programming can be changed; they're apex predators and they kill things that are smaller than they are and have for hundreds of thousands of years. It's going to be deeply disturbing to you, I'm sure, but nature, far beyond cats, doesn't really work according to your apparent understanding of "the rules".

Cats aren't really apex predators though. Dogs kill them, foxes kill them, coyotes kill them, I've watched a hawk kill a cat in my neighborhood when I was a child...

I don't know of many predators that seem to kill just to kill like cats seem to? I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert in this regard but all my dogs that have killed animals appeared to do it as an instinct to "provide" for the social group while I've known cats that appeared to kill not due to hunger or any inherent interest in bringing a "present" to anyone like they sometimes do.

I guess I wonder what your response would be to these thoughts, as you might provide clarity to someone with my imperfect understanding. This is sincere as well: I know that what I've written could be construed as sarcastic but I'm not interested in anything other than sincerity.

Apex predator doesn't mean nothing else kills them, especially when you're mixing domains. An animal that's unmatched in one domain might be distinctly disadvantaged in another (e.g. polar bears in a vanishing ice cap). But quibbling over that definition is willfully obfuscating the point.

> I don't know of many predators that seem to kill just to kill like cats seem to?

I've seen a dog kill another dog and walk away. I've seen crows kill a squirrel and only pick out it's eyes. Hell, I've seen a squirrel kill all the baby birds in a nest and only eat one, in case you didn't think squirrels ate meat. Does that mean dogs, crows and squirrels are murderers or do it for fun?

The problem with cats is they live in close proximity to us, so we see first hand what they're up to, and they have a set of routine behaviors that don't exactly match our human perception of how predators are "suppose" to behave. But instead of trying to understand them in context, some people anthropomorphise them and make the cat "evil", a "murderer" or whatever.

I think you're assuming the poster is naive or stupid based on a few very evocative verbs. That doesn't seem fair and gives your post a harsh tone.

I imagine their distress is not that their cat is an evil murderer, but that their "murder" of small animals is destructive to the ecosystem.

I think the nativity is clear, and while I don't assume stupidity I don't rule it out. The posters entire screed is lifted from any number of anti-feline polemics that have come out after a study in Nature found in a relatively small sample group cats killed things. Shocker. And the study pointed out that it was mostly "free-range" cats, not your house cat doing the killing.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.h...

Whatever the nomenclature, if a pet repeatedly kills wild animals that's just not acceptable

A dog that uncontrollably kills wildlife would not be allowed outside unleashed, and where I live can (legally) be shot by the next hunter that sees it.

Yes, nature can be brutal. But pets are not part of nature, they are part of civilisation.

A dog shitting on the sidewalk could also be called "natural". But it creates a problem, so we try to prevent it. Cats and every other pet has to be held to the same standard. The owner has to prevent the pet from creating a problem.

If a pet can not be held in any way that doesn't harm the pet but is also compatible with other humans, other pets, other peoples property or wildlife: please don't get that pet.

(As I see it indoor cats can be very happy animals and exercise their hunting instincts with toys just fine, and I'm not arguing about cats, just about pets in general)

Why are mice unter-animals and songbirds are uber-animals that deserve protection?

It's mostly that songbirds are more interesting, I think. But there's also the fact that mice, for the most part, are non-native species. Most songbirds, on the other hand, are native. And there are numerous species.

Bird watching is a popular hobby. I've never heard of mouse watching.

OK, that's a thoroughly human-centric view. (Which might be fine, as long as we are admitting it.)

Oh yes, I was coming from a human-centric view as to why people value one species over another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com