Can the puma Messi, the cheetah Gerda, the panther Luna, the wolf Kira be considered pets? (man in culture and the animal world)

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Maria and Alexander Dmitriev with puma Messi ^[9]

Alexander with Gerda the cheetah

Victoria with the panther Moon ^[7]

For owners who have raised their pet animals since childhood, feed and care for them every day, love and kiss them, the question posed in the title is strange, of course, these are pets, but what else?  However, a question of this type has arisen in recent years for biologists, psychologists studying animals, and philosophers of life in connection with the creation of the unique Taigan Zoo, where sick puppies or abandoned wild animals are also often raised from childhood; in connection with the appearance in families with dogs and cats (so far, however, not mass appearance) of ferocious predators, which turned out to be not ferocious at all, but quite domestic and affectionate. Ferocious predators in appearance, pet behavior, pets (English pet ? pet, pet). However, the question is, are these still domestic or wild animals, and can they, under some circumstances, attack their owners?

I recall one case in connection with this. We had a beautiful big cat Timofey in our family, but not neutered.

The author with Timofey the cat

One day I went out the door of my apartment and decided to remove a cardboard box that was standing there for some reason. Timofey ran out after me and began sniffing the box (a cat had obviously urinated on it). I pushed my pet away from the box with my foot. And suddenly Timofey rushed at me like lightning, tore his trousers and seriously injured his leg, it was healing for several weeks. How can it be that a domestic cat, who often slept on top of me, suddenly attacked its owner? And here is a cougar, a cheetah, a panther, a wolf!  It's time to pass a law prohibiting keeping such animals at home.

Alida with the wolf Kira ^[2]

But let's leave the emotions to the press and children, let's think scientifically. 

Wild and domestic animals (distinctive characteristics). I would single out four similar characteristics.

? First, wild animals live by themselves in nature, independently of humans, domestic animals depend on the latter. "Animals that live by themselves in their natural habitat are called wild. They take care of themselves, get food and build housing... the lives of some animals depend on humans. Animals that are specially bred by humans are called pets. Man feeds them, protects them, takes care of their offspring, and creates all the necessary conditions for life" ^[3].

? Secondly, the behavior and relationships between these two types of animals differ significantly, for example, in relation to humans and within the population.

         ? Third, the issue of the difference of the psyche is also being discussed. One point of view is that the psyche of a domestic and wild animal is essentially the same, the other, no, they differ significantly.

? Fourth, the difference in the genesis (origin) of wild and domestic animals. The former were formed without human influence in accordance with Darwinian laws of natural selection, the latter in the process of domestication ("domestication") for about fifteen hundred years (artificial selection).

What does it mean, from the point of view of these distinctions, the upbringing of a wild animal by a person in a family (we will conditionally call such an animal "anthropoid", from "anthropo" ? attitude to a person, "alive" ? an animal)? According to the first two characteristics, an anthropoid is a pet, according to the third characteristic it is unclear which, according to the fourth, partially wild, partially domestic animal. Now let's take into account this circumstance: the habitat of an anthropoid is completely artificial, created by man. The latter, on the one hand, blocks all the instincts of the anthropoid that are dangerous to humans (to attack, threaten, bite, chase, etc.), on the other hand, provides it with nutrition and communication, primarily with itself and with other anthropoids. For example, the panther Luna lives in a family with a dog. "The owner's dog, a Rottweiler named Venza, and Luna were initially wary of each other, but after a long process of getting used to them, they got along and even became friends. The hostess notes that the panther and the dog are inseparable: they play together, run for a walk together and explore the world together." [ ]          But if all instincts that are dangerous to humans are blocked and others are formed that ensure communication with a person (communication is not using human language, but "sign signals" formed during human communication with an anthropoid; see [pp. 94-98] about the difference between signals and signs), then we have to agree with those psychologists who claim that the psyche of domestic animals (including anthropoids) is different than that of wild animals. In this regard, an anthropoid is unlikely to attack and harm a person, unless by accident (such cases need to be analyzed specifically).   

            Multiple acceleration of evolution through artificial selection. We will talk about the famous experiments of the Soviet geneticist Dmitry Belyaev, who was able to turn wild silver foxes into pets. He believed that the key to the mechanism of domestication "lies" in the principles of Mendeleev inheritance"…Jason Goldman of Scientific American said: “Belyaev hypothesized that the anatomical and physiological changes observed in domesticated animals could be the result of selection based on behavioral traits. More specifically, he believed that domestication was the deciding factor.”…

We started with 30 male foxes and 100 foxes, most of them from a commercial animal farm in Estonia." From the very beginning, Belyaev chose foxes solely out of taming, allowing only a tiny percentage of male offspring and a slightly larger percentage of females to reproduce. Foxes were not trained to ensure that their domestication was the result of genetic selection and not environmental influences. For the same reason, they spent most of their lives in cages, and were only allowed brief encounters with humans... the only criterion for allowing them to reproduce was their tolerance for human contact…

After more than 40 generations of breeding, Belyaev produced "a group of friendly domesticated foxes... Many domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, a long reproductive season, changes in fur coloration and the shape of skulls, jaws and teeth. They also lost their “musky fox smell"^[5]. "Externally, foxes were also different from their wild relatives. Their color has become more mottled and light, and some chanterelles have become almost completely white.…At the moment, experts in the domestication of foxes state that their wards may well live next to a person, but not in apartments or houses, but in farmsteads. Pets of them are peculiar: they get along with a person, but they do not depend on him and are self-willed. They are not aggressive towards people and can be trained, but they leave much to be desired for cleanliness. They live for about 10 years, while their wild counterparts live for about 4. Foxes can be both hunting assistants and just beautiful pets."^[1]

            I will comment on it. As a geneticist, Belyaev believed that the evolution of animals is determined only by genetic selection, and not by environmental factors. But where did he get the foxes for the experiment? From animal farms where foxes lived in an artificial environment (they were raised, fed, cleaned, guarded, etc.), and they communicated with people who cared for them. That is, they were anthropoids in the initial stage of development, and not purely wild animals (by the way, American biologists Elinor Carlson and Catherine Lord also noticed that "the experiment began with breeding foxes that were not wild" ^[8]). Only those foxes who were not afraid of people and reached out to them for communication were selected for breeding. It is not difficult to guess that the genes of these individuals have undergone a mutation, which Belyaev called a sign of "domestication" at the level of behavior (the desire to communicate with people and the absence of aggression). It was the foxes from this population (a kind of "anthropoid philanthropists") who were allowed to reproduce, which, on the one hand, contributed to a certain orientation of gene transformation (to humans), on the other - to further stages of the formation of the anthropoid. That is, the evolution of foxes was influenced by two factors ? not only genetic selection, but also the impact of the environment created by man, the environment conducive to the formation of anthropoids.   

A domesticated male fox

The role of the anthropological environment on the process of domestication of foxes is also indicated by such an episode given in the book by Lee Alan Dugatkin and Lyudmila Trut "How to tame a fox (and turn it into a dog). Siberian Evolutionary Experiment". "At that time, it was believed that the domestication of animals took place slowly, over long millennia. What results can be achieved in a few decades? However, here she is, Fluff, a tame fox, so similar to a pet dog. She responds to her nickname and runs on the heels of the animal farm workers on the territory of the nursery, likes to walk with Lyudmila along quiet country roads in the vicinity of Novosibirsk, where the experiment is taking place. (Lyudmila Trut was Belyaev's main assistant, she was responsible for organizing the experiment. ? V.R.). Pushinka, let's note, is just one of hundreds of tame foxes that are bred here.

Having settled with Fluff in a house on the edge of the farm, Lyudmila began a new stage of research. Fifteen years devoted to breeding tame foxes were crowned with complete success. Now it was necessary to find out whether Fluff, living side by side with Lyudmila, would be able to develop a special affection for her, the same as domestic dogs feel for their owners. Apart from cats and dogs, domesticated animals usually do not show a pronounced "emotional" attachment to people. How and why did it arise in the first place? As a result of a long life together with a person? Or, on the contrary, in a very short time, what did our heroes observe on the example of tame foxes? And will even a domesticated fox like Fluff feel comfortable under the same roof as a human?

Lyudmila chose Fluff for the role of companion at first sight, when she was still a charming puppy three weeks old and frolicking in the company of her brothers and sisters. Looking Fluff in the eyes, Lyudmila felt a sense of affinity, which she had never experienced before, working with other foxes. Fluff was generally unusually attuned to contact with people. If Lyudmila or any of the farm workers approached her, the fox began to wag its tail in excitement, whine and look impatiently at the person. It was unmistakably perceived as a request: stop and stroke me. And then no one could resist.

A year later, when Fluff became an adult, got a partner and was expecting the foxes to be born, Lyudmila decided to take her into the house. Now it was possible not only to observe how the fox would adapt to a new lifestyle, but also to see how the socialization of her offspring would go in comparison with other foxes born on the farm. And ten days before the birth, on March 28, 1974, Fluff was placed in a new place of residence.

x house with an area of slightly more than 60 sq. m. The house consisted of three living rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The room where Lyudmila put a bed, a small sofa and a desk served her as both a bedroom and an office. A shelter for Fluff was built in the second room, and the third became a common one. There were several chairs and a table, it was possible to have lunch and receive visitors. Fluff was allowed to move freely around the house.

Early in the morning, as soon as she got into the house, Fluff got excited. She ran from room to room nonstop. This was very unusual, because pregnant foxes usually spend most of their time lying quietly in their burrows. Finally, after rummaging through the shavings that covered the floor of her shelter, Fluff calmed down, but soon jumped up again and began to circle around the house. She kept running up to Lyudmila to caress her, but even after that, Fluff was very excited. It was obvious that she was extremely worried about the unusual new environment. She hadn't eaten anything all day, except for a piece of cheese and an apple that Lyudmila had given her from her breakfast.

Later, Lyudmila's daughter Marina and her friend Olga joined the new settlers, and they spent the day of the great move together. But it was eleven o'clock at night, and Fluff was still running restlessly from room to room. It was time to go to bed, and the girls, covered with blankets, lay down on the floor next to Lyudmila's bed. When they dozed off, Fluff silently slipped into the room and lay down next to them. She finally calmed down and fell asleep too. Lyudmila was relieved. A few months will pass, and she will finally be convinced that this little fox not only lives perfectly next to her, but has also become as devoted as the most devoted of dogs" ^{[4, p. 4-5]}.

If wild foxes have been domesticated in about two to three decades, then why can't big cats (tigers, cougars, panthers, lions, cheetahs), as well as wolves or crocodiles, be domesticated? For what? Well, at least for large zoos or individual lovers of these animals who want to live with them.

Not everything is in order in the Danish Kingdom. The common place is that humans continue to crowd large wild animals, depriving them of their habitat and hunting them. Many species have already disappeared, others are endangered, and others are forced to live in a shrinking territory. People increasingly need land for goats, cows, horses, pigs, poultry, and agricultural land. By the way, the paradox is that our big cats are fed with the meat of these pets. Another paradox, or perhaps a kind of schizophrenia: an ever-increasing army of animal lovers quietly turns a blind eye to the fact that their pets also eat meat from domestic animals that are raised and killed, including to feed their beloved pets. I'm not talking about modern disputes like whether animals have a soul or the right to life.     

Vegetarianism and some religions are unlikely to be able to solve all these problems, as long as everything goes in the opposite direction of increasing the production of pet meat. And it is unlikely that the trend of reducing the habitat of large wild animals and the extinction of some species of these animals will be suspended in the near future. Does this not mean that, on the one hand, the number of zoos will grow, in particular, of the Taigan type, where the number of anthropoid animals will increase, on the other hand, the community of anthropoid lovers (such as big cats and other exotic animals) will gradually grow, not excluding those people who want to to grow such anthropoids from childhood and live with them as with ordinary dogs and cats. 

The ice will probably move only when people realize that they are living incorrectly, have put life on earth on the brink of disaster, and come to understand that it is necessary to make sense of modern life in order to change it. One of the aspects of this understanding and change will also concern the relationship of man with nature and animals. Since man is also an animal, he will have to reconsider his attitude towards himself. For example, does it look like a domesticated predator, i.e. an anthropoid? Especially when it comes to the first stages of its origin. This is about the assumption formulated by Belyaev.

"One of Belyaev's most daring and innovative ideas," he writes in the preface to the book "How to Tame a Fox (and turn it into a dog). Siberian Evolutionary Experiment"Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution of the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University A.V. Markov, ? consisted in the fact that the patterns revealed during the experiment are partly applicable to human evolution. Belyaev believed that in a certain sense we are "self-domesticated" monkeys, whose innate psychological tendencies, behavior and social structure have radically changed under the influence of selection for reduced aggressiveness towards relatives (selection for social tolerance and conformity, as experts say these days).

It often happens that at the end of their scientific career, honored scientists begin to put forward too bold ideas that are not subsequently confirmed. But this does not apply to Belyaev's ideas about anthropogenesis: they just sound surprisingly modern and are repeatedly confirmed by newly discovered facts of paleoanthropology, genetics and neurochemistry. Today, based on these new facts (and sometimes forgetting, unfortunately, to refer to Belyaev, who foresaw all this), many anthropologists have begun to lean towards the idea that in the early stages of hominid evolution, selection for reduced intra-group aggression actually took place. It led to a whole range of consequences: from an increase in dopamine levels and a decrease in acetylcholine levels in key brain regions responsible for motivating behavior (this could contribute to social conformity), to a reduction in secondary male sexual characteristics associated with aggressive behavior (such as large canines), a decrease in sexual dimorphism, an increase in male contribution to offspring, and strengthening of emotional ties between marital partners. All this, in turn, created the prerequisites for the development of intra-group cooperation, giving our ancestors the opportunity to develop complex and at the same time very profitable forms of behavior, such as joint hunting for big game and the manufacture of stone tools" ^{[4, p.3]}.

This hypothesis of Belyaev that in the early stages of human origin he was a self-domesticated monkey complements my research on anthropogenesis quite well. I show that domestication occurred as a result of the transition of hominids to "paradoxical behavior", which required the creation of a sign based on a signaling system. The latter allowed hominids to act contrary to biological evidence at the command of the leader. A necessary condition for this was the imagination conditioned by signs, which helped to invent the first tools ^{[6, pp. 87-104]}.