The pedigree system and domestic Dogs

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

You don't see shepherds or Inuits with "Champion Marmaduke Churchill the second" in the reins, or running up and down Snowdon. Actually, any time I've watched sheep trials, the better dogs were very obviously mixed breed, nothing like a show border collie. 

All the farmers I've known with sheepdogs are all recognisably border collies, and pretty much every episode of "one man and his dog" too, and I doubt there's a pedigree certificate for any of them. Which is exactly my point, it would be relatively easy to compose a regulation to both maintain the health of the dog and satisfy the requirements of everyone.

[naitche]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

While it's obviously true that some do see owning pedigrees as a status symbol, that most certainly does not apply to me. Every dog I have had, has been a "mate" with whom I spent plenty of time with. And while I agree with some of the sentiments reflected in the OP and in other posts, my attraction to pure breeds in general, has probably been more hand-me down from the days when my parents bred miniature Dachsunds. In fact at this moment I am trialing for a few days, with a young [14 months old] cross breed Foxy and Pug with the possibility of looking after it for a month while the owners go on an overseas holiday. How it gets along with my two Dachys will decide on whether I look after it of course.

I don't think its just pedigrees that many see as a status symbol, or that all pedigree owners do. It just  seems to be getting more common these days.

And there are Pedigree breeders who put everything they can into breeding the best all 'round dogs they can, health test for every genetic disorder there is a test for, doing all within their abilities to do it 'right'. But there are new disorders coming in all the time. A new one causing paralysis in Rottweilers just discovered in Australia.

The institute of canine biology says if it keeps up at its current rate, 100% of dobermans will have a heart condition in 20 years. Testing is often not mandatory and isn't enough even if it were. Because all that can do is reduce the potential gene pool further.

For those who see cross breeds as a solution,  they are at risk too more than ever because these genetic defects are now so common that two very different breeds will often carry the same recessive genes for a disorder. Bad hips and elbows are almost universal to larger breeds and locking patellas in the smaller ones.

In Australia at least, there are very few mutts that haven't a pure breed as recent as a grand parent. Entire Dogs are discouraged through higher registration costs - unless you are a registered breeder.

 

 

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, naitche said:

And there are Pedigree breeders who put everything they can into breeding the best all 'round dogs they can, health test for every genetic disorder there is a test for, doing all within their abilities to do it 'right'. But there are new disorders coming in all the time. A new one causing paralysis in Rottweilers just discovered in Australia.

The institute of canine biology says if it keeps up at its current rate, 100% of dobermans will have a heart condition in 20 years. Testing is often not mandatory and isn't enough even if it were. Because all that can do is reduce the potential gene pool further.

For those who see cross breeds as a solution,  they are at risk too more than ever because these genetic defects are now so common that two very different breeds will often carry the same recessive genes for a disorder. Bad hips and elbows are almost universal to larger breeds and locking patellas in the smaller ones.

In Australia at least, there are very few mutts that haven't a pure breed as recent as a grand parent. Entire Dogs are discouraged through higher registration costs - unless you are a registered breeder.

3

4

Which is exactly why a well-regulated pedigree type certification system would be beneficial for all dogs.

16 minutes ago, naitche said:

I don't think its just pedigrees that many see as a status symbol, or that all pedigree owners do. It just  seems to be getting more common these days.

indeed, there's many a youth walking around with a pit bull type on the lead instead of a knife in their pocket... 

Edited September 3, 2018 by dimreepr

[naitche]

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All the farmers I've known with sheepdogs are all recognisably border collies, and pretty much every episode of "one man and his dog" too, and I doubt there's a pedigree certificate for any of them. Which is exactly my point, it would be relatively easy to compose a regulation to both maintain the health of the dog and satisfy the requirements of everyone.

What would you have in mind?

We have had some pretty good legislation here in the past aimed at welfare, cruelty prevention etc. 

it didn't, of course, stop cruelty or welfare breeches from happening. Many of those were very high profile cases and generated a lot of outrage.  So we have ever more being introduced. Its gone beyond asking people to meet the needs of  dogs, to specifying exactly how that must be done.  Its often  not in the best interests of the dogs. Unless you agree that one standard fits all.

Its driving Dog breeding into a purely commercial enterprise because the sheer amount of red tape for approval, inspections, licencing and infrastructure. 

I've thought the Institute of Canine Biology  and my idea of a purpose and value based registry good mutual support. A finance source for the Institute, science for the registry

Edited September 3, 2018 by naitche

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, naitche said:

What would you have in mind?

We have had some pretty good legislation here in the past aimed at welfare, cruelty prevention etc. 

it didn't, of course, stop cruelty or welfare breeches from happening. Many of those were very high profile cases and generated a lot of outrage.  So we have ever more being introduced. Its gone beyond asking people to meet the needs of  dogs, to specifying exactly how that must be done.  Its often  not in the best interests of the dogs. Unless you agree that one standard fits all.

Its driving Dog breeding into a purely commercial enterprise because the sheer amount of red tape for approval, inspections, licencing and infrastructure. 

I've thought the Institute of Canine biology  and my idea of a purpose and value based registry good mutual support.

As you've pointed out the mistakes of our past can and do, sometimes come back to haunt us, but if we knew the nature of the problem, who's related to whom and possible recessive genetic problems. Here in the UK we already have a law that requires all dogs be chipped, it wouldn't be much of a step to include lineage, breed etc in the chip's memory.

[mistermack]

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All the farmers I've known with sheepdogs are all recognisably border collies, and pretty much every episode of "one man and his dog" too, and I doubt there's a pedigree certificate for any of them. Which is exactly my point, it would be relatively easy to compose a regulation to both maintain the health of the dog and satisfy the requirements of everyone.

You're right ! I looked on youtube, and they seem to be all pure bred collies. It's totally changed from what I remember. I was remembering watching one man and his dog more than thirty years ago, and the best dogs back then always seemed to be collie crosses. Now the ones on youtube are nothing but regular collies.

I'm guessing that it's down to the price of puppies. Farmers like to make money wherever they can, and that includes their dogs. You will get a heck of a lot more for a litter of pure bred collies, than a bunch of mongrels, so it's obvious what to get, if you want a sheep dog. A well bred pup will sell for about £500 and you could get six or even eight in a litter.

[naitche]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As you've pointed out the mistakes of our past can and do, sometimes come back to haunt us, but if we knew the nature of the problem, who's related to whom and possible recessive genetic problems. Here in the UK we already have a law that requires all dogs be chipped, it wouldn't be much of a step to include lineage, breed etc in the chip's memory.

Yes, I do think thats a good idea. We have the same mandatory chipping here too, to be done before  8 weeks of age or before sale.

I.C.B does extensive genetic testing, including diversity.

Maybe that could be tied in too, with cheaper council registration for those taking part to reward responsibility instead of punishing every one equally. 

I've been trying to convince the K.Cs they need to recognise cross breeds. That with out doing that, we are all locked in to a process of endless elimination and the only other solution is a value and purpose based registry  specifically to bring those back to Dog breeding, Since those are  lost with out environmental recognition.

 They can't understand that recognition is not the same thing as acceptance into the pedigrees, or why they should recognise cross breeds.  My answer was; You wouldn't even need to ask that question if the K.Cs hadn't stated how they should be treated in the 1st place.

The rules and regulations for registration and inclusion in the registry were already clearly set out, and still would be. That statement was unneeded and added nothing. It took away a lot.

But it seems very few get it no matter how often its explained, we go in circles.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

45 years now since Dalmations had the pointer outcross to solve the uric acid problem, and their country of origin breed club has just banned from its registry those dogs resulting.

Not pure.

 Not recognised.

Disease is more acceptable because with out it, its not a Dalmation.  Bulgaria may follow.

 

Can any one tell me if the organisation as organism hypothesis has been generally accepted or rejected by science? 

The rules for a successful constitution I mentioned in an  earlier post?   Or how  to name it  so I know where to look?

My observations  certainly back it up. It appears to me  physics do as well. If so the effects are insidious and would be very relevant to world politics and culture today. 

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, naitche said:

Can any one tell me if the organisation as organism hypothesis has been generally accepted or rejected by science? 

Could you elaborate what you mean with "organisation as organism hypothesis"?

[naitche]

The idea that organisations are living systems, depending on their wider environment to meet their needs. That they affect and should respond as such to thrive or maintain viability. To integrate. 

  An idea expanded and elaborated on by Hendrik Gommer in 

A Biological Theory of Law, Natural Law Revisited.   

https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ulr.166/    

Embodied in the ideas  for the writing of a successful successful constitution.

The mission statement sets out what is the purpose / intent of the organisation. 

Rules and regulations set out how that is to be accomplished.

Positive rules, (ie: We will)  give direction. Negative statements and rules ( ie: we will not) should be avoided.  They  can only block direction, most often in unforseen ways .

Statements, rules and regulations should concern only what occurs within the space of the organisation, and negatives avoided if mention must be made because that sets up what is called a double negative.

What lies beyond the scope of the organisation is Its environment. So a negative statement, rule or regulation blocks  intent in unpredictable ways, and  affects integration with the environment, setting up an opositional force.  

This idea when applied to the K.Cs works. It forms  links between social science, biology, law, language, evolutionary science, molecular science physics and more. 

 

Hendrik Gommer applies his theory to Law, and constitutions. Its applied to organisations. It seems from my observation they can be applied to any cultural identity. Governing  interactions, integration and viability.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

An identified subject is a space.

That space is the environment for all it contains.

The space is unresponsive. It has no expectation. 

It can only accept or reject other identified spaces  or environments based on the conditions of its own. 

Environmental conditions and expectation results from the conditions supported within the space, by its collective content. Not the space itself.

The laws of physics apply to the spaces identified- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

So if we identify Dog breeders,  The space they are given will accept or reject dog breeders ( and their product)  according to value brought to the spaces they are able to utillize. The diversity of conditions (or identified spaces) they are able to recognise value in, and respond to. There must be purpose and value offered. 

The giving of space may  be supported, depending on the cost of doing so.

Ability to respond, or responsibility, are key to acquiring space, and greater diversity gives greater response ability.

Out right rejection of a space or identity is not response, but an inability to respond, or recognise value potential . A subjective space may not offer immediate value based on conflicting conditions or expectations. But those are altered over time. Ability to respond can direct that evolution of conditions.

Recognition of potential at an individual level opens small spaces that can increase as value is demonstrated. Marketing Psychology  has shown that demonstration of value is essential to opening of and viability /increase market shares. 

demonstration can teach value of acceptance of other spaces, but can also teach cost of acceptance.

The K.Cs recognise only the value of Pedigree Standards. Standard environments. They do not support Dogs in the diverse community. They support  conditions and limitations. They measure the value of their environmental space in opposition to alternative conditions. And become a force against those.

 They are tied together in opposition by measuring the value of the space they are given,  against the conditions  of alternative spaces. Not the areas they can offer and demonstrate value to.

Measuring the value of a space against the conditions of your own  is to measure the space available according to fixed conditions. It disregards an ability to respond to any other and fixes your own identified condition in time and space. Evolution complete and entropy the end result.

 It may be, IF there such a thing as free will, the choice to use our inherent  response-ability  individually may be its only manifestation.

Edited September 7, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

No one? 

It appears to work and give a degree of predictability to directions  and oppositions of cultural identities.

According to this, the end result for the K.Cs would be take Dogs out their environment. A process that gains momentum as conditions change to better support that result.

Loss of purpose and value.

The single space occupied by Dog Breeders  has been  tied into  opposing  forces ,with equal and opposite reactions.

The constitution acts as the genetic code for the organisation, though its looking like a written constitution is not required for  a culture to close ranks against its environment. Unwritten agreement will do.

The values provided the environment through other sources are discredited.

The environment  held to account for the identities condition. Reduction of environment.

With no  responsibility accepted for the environments condition, or the value  offered to increase it.

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

I thought a science forum would be more useful to either validate or refute this hypothesis.

It has far reaching implications for many fields of science, including A.I.  It appears to work,  and  if so would have a huge range of application.

As far as the K.Cs go, it would indicate that it is a physical impossibility for the organisation in its present form to benefit Domestic Dogs, or their value to Humanity in evolutionary terms.

If affirmed, it should provide grounds for either forcing change to the organisations cultural instruction,  or illustrate the need for a  registry system designed  for biological sustainability, with its  focus on value, purpose and responsibility rather than set or fixed standards.

This is one organisation used  as a test of this hypothesis because it appears a very suitable test subject . With clarity on how it works it seems the K.Cs may be the a tiny portion of the tip of an ice burg.

Its pretty scary  to see how well it seems to work,  the insidious effects on the environment and how far reaching those may be.  

If this can be shown to be false, great!  So far I can only find evidence that backs it up. It compliments and seems to expand on the views of many including Dawson.

It seems this needs to be either disproved, or recognised, for effective ability to correct and improve the conditions of humanity

 

[mistermack]

It seems to me that the price of pups is what is driving the ever reducing gene pool of dog breeds. 

It's expensive to keep a dog fed and healthy over it's entire lifetime. if you do it properly with good health insurance. I personally don't like the idea of the extreme selective breeding that's going on. I would rather see everyone keeping mongrels. However, if I was going to keep a dog, I would spend as much as I could on a high-pedigree bitch, and breed it a few times, to get some of the money back. 

Money trumps ideals with me, unless I win the lottery.

[naitche]

Fewer breeders has driven the price upwards, and continues to do.

Some Cross breeds fetch higher prices than pure breeds, so a pedigree wouldn't be required.

The costs of breeding can out weigh  profits, what with vet fees, testing for genetic defects, stud fees, possible medical emergencies etc. 

Fewer Breeders,  fewer intact dogs, Less people familiar with their own abilities  to respond to the processes of breeding, or familiar with how to do that responsibly.

One of the biggest obstacles to breeding has become other breeders, and what is deemed 'ethical' practice. Ostracism is pretty normal. A thick hide and an ability to justify every choice or decision is needed  if you would try it a second time.

That, or a disregard of  expectations, Not worried by a label of irresponsibility and having buyers turned away by that.

As a Pedigree breeder, that generally means you would need to show your bitch to confirm she is a suitable representation of her breed. Another cost.

On the other hand, If you breed for specific, sought after purpose other than 'standard' appearance and  can show you have selected for that in both parents, there is  support from buyers, but major discrimination from Pedigree Register bodies.That is a Back Yard Breeder and increasingly equated to irresponsible, 'unethical' practice.

The environment you would be breeding in is under attack. Regardless of your practices .

There is little promotion of practices that bring value to a breeders or a dogs purpose. Those are assigned to environments, Rather than the values that can be brought to that environment. Demonstrations of value are discredited. Based on the environment.

Value is assigned to environments, not response.

Edited September 24, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

Formation of the Kennel Clubs  created a space,  where certain practices are supported.

The purpose was supposed to be Dogs and their Breeders

By stating that Dogs without  a Pedigree standard are not recognised, that purpose was changed to one of support for Pedigrees. Not dogs, and not breeders.

Pedigrees are issued to verify a standard. A standard is a condition, is a limitation. The K.Cs abiding by that statement support conditions and limitations for Dogs and their Breeders.

A space is defined by the  conditions identified within.

Its scope, or the area available to those conditions, depends on what those conditions offer or can contribute to its environment. The space it will be given. How well it can integrate other space.

Surely its a physical impossibility to measure that space against conditions beyond its own, without limiting the potential  area or scope of those conditions. Its perspective is limited to those it has at a given time, and can only be improved by elimination of what doesn't work. By reduction.

Its no longer just a space. Its an identity defined by  its perspective, or beliefs of self, and what its space can encompass. Limited in what it can accept, and limited in its potential.

[naitche]

 

Quote

If this can be shown to be false, great!  So far I can only find evidence that backs it up. It compliments and seems to expand on the views of many including Dawson.

It seems this needs to be either disproved, or recognised, for effective ability to correct and improve the conditions of humanity

 

Just a correction, Meant to say Dawkins.

Jordan Petersons emphasis on personal  responsibility is also supported with this .

It would illustrate the dangers of Identity politics,  being anti-diversity. The dangers  not  in celebrating the benefits of a culture (or not in its 'nationalism'), but when its in  opposition to the space given alternative 'identities'.

Humanity can be seen as an environment, with everything beyond your own personal self, as conditions of that. 

Exclusive ideologies can only exclude.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by naitche

[naitche]

Happy to have this moved to speculation if it might bring more discussion or comment.

 I thought this was be the place to find if this is  supported, or evidence to show why it is not. 

[naitche]

The problems come down to recognition of environment.

Breeding for 'standards' rather than purpose.

Purpose gives direction. Organic response is to over come conditions and limitation to achieve that.

What are "standards" if not conditions and limitations? An ideology that sees  'set' condition and limitation as the end goal can't do anything other than oversee a species unfit for its environment, and refuse or discredit an  ability to respond other wise.

It 'recognises' conditions and limitations. Not response ability, not possibility.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by naitche

[John Cuthber]

19 hours ago, naitche said:

The problems come down to recognition of environment.

Breeding for 'standards' rather than purpose.

Purpose gives direction. Organic response is to over come conditions and limitation to achieve that.

What are "standards" if not conditions and limitations? An ideology that sees  'set' condition and limitation as the end goal can't do anything other than oversee a species unfit for its environment, and refuse or discredit an  ability to respond other wise.

It 'recognises' conditions and limitations. Not response ability, not possibility.

 

The "purpose" of show dogs is to win prizes, and they are bred for that purpose. Their environment is the show-ring.
It doesn't matter what your intention is, inbreeding - which is sadly  the norm for "pedigree" dogs- ia a bad thing.

[naitche]

Thank you John,

 

Yes. You are right there. The purpose of Pedigree dogs is to verify the standards as recognised, in the show ring.

Thats the only environment recognised to govern selection of Domestic dogs,  by the bodies that have most influenced direction and expectation of the species since their inception over 150 years ago. Pedigrees and Domestic Dogs are a single species. A Pedigree bestowed after birth can't change that.

 Pedigree Breeders, under a statement that Dogs not bred to those protocols is not recognised, may be individuals who all bring their own values and interpretation of those standards to their purpose, But the K.Cs are  the governing body they have signed up to support and acts as an identity in its own right with a direction that over time,  over-rides those where they are in conflict with the messages guiding its own.

There is an expectation of support for that environment which is enforced. The only values recognised in that environment are to  the 'standard' conditions and limitations of its 'self'. 

Its own space. Any other purpose and values brought to that environment are discredited. The value of that space is seen to be in its limitation, rather than what is brought to it. 

The expectation is that entities  conditions provide any  value to be had. Independent of its environment. The product is a reflection of that expectation.

But this expectation doesn't just affect pedigree dogs. It affects Domestic dogs.  They are inseparable. They rely on support from the same   environment. The expectations of the same environment guide any direction the species will take.

The statement that what lies outside the K.Cs own space and conditions is not recognised,  includes that space in its direction. Its just been directed in how to respond to it.

The K.Cs will discredit it.  What lies beyond its 'self', is its environment.

There is no value in Domestic Dogs or their breeders, only in the conditions and limitations we put on their diverse environments. Response ability to environment is lost because its not about response, or value brought to the space or environment, and letting that form our expectations. its about upholding conditions. 

If an entity that does not recognise its environment is said to loose responsibility to that , or attack it, what better example than discrediting Back Yard Breeders? 

 Regardless of any value brought to the species worth emulating by individuals, We have been taught to expect that the conditions of that environment are not to be trusted. Or its produce. Regardless of any value demonstrated. The value and any response taken to that environment are suppressed. We're taught to  mistrust that environment based on its condition, rather than living up to the potential of value demonstrated. Environmental expectation is denied because its value is discredited.

What is the origin of Domestic Dogs?  Humanity is the environment selecting  based on what is demonstrated to work most effectively for an individuals purpose, in their own backyard. Or environment.

 When the value is put into the conditions and limitations, or 'standards' of a space and not the values brought to it and demonstrated by it,  its conditions can only be affected by what it can eliminate. Nothing can be brought that isn't already there. Like the story of the pentagram that draws  a demons inside it , redrawn on its navel.

The K.Cs and their Pedigrees will shrink till theres nothing left of any  value but the paper they are printed on, but they will take Domestic Dogs with them if purpose and value demonstrated are not recognised because their fates are tied together by decree of the K.Cs.

With out that statement of non recognition, The K.Cs  are one of the diverse aspects of the environment of Domestic Dogs that can be chosen or not, depending on if an individuals purpose  finds favour there, or not. It still influences the species as a whole, but only in so far as the value it contributes TO the whole. Change to that environment and its conditions is then possible. Because K.C conditions are then recognised as some thing put in place to support the purpose of Domestic Dogs and their breeders.. Instead of Breeders and Domestic Dogs supporting  conditions.

Its the cart before the horse.

[naitche]

The  content in the space of an identity is defined by  common purpose or direction.

An identity is the environment for all it contains.

To then define that purpose by the conditions.   Its recognised to contain.   At a given point in time. 

Must limit that space ( or identity ) to that condition. Unable to respond to the demands of its environment, Meet them, or take response ability for its condition.

 To recognise  a single space or environment based on  conditions judged valid  to it by 'faith', not reality,  can only set up a process of elimination, and the equal and opposite reactions of opposing forces in that space.

Edited October 17, 2018 by naitche

[mistermack]

It's a shame that genetic diversity is being lost in dogs, and that dogs and cats are being bred with exaggerated features for our amusement. 

Luckily, dogs don't really matter, except to us humans. We created them, and we are messing them up. And all is not lost anyway. There must be plenty of dogs in the third world that have hardly a scrap of intensive breeding in them? 

I'm more worried about the extinction of naturally evolved species, although I do dislike the cruelty involved in producing freak dogs. (which is what they are)

[naitche]

With greater affluence and development those land race dogs will  dwindle, intermix or be absorbed into the Pedigree system as well.

Australias Dingo is as much as 90% diluted, Pure breed Dingo being very rare. And those are dogs that are not often hanging around us humans. The K.Cs are tasked with their preservation as a pure breed in captivity.

The elimination of Domestic Dogs may  matter least from an eccological view, compared with other wild species, but I think Humanity would be affected badly by their loss in ways that are vastly underestimated to our social and cultural development. That the effects on our societies are notable now, If you go back to to historical writings and quotes. The social benefits alone have been historically enormous. I think they have also been essential to keeping our increasingly urban and cosmopolitan cultures more grounded in the realities of the natural world. 

On a more personal level, Dogs are a valued part of my life. Not only for the companionship but the making my work load vastly lighter, and much safer. My children and grand children have grown up with expectation that is a dependable and reliable  resource that allows them much greater confidence in their own purpose. 

But as the person responsible for procuring that, I see we are nearly at the end of the line as far as that usefulness goes. Too much has been lost, and most people have no idea of what has already been lost. Its been  a gradual loss that only older dog enthusiasts note, but certainly do. In a nut shell, its responsibility. From Dogs and humans.

Its hard to find dogs any more that are responding to the demands of their environments and not just reacting to stimulus in predictable ways according to fixed traits. Less and less effectively for any real world purpose as those traits become ever more fixed. Trainers and educators today are being taught to rely on those predictable responses and reject as poor breeding dogs that deviate for training purposes. Most notable in security dogs, least in service dogs.

Last time I had to search, It took me 7 years to find a single bitch that lived up to what I had learned to expect. Another 4 to find a male even close. Not pedigree.

I had always known Pedigrees were going to be limited because of the inbreeding. As long as I could get the dogs that fit my purpose though, I thought it was for pedigree people to deal with. I bred my dogs, because I couldn't afford another 7 or 10 year search to find what I needed. I advertised pups based on the purpose for their breeding and traits of the parents for responsibility to job and environment. I found the demand to be incredible- but also the back lash from Pedigree breeders. 

So what is happening in the K.Cs does affect me and all enthusiasts of Domestic Dogs who would like to see their purpose in our communities validated.

Service dog trainers and breeders ( like guide dogs) are among the few who will admit to the traits of responsibility to purpose, though herding and most guardian breeds have traditionally demonstrated that in spades. 

Regardless of all that, I think what is happening with Domestic Dogs as a result of the K.Cs  refusal to recognise the species as a whole, should be of immense interest to evolutionary biologists and science in general because of the implications for cultural evolution in general .

Looking at this problem from a cultural perspective using  the organisation as organism hypothesis I've found it not only works but ties in social science and biology very effectively as well as many other disciplines. Not with any "New" science, just a different perspective on what is known.

I think the relevance of this to politics today and the increasing polarisation of  cultures is immense. Unless some one can show me where I am wrong, this shows that the  politics of identity are much worse than counter productive to human culture and diversity. They can only divide,  reduce and discredit.

In the past, Identity politics has been effective to gain recognition for minorities. Today its used mostly to deny or refuse recognition of cultures seen to be in opposition. There is a huge difference. That denies responsibility for the environment we have and our role in shaping it. Simply opposing it is not the same, that reduces the environment and its diversity.

The Kennel Clubs are a near perfect demonstration of the organisation as organism hypothesis and Identity as the environment/space for all it contains. If Humanity is the identity we claim then humane conditions are what we are responsible for. No other.

[mistermack]

In the end, the Kennel Clubs are only a reflection of the general attitudes in the public at large. Maybe they do lead opinion a bit, but they are also reacting to what's out there. Why people want a squashed nose stinky yappy liability mystifies me. Or a huge drooling lump of lard that will only live ten years.

I could tolerate a cat, but I wouldn't make the effort. I can pat somebody else's, they are not particularly fussy.