Comment by Perceptes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Perceptes | Hacker News Reader

Pug parent here. As many other comments have mentioned, brachycephalic dogs are only one kind that suffers largely as a result of selective breeding by humans. I have the (somewhat) unfortunate opinion that brachycephalic dogs are also by far the cutest. Nothing makes me happier than being with my pug.

I think this particular article brings up two important things about dogs as pets, but fails to connect them properly: 1) some animals suffer much more than others due to selective breeding 2) we should not buy them. Perhaps the author actually intended this, but as written it doesn't go far enough: We should not be supporting animal breeders at all, regardless. Creating animals that are dependent on humans for survival is wrong, as is giving people a financial motivation for creating more of them. Animals are not a commodity—they are living beings that feel just like we do.

What I think we should do is take care of the lives we already have (adopt animals in shelters and rescues and take the best care of them you can) but stop breeding animals as human companions, and certainly don't support those who do financially.

This viewpoint goes hand in hand with my beliefs on a more philosophical level: veganism and antinatalism.

Well, we invented dogs. So while it is a good morale argument that breeding co-dependency into a species and infantilizing an otherwise very self-sufficient predator is a bad thing, its probably not going to happen. At least not in our lifetime.

Which brings us back to improving the standards for breeding that we have today. Some dogs, such as Dalmatians and Bulldogs, are genetic atrocities and should not be bred in the way that they are right now. Not only is it irresponsible, it results in a very poor quality of life for the resulting litter.

Standing firmly against these practices as an industry - as pet lovers, as professionals - is a difficult, but remarkably achievable goal.

I don't know why people buy dalmatians. My only experience with the breed was my childhood friend's dalmation, who was an asshole and bit me.

But I do know why people buy bulldogs. They're easygoing. They have high medical and upkeep maintenance costs, but very low day-to-day costs. They're suitable for families with small children or other pets. They're grateful for play time when it's available, but not harmed by prolonged inattention. They're not so big that you couldn't own one in an apartment.

If there's another, healthier breed with the same characteristics and no major health problems, I'll concede that people should buy that breed and not the bulldog. But I don't think that's the case.

Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument. If you need those attributes in a pet, your alternative to a compromised dog is no dog at all. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that bringing a genetically compromised dog into the world is an ethical positive, I can't find a way to it being ethically negative. It seems pretty neutral to me.

Obviously: to responsibly acquire one of these dogs, you need to be educated about their issues and committed to ensuring their comfort as best as can be done.

I looooooove Dalmatian's. They're so pretty and spotty and different looking.

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why someone in their right mind would buy a bulldog. lol. They slobber and fart and cost a small fortune just to keep alive for a reasonable period of time. Not to mention they literally cannot give birth without a C-section which, to me, is just unfathomable to put an animal through just because you like the way the animal looks. But to each their own, eh?

> "Stipulating that you can only get that package of attributes in a health-compromised breed, I don't think you have a very strong argument"

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

If you want an apartment-sized dog that has like, no health issues, adopt a pit bull. Adopt a mutt. Adopt a labrador. If the dog tears up your shit, hire a trainer. If it needs exercise, exercise it more. Etc.

You can certainly choose a breed (or mix) that will have a significantly better quality of life without sacrificing anything personally. In which case, why would you instead choose a breed that is for-sure without-a-doubt no-way-around-it riddled with problems? The ethical negative seems obvious because there are plenty of other dogs that fit the bill without sacrificing their health from jump.

I will agree with you on education being an important factor in choosing a dog. But very few people have the in-depth education required to make that choice in the first place so, like I said, the responsibility ultimately falls on the BREEDER.

This is like saying, "if you have a set of requirements X, Y, and Z, don't have those requirements". If we didn't have those requirements, we'd have bought a different dog. If the dog that met those requirements wasn't available, we simply wouldn't have bought another dog. No healthier dog's welfare was impacted by our decision to acquire this particular dog.

Isn't that a bit of a misrepresentation of the problem though? The genetic problems that bulldogs exhibit aren't results of the traits you mention, but of conformance to a breed standard and the trends of a very small minority of bulldog owners (those that show them).

Unfortunately, that small minority drives the cost of bulldogs and thus drives the breeders. If the bulldog standard was revised to a healthier expectation and the show dog fashion was for more robust dogs, the breed would improve in the areas where it falters now and it wouldn't impact the traits you mentioned right?

I'm uncertain of that. American bulldogs, for instance, are much more demanding than English bulldogs. Part of what you're buying in a bulldog is a low-energy dog.

American bulldogs are specifically bred for 2 traits against what you mentioned size & energy. So I think that is largely a bad counter example.

Granted I have no idea about dog breeding but you can see in the history of the bulldog itself that it is getting more exaggerated in the traits that make it less healthy. Do we know if they are getting more companionable?

You're right, I don't know, but it was my understanding that the "healthier" modern bulldog breeds are also much more active.

How do you mean? When you say "misrepresentation."

All breeders (in theory) are breeding to the "breed standard," which means if the standard says to breed unhealthy dogs then that's what they do. Because of the existence of the standard in its current state, even 'pet owners' (rather than dog showers/breeders) will be forced to buy dogs that are unhealthy. It is by design. This is precisely why it must be changed.

I am of course referring to the English Bulldog when I say "all" (this variety is overwhelmingly unhealthy) whereas the American variety seems to be significantly better off.

So - YES, we should change the standard to focus on health. But - NO, breeders are not "the minority." Not all breeders show their dogs, not all handlers breed the dogs they show, but because they are the ones doing the breeding, the responsibility begins with them.

Get a whippet. Sleep all day with a few nutty runs in park.

I disagree. From an evolutionary standpoint right now, the best thing an animal could do would be to be liked by humans. If we disband our love for cats and dogs and stop using them as pets, then after a while the only remaining ones would be seen as pests and would be suppressed or eradicated.

With that said, I agree that our breeding of purebred pets should be stopped. It hurts the pets with no benefit to us other than bragging rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com