I guess dogs do have a good sense about the lives of people

I can see how there are many issues with advocating for dogs as if they are people, since even then people that say that still take charge of their lives and make decisions for them.

This is interesting to think about, traits and personalities that we assign to certain dog breeds are just something that we pinned on them, they aren't the emotions that dogs actually possess.

Dogs are domesticated animals and have evolved to be hypersensitive to what their owners are doing, like if their looking in a certain direction. They rely on people to get them their food, instead of relying on hunting their own pray.

People have their own interpretations of who are and what their personalities reflect.

Now reading about this theory, in which wolves evolved themselves to be tamer over time, in combination with settlements being created over time, makes sense.

This theory definitely makes more sense than the later where we initiated trying to tame wolves out of nowhere. As more people settled and made homes, it would make sense that some calmer wolves would take advantage of that for food.

Even small dog breeds have their moments like these, and surprisingly small dog breeds have a reputation of being a bit loud and nasty at times.

This happened with myself, I wanted a dog since I was a kid and eventually during middle school my parents decided to get me one.

This is a story I've seen similarly before with some of my friends and family friends, they really wanted a dog or cat and eventually convinced their parents that weren't too enthusiastic. In all cases tho, the parents end up loving the new pet.

While people were protesting and campaigning against whale hunting, whales were still being affected by a more unseen force that we knew about but didn't want to face. Now, even with whale populations larger than the days when they were hunted, they are dying off once again still due to humans influence.

It's crazy to think about how even in the most secluded places of the world, the environment and the organisms living there are still reached by pollution.

It's sad to think about how PCBs were originally produced from whale fat, and now that their still causing whales to die.

It sounds like pollution is affecting whales in all parts of their lives, including their food source, the water they live in, and even the air they breath in.

I've never thought of pollution in this way pertaining to any living creature. I feel like we focus so much on pollution on land and in the atmosphere that bodies of water get overlooked to some extent.

It seems that pollution in the seas and oceans also could have an affect on whales being beached, as it does on many other species that rely on water. It's even worse now finding out that whales absorb chemical's in the water and that their bodies increase their affects.

I've never thought much about why whales end up beached. I always assumed that they just swam too close to the shore line and got trapped in shallower waters. However, if some whales know their routes and where to go, why does this keep happening?

So if a whale's been stranded long enough, because of it's own anatomy, it's own body could crush itself under it's weight.

it's sad to think about while the whale is clearly dying, there's not much onlookers can do, and it'l take the whale a long time and a lot of suffering before it fully passes away.

There are so many examples of animals resisting abuse and fighting back, which show that they are aware and conscious of what is happening.

I'm surprised that it took until 1975 for someone to break down the Cartesian model of animals being treated as machines.

It's interesting that there are many examples of poets putting emphasis on how animals should be treated well.

I wonder what caused that change of people seeing animals as their equals to thinking that humans are better/smarter.

With no rhyme or reason, philosophers said that animals had no grasp on abuse and couldn't feel pain, all to make people feel better about it.

How did trials get fazed out but the killing of animals continue and increase? Why was that just decided?

It seems that for the majority of cases the consent of the animals wasn't considered and they were killed along with the person.

This is just so bizarre, how did people back then think that in any way shape or form a mule could've consented to that?

It's weird to me that people during the times of the trials thought that the animals/insects would just do what they were commanded to.

It's interesting that in some cases, aside from just standing trial like a person would, some animals were even dressed up in human clothing. I wonder if this was to put them at the same level as a person, or to make it seem like they have the same thinking process and awareness.

I didn't expect that twist and had no idea that animals could be put on trial for a crime. And if they don't have a grasp of our laws, then why should they be put on trial the same way people are?

He's trying to think more like a badger by being able to see the world around him like them, with their sense of smell.

Clearly he isn't having a great time actually trying to live as a badger, and also has his son there. So why doesn't he end it? What else is he trying to achieve?

Interesting how he's referring to Tom's hand as "paws", like he's already partially a badger.

He seems to like to think about badgers emotions as similar to his own.

So he won't turn down food if it's given to him since badgers are "opportunistic".

At this point I'm wondering as to how far he's going to take this, and if he actually plans on living in the woods for some time. Also as to why he got his 8 year old son involved.

Im confused as to if Meg thinks that someone can actually become an animal, or if she means it in the way that Charles is now trying to become a badger.

Him talking about Tom, who I presume is his own human son, in terms of how close he is to a badger is interesting.

It's interesting that badgers are depicted in a similar fashion throughout a lot of kids books and stories. As kind of wise and knowledgable, with a pipe and a nice jacket.

I wonder why she draws the line at eating meat and not wearing animal products, since for those products to be made animals still have to be killed.

This is an interesting thought. In different cultures when an animal is killed it's then honored somehow, or a god is prayed to.

The dinner seems to be going fine so far.

That is a good question, presuming that before she started her talk the organizers probably weren't aware that she was vegetarian.

She doesn't really answer the questions posed, and it seems she wants her listeners to make their own opinions based on her talk rather than mull over hers if she had stated them clearly.

This is an interesting way to end her talk. She doesn't have a certain point specifically about animals to end it on, although she does relate it back to her comparison to people living around concentration camps.

This reminds me of the concept of an "other", she's saying that the Nazi's that put people on the trains to concentration camps didn't think of those people as something like themselves, as humans.

Descartes views on animals were very extreme, thinking of them as closer to machines than living things.

It's interesting to see how some of the apes started wearing shreds of clothing or carrying things, although they may not know the meaning behind it. I'm assuming that they may have observed Wolfgang wearing clothes, and somehow that influenced them.

It's interesting that Kafkas writing and a real event that took place have so many similarities, although it isn't certain that Kafka actually knew about it.

Honestly, I had forgotten that she had started talking about Franz Kafka's Red Peter. It's a bit hard for me to follow her lecture, and I feel as though much of her audience would feel the same.

I've never heard of Ramanujan and his story before, so that was interesting to read about. I'm curious if any of his thoughts in mathematics were ever adopted by anyone else after his death.

This sentiment does make sense, I feel like people that are perhaps giving speeches and talks are often expected to refer back to old philosophers and thinkers, because they may give them more "credibility". She instead doesn't want to do that in the same way and instead wants to speak her own thoughts regardless.

It seems like Elizabeth knows that her comparison is extreme, but stands by it anyways. So far it seems that she is more focused on making a comparison between animal cruelty and concentration camps in WW2 than actually talking about the animals.

It seems that she is going to make a comparison between people near concentration camps in WW2 and people today that don't pay attention to where the meat we eat comes from. This is very much two very different things that shouldn't in my opinion be compared.

While Elizabeth may lack animation in her delivery and may not look up at her audience, her lines seem very direct and blunt. She knows exactly what she wants to say and isn't beating around the bush.

Seeing as Elizabeth cares a lot about animal rights and is doing a talk on it rather than on her own work, she probably doesn't eat meat. I wonder why however Elizabeth doesn't like Norma and vice versa, so far we haven't been given a real reason.

It seems like Elizabeth may be vegan/vegetarian or just have some kind of distaste for meat. It's inferable that she likes things done her way, like how she doesn't like seeing meat on the dinner table and isn't afraid to make that known. She might already know why the kids aren't eating with them, but is asking anyway to start a conflict.

Iv'e seen this exhibition multiple times over, and I've never liked sticking around it for long. The feeling of walking through a hallway lined with dead animals posed and placed in a painted set is saddening.

Akeley specifically sought out more healthy and young animals, leaving the more sickly and "less perfect" one's behind. I feel like doing this could be very hurtful to an animals habitat.

Seeing those exhibitions in person, I never thought that those animals were killed specifically just to be stuffed and displayed in a museum for people to view. I had always assumed that they had died of natural causes or something of the sort. It's saddening to hear of the latter.

Sounds like the museum prioritized attracting a crowd more than educating the public.

It's saddening to hear that the two whales perished, partially due to the firemen using the water from their tanks to try and help put out the fire. However, I guess they would've met the same fate even if they didn't pump out the water.

From an outside perspective, an octopuses life seems nonsensical and contradicting. Perhaps not tragic however.

The octopuses body seems to contradict itself, like with it having photoreceptors in it's eyes and in it's skin, but both lacking those photoreceptors necessary for seeings colors.

If an animal simply responding in a way to an injury or something that could potentially harm them is not enough to say that they "feel pain", then what would definitively suggest that?

If an animal is shown to often purposefully trying to escape it's enclosure, wouldn't the ethical answer be to release it back into it's natural environment?

Do octopuses react with curiosity only to humans? Or do they act the same ways towards other species that reside in the ocean? If their only curious when a person is present, why?

It is interesting to lear about how octopuses intelligence is compared to that of humans. While we may not be able to communicate with them per se, they are still incredibly intelligent in other ways.

I have heard many times over about how intelligent the octopus really is, and just how elaborative its escapes from captivity can be. However, even knowing so, octopus is still an incredibly common thing you'd see on your plate during a meal. How come we draw the line at not eating animals we consider pets like cats and dogs, while animals with perhaps more intelligence get eaten?

I think a good example of animal personofication is a movie like Zootopia, which a few years ago was a major blockbuster and was marketed towards kids. In it's case and other movies of the sort, it seems like using animals as the main characters is meant to help show important issues that arise in our society in a more friendly manner for a kid audience.