Have you tried kissing her?
…
Oh wait. I thought you said BullFROG.
nm.
1 Like
The late, great ‘Professor’ Irwin Barker had a joke where he talked about how animals’ stress made their meat taste bad (because of the stress-generated hormones) and that happy docile animals’ meat was tastier. “So pets should make the tastiest meat!” Continuing while simulating chewing: “Mmm, you can just taste the trust.”
3 Likes
I think that the emotional life of animals can sometimes be used as a mirror to explain our own, non-rational emotions.
LOL. BULLdogs were bred to harry bulls before butchering in the “sport” of bull-baiting because there was a theory that the meat tasted better when the animal was slaughtered after the bull was stressed.
And they were wrong! Especially for pigs.
At least, the Spaniards eventually figured it out.
1 Like
The meat of an animal that died in agony is measurably, physically different not only in taste but also in texture… A minority of modern people apparently prefer the taste of bruised meat that’s low in glycogen and lactic acid, and soaked in cortisol and adrenaline, but they’d better eat it right away since the shelf life is considerably reduced.
Well, my dog cries when I am sad, even if my sadness is from something he couldn’t otherwise be aware of (like me reading a tragic/traumatic news article). So no, the result isn’t surprising.
But that doesn’t mean the study is a waste. As others pointed out above, the whole idea of caring about how animals feels is disturbingly new. In the 1500s cat burning (roasting a basket of live kittens) was a popular pastime. Spinoza and more recent philosophers thought animals had no souls and so their physiological responses didn’t count as emotion. And yeah the veterinarians pre-1989 business is really freaky (and such vets will still be practicing for another ~20 years). So I am all for conclusively showing that those ideas should never be seriously entertained again.
Yeah, I’m astonished to hear that. My detailed exposure to animals only extends to cats, fish and (mostly) dogs. I see research in this area as inherently valuable just because it’s interesting, as well as instrumentally valuable (i.e. since it could help to improve treatment of–and perhaps legal protections for–animals).
Dogs being the most demonstrative of the animals I know well, it’s always seemed to me that they behave as I’d expect them to if they were experiencing emotion (and sensations of pain, etc), and moreover that they do so in ways and at times that make it seem like they’re experiencing the kinds of emotions that humans do in analogous situations.
So as a practical matter–and I’d have thought that this would extend to vets since they have so much more animal-interaction than I do–I’ve always just assumed that they are experiencing the emotions in question and acted accordingly. I’m a little baffled that any other explanation for the empirical phenomena was ever seriously entertained (Descartes, this might be your fault…). You do have to twist and turn a bit to conclude that animals don’t experience emotions after observing them…
Other fun, indirectly related reading:
-
What is it Like to be a Bat:
-
The Structure of Behavor (Google Books)
- Warning: tedious/hard going at some points, but very interesting
1 Like
“oxycontin makes us feel safe.”
Relaxed and blissful too. 
You probably mean oxytocin. #possibleFreudianSlip
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
