CDJ withdrawn from paris

[tristars]

I have seen horses mainly my own, who have jumped quite high jumps, my rescue cob does canter pirouettes since learning turn on the quarters, they frequently canter half pass, i have once seen canter to the rear in the field, courbette......could go on, series of two time changes

Passage almost daily, but hang on if they do it loose surely that means they can do it under saddle

 

[smolmaus]

Just to add to this - and I'm just musing on things now really - I know a rider who only rides if the horse comes over to her in the field. But equally she has trained the horse to come. So is the horse coming because it is happy to be ridden or because it has been trained to come. How far ahead can they even think? Myka picks me up from the mounting block very enthusiastically. Does that mean she wants me to get on her or just that she knows flag in the air is the cue to come and pick me up?

Personally I think if you're at the point of even having this train of thought, you will probably notice when your horse is only doing something because they want to avoid the consequences of saying no. They can come to the block quite happily and have plenty of opportunity to say "no thanks" before your bum touches the saddle, at which point they can also say no ty.

If you care about whether your training is ethical, it is a very simple step to learn what their opinion is. They are great communicators if you pay attention, the problem is that so much training relies on ignoring and suppressing their communication because it interferes with sport.

 

[Ambers Echo]

Personally I think if you're at the point of even having this train of thought, you will probably notice when your horse is only doing something because they want to avoid the consequences of saying no. They can come to the block quite happily and have plenty of opportunity to say "no thanks" before your bum touches the saddle, at which point they can also say no ty.

If you care about whether your training is ethical, it is a very simple step to learn what their opinion is. They are great communicators if you pay attention, the problem is that so much training relies on ignoring and suppressing their communication because it interferes with sport.

That is what I am reassuring myself with! I believed Lottie was very happy to jump until she said no. Then she was retired from jumping. Long before a vet said she should or needed to be. But I also know that I want to ride. And so am aware that I am not impartial. But I really do try to ride and train ethically. I just wish horses were as enthusuastic as dogs when it comes to going out and having fun together! They do communicate but can be so stoic and inscrutable at times too.

 

[PurpleSpots]

The person in this FB link shares videos which show horses very keen to participate in 'work', and they offer passage, piaffe, etc at liberty.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[smolmaus]

They do communicate but can be so stoic and inscrutable at times too.

Some can be. But I am far more often flabbergasted by how much obvious communication is regularly ignored and actively punished, than by an inscrutable horse.

Not to paint myself as a perfect person either, like I can know that when my pony dives for grass despite knowing I don't want her to do that, it's because she is self-soothing anxiety with food (most of the time, sometimes she has just noticed I'm not paying attention) and still pull her away and ask her to walk on. Even if I am "ignoring" what she is telling me in the moment, it's still information for me to process and I can do better to help her regulate in the future.

 

[tristars]

Fabulous pp

 

[Ambers Echo]

I don’t know the person in the Fb link but Liberty is no more an expression of free will than any other trained behaviour. This article is excellent. And explains something I’ve often noticed but never understood - why horses at liberty often looked stressed!

I use liberty to check in with where my training is up to. It’s not drilled. But it lets me see how clear communication is without tools. It’s surprising how much I can achieve with my horses at liberty. But that doesn’t mean they are any happier about it.

I actually really rate Ross Jacobs - wish he was closer than Australia! He does clinics in Germany but not UK as far as I know.
https://www.goodhorsemanship.com.au...t=Ross Jacobs,ground without ropes or halters.

 

[I'm Dun]

Some can be. But I am far more often flabbergasted by how much obvious communication is regularly ignored and actively punished, than by an inscrutable horse.

Not to paint myself as a perfect person either, like I can know that when my pony dives for grass despite knowing I don't want her to do that, it's because she is self-soothing anxiety with food (most of the time, sometimes she has just noticed I'm not paying attention) and still pull her away and ask her to walk on. Even if I am "ignoring" what she is telling me in the moment, it's still information for me to process and I can do better to help her regulate in the future.

Having just written a dissertation on human dog communication, I changed direction halfway through to focus on the biology element as the social element was just me saying people dont notice, people ignore it, over and over. Its the same for horses!

 

[Exasperated]

Some can be. But I am far more often flabbergasted by how much obvious communication is regularly ignored and actively punished, than by an inscrutable horse.

Not to paint myself as a perfect person either, like I can know that when my pony dives for grass despite knowing I don't want her to do that, it's because she is self-soothing anxiety with food (most of the time, sometimes she has just noticed I'm not paying attention) and still pull her away and ask her to walk on. Even if I am "ignoring" what she is telling me in the moment, it's still information for me to process and I can do better to help her regulate in the future.

Are you saying that horses attempting to eat grass (which they are designed to do, and which is generally quite tempting in early spring, anyway - especially if said horse doesn’t always live in a lush pasture, which, chances are, you are too careful an owner to permit for your pony), that animal must be self-soothing some internal anxiety?
Why would you think that? Regular and opportunistic grazing is what horses do.
Yes, occasionally useful to distract them from something stressful like approaching HGV in a narrow lane - tucking in being more appealing than expending the energy to run away - but only because eating grass is what the horse wants to do, and eating grass certainly wouldn’t guarantee the anxieties would always be soothed, either.

 

[smolmaus]

I don’t know the person in the Fb link but Liberty is no more an expression of free will than any other trained behaviour. This article is excellent. And explains something I’ve often noticed but never understood - why horses at liberty often looked stressed!

I use liberty to check in with where my training is up to. It’s not drilled. But it lets me see how clear communication is without tools. It’s surprising how much I can achieve with my horses at liberty. But that doesn’t mean they are any happier about it.

I actually really rate Ross Jacobs - wish he was closer than Australia! He does clinics in Germany but not UK as far as I know.
https://www.goodhorsemanship.com.au/blog-posts/liberty-training-is-a-myth#:~:text=Ross Jacobs,ground without ropes or halters.

I've had this conversation at a liberty seminar I attended with our instructor and while I absolutely agree with the writer of the article, especially this bit

The first is that when we are training a horse at liberty we tend to drill obedience at the expense of okay-ness.

It doesn't have to be that way. If the training begins at liberty, i.e. the horse has a genuine choice not to engage from the very first steps, then it is a completely different ball game to if the horse begins with no choice and then equipment is removed to give the illusion of choice (usually to a viewer who has no idea how the horse has been trained up until they see it). Now, if you will ever get a horse genuinely happy to be in a packed arena with lights and music and all that comes with the typical Liberty "Performance" is a very big question. Maybe a very special horse.

But as previously, if you care about the ethics of your training and you care about communicating, you will see the No if you want to.

I do a good bit at liberty, (or I have done, it remains to be seen if I will be able to at the new yard ) and the last session involved mostly me asking Sadie to please disengage and go away as she does not get to say when a session starts Now THAT was a big, visible NO that I had to choose to ignore as being bullied by your 14h pony into asking her for shoulder in (her current favourite) is embarrassing.

Having just written a dissertation on human dog communication, I changed direction halfway through to focus on the biology element as the social element was just me saying people dont notice, people ignore it, over and over. Its the same for horses!

Dogs, horses, cats, human children, other human adults. Closing your eyes and ears to anything that doesn't agree with what you want the truth to be is a solid cornerstone of the human condition, perhaps. Wonderful big, beefy topic to choose though!

 

[Ambers Echo]

Ooh that reminds me - many years ago I backed a fell pony who I had bought at 2 just off the fell. I first bridled her loose in a very large field. She came over and I played and with the bridle. Every so often she would wander away but curiosity always brought her back. It took a while but we got there. I did everything else like that too. She was the most easy going horse in the world. I backed her and my kids took her to pony club and hacked her out on their own when they were about 10. She was sure footed as a mountain goat! She was fab. And I even started eventing her unaffiliated. Then I got the eventing bug and wanted to go beyond 80 was which her limit realistically. Bought Amber and sold her to a teenager as a forever home. Heartbroken to read later that she had 'bolted' and they had brought in a 'natural horsemanship trainer' who declared her 'dangerous'. And she was sold on as a project. I think the new owners assumed I missold but I absoutely didn't. She never ever put a foot wrong with me or my kids. I still feel so sad about her and wish I could find. her. I search every so often. But all my contact details are in her passport so hopefully if she was ever in real trouble someone would contact me.

But perhaps there are disadvantages to free-will based training. They can say no if they want! And maybe she said no one day and they demanded compliance and it escalated. I don't know because she never said no to me and I trusted her completely.

 

[Ambers Echo]

Another Cally story that does also illustrate how impatient spome 'experts' are. I bought Cally on impulse when I was viewing another pony for my daughters' first pony. (Impulse horse buying - story of my life!) There was something about her courage and curiosity that I loved - this virtually feral pony who still let me put a head collar on her and accepted some basic direction from me. I was going onto full grass livery, out 24/7/365 but after I bought her the YO said did not want another horse on the winter fields. I had to wait about a month so she could go straight onto the summer ones. So she went onto full livery nearby at a comp yard, supposedly with full turnout. But it all fell apart because their electric tape did not work and she was a fluff ball and walked through it. It then took them 3 hours to catch her as she cavorted round their entire site, disrupting a dressage comp that was going on. Oops. After that they put her in the school when it was free but could never catch her there either because they just marched over to her like a predator and got annoyed that she said er no thanks. So then they said she had to be stabled unless I was there. I went every day to let her into the school because I never had an issue catching her. But one day they had forgotten they had an external booking. A kid and her instructor turned up and I was being yelled at to 'get her in now' as I was doing my usual go in, work my way slowly towards her in arks, with low energy, and wait for her to approach, then slip on a head collar. And they were shouting 'stop faffing she needs to come out of there NOW'. I basically said this can take 5 minutes or 3 hours. Your choice. But they just got wound up. These were highly experienced competition riders/owners/trainers who ran a yard but they just made everything so unncessarily hard!

 

[Exasperated]

Ooh that reminds me - many years ago I backed a fell pony who I had bought at 2 just off the fell. I first bridled her loose in a very large field. She came over and I played and with the bridle. Every so often she would wander away but curiosity always brought her back. It took a while but we got there. I did everything else like that too. She was the most easy going horse in the world. I backed her and my kids took her to pony club and hacked her out on their own when they were about 10. She was sure footed as a mountain goat! She was fab. And I even started eventing her unaffiliated. Then I got the eventing bug and wanted to go beyond 80 was which her limit realistically. Bought Amber and sold her to a teenager as a forever home. Heartbroken to read later that she had 'bolted' and they had brought in a 'natural horsemanship trainer' who declared her 'dangerous'. And she was sold on as a project. I think the new owners assumed I missold but I absoutely didn't. She never ever put a foot wrong with me or my kids. I still feel so sad about her and wish I could find. her. I search every so often. But all my contact details are in her passport so hopefully if she was ever in real trouble someone would contact me.

But perhaps there are disadvantages to free-will based training. They can say no if they want! And maybe she said no one day and they demanded compliance and it escalated. I don't know because she never said no to me and I trusted her completely.

View attachment 173896View attachment 173897View attachment 173898

What a nice little mare! Some of the ‘natural’ horsemanship gurus are the biggest bullshi**ers ever, owners think it sounds reassuringly sweet and expensive - rip-off, equine greenwash.
Hopefully she eventually landed on her hooves.

 

[Exasperated]

Personally I think if you're at the point of even having this train of thought, you will probably notice when your horse is only doing something because they want to avoid the consequences of saying no. They can come to the block quite happily and have plenty of opportunity to say "no thanks" before your bum touches the saddle, at which point they can also say no ty.

If you care about whether your training is ethical, it is a very simple step to learn what their opinion is. They are great communicators if you pay attention, the problem is that so much training relies on ignoring and suppressing their communication because it interferes with sport.

And what if the horse does say “no thanks” (or “no, pi*s off”) when you want it to do something, perhaps when it needs to be caught, handled or exercised for its wellbeing? Or even when it is just for your wellbeing?
Having learned what the horse’s viewpoint is re the mounting block on any particular day, why would it necessarily be ‘ethical’ to concur with a possible ambivalent or negative, and abandon the activity? Recognising that horses (and humans)can also change their minds quite abruptly - try observing them (both) for a while.
‘Ethical’ is to be in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, especially those principles of a given group (eg. Equestrians) or profession.

 

[suestowford]

There is a pony here who absolutely prefers not to be headcollared. He will have it on his head when necessary but he'd rather not thank you very much.
I have been caring for him for 15+ years and he has been quite obvious about his likes & dislikes. For instance, at one time he wore a grazing muzzle. If I put the headcollar on to control him while I was putting on the muzzle he would be very difficult about the whole thing. If he was just loose in the yard he'd stand still when I put the muzzle on. That's what I mean by being obvious.
As time has gone on we have gradually done more & more with no headcollar at all and he is much happier.

 

[eahotson]

Re the 'doing things they don't want to do'- it's pretty difficult to define 'want to'. No horse leg yields across a field and few jump for fun instead of going round obstacles given the choice. Some horses indicate their preference for staying in the field and eating grass than coming in for work. Does that mean they 'don't want to' work.

I do somtimes feel like I'm circling the viewpoint of 'horses just should not be ridden' because given the choice most probably would choose not to be. BUT then I back off from that. Thinking that what they would choose to do left to their own devices an what thet do with riders may look very different, but that does not mean they are stressed or unhappy.

If they are:

Happy to do X
Relaxed about doing X
Confident in doing X
Calmy accepting of doing X

The in my (current and possibly rationalised) view, I supsect they are ok enough about X for it to not be a welfare issue.

Active resistance is more problematic but sometimes that comes from uncertainty or confusion. And so resistance can turn into acceptance and even enthusiam with time and training. Mayka was HUGELY resistant to the saddle after being scared by it early on. SHould that have meant I repsected her wishes and never used tack or never backed her? (Genuine question as I know some people would ansewr yes to that question).

And what if the horse does say “no thanks” (or “no, pi*s off”) when you want it to do something, perhaps when it needs to be caught, handled or exercised for its wellbeing? Or even when it is just for your wellbeing?
Having learned what the horse’s viewpoint is re the mounting block on any particular day, why would it necessarily be ‘ethical’ to concur with a possible ambivalent or negative, and abandon the activity? Recognising that horses (and humans)can also change their minds quite abruptly - try observing them (both) for a while.
‘Ethical’ is to be in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, especially those principles of a given group (eg. Equestrians) or profession.

To be honest,if a horse is well and kindly cared for I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking them to do something to earn their living.Choose your horse wisely.If you aim to jump at A grade don't choose a horse that can't jump more than 2 feet.My horse would prefer to be in a field or eating her hay net but she does some hacking and schooling.She doesn't seem to mind and she works about 4 to 5 hours a week.I don't think that is abuse.

 

[smolmaus]

And what if the horse does say “no thanks” (or “no, pi*s off”) when you want it to do something, perhaps when it needs to be caught, handled or exercised for its wellbeing? Or even when it is just for your wellbeing?
Having learned what the horse’s viewpoint is re the mounting block on any particular day, why would it necessarily be ‘ethical’ to concur with a possible ambivalent or negative, and abandon the activity? Recognising that horses (and humans)can also change their minds quite abruptly - try observing them (both) for a while.
‘Ethical’ is to be in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, especially those principles of a given group (eg. Equestrians) or profession.

You use your big human brain to figure out why they don't want to. Is it scary, is it uncomfortable, have you set them up successfully with past training to be able to say yes etc. Not rocket science, but it does require thinking and observing, yes.

Ethics can be entirely personal, but when I say "ethical training" I generally mean without using fear or force.

 

[I'm Dun]

Ooh that reminds me - many years ago I backed a fell pony who I had bought at 2 just off the fell. I first bridled her loose in a very large field. She came over and I played and with the bridle. Every so often she would wander away but curiosity always brought her back. It took a while but we got there. I did everything else like that too. She was the most easy going horse in the world. I backed her and my kids took her to pony club and hacked her out on their own when they were about 10. She was sure footed as a mountain goat! She was fab. And I even started eventing her unaffiliated. Then I got the eventing bug and wanted to go beyond 80 was which her limit realistically. Bought Amber and sold her to a teenager as a forever home. Heartbroken to read later that she had 'bolted' and they had brought in a 'natural horsemanship trainer' who declared her 'dangerous'. And she was sold on as a project. I think the new owners assumed I missold but I absoutely didn't. She never ever put a foot wrong with me or my kids. I still feel so sad about her and wish I could find. her. I search every so often. But all my contact details are in her passport so hopefully if she was ever in real trouble someone would contact me.

But perhaps there are disadvantages to free-will based training. They can say no if they want! And maybe she said no one day and they demanded compliance and it escalated. I don't know because she never said no to me and I trusted her completely.

View attachment 173896View attachment 173897View attachment 173898

Message me her registered name, my friend is a fell pony breeder I can get her to do some digging.

 

[Exasperated]

You use your big human brain to figure out why they don't want to. Is it scary, is it uncomfortable, have you set them up successfully with past training to be able to say yes etc. Not rocket science, but it does require thinking and observing, yes.

Ethics can be entirely personal, but when I say "ethical training" I generally mean without using fear or force.

Training without fear or force, ok, yes; social standards have shifted so that we do not now, generally, bawl out, terrorise or humiliate recruits with impunity; so that probably is a more general goal, whatever creature is being trained.
But does that mean on no occasions should fear or force ever be used to achieve a necessary result? No, eg getting horses out of a burning barn, or other urgent, maybe dangerous situations, where a prompt response is required, and where not using necessary leverage might be far more ethically questionable.
But when the person or animal, despite receiving empathic training and despite having often done (whatever) before, simply says “no, don’t want”?
Because refusal does not necessarily mean anything is scary or uncomfortable at all - can be simply a preference for doing something else, or even nothing - would you then consider it unethical to insist?
Ethics are the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles which ought to govern it. I agree that far more interpretations today are highly ‘individualised’ and personal, as you say yours are. But that would also mean no standardised codes of acceptability, and certainly no basis for arguing yours, or mine, or Joe Public’s ethics are any better than any other, which is far more worrying.

 

[meleeka]

Exasperated, post: 16077234,
Because refusal does not necessarily mean anything is scary or uncomfortable at all - can be simply a preference for doing something else, or even nothing - would you then consider it unethical to insist?

I do believe that there's usually a good reason for a refusal to do something, be that pain or lack of understanding, fitness, lack of trust etc. Animals aren't machines and we all have bad days. If the bad days happened often, I'd question why. If I didn't question it, then yes, I think that would be unethical.

 

[Exasperated]

I do believe that there's usually a good reason for a refusal to do something, be that pain or lack of understanding, fitness, lack of trust etc. Animals aren't machines and we all have bad days. If the bad days happened often, I'd question why. If I didn't question it, then yes, I think that would be unethical.

Ok, that is a belief (which may / may not be accurate), and not what was asked.
I presume any teacher, trainer, coach etc would review their approach if met with repeated failure, for practical reasons at the very least.

 

[smolmaus]

Training without fear or force, ok, yes; social standards have shifted so that we do not now, generally, bawl out, terrorise or humiliate recruits with impunity; so that probably is a more general goal, whatever creature is being trained.
But does that mean on no occasions should fear or force ever be used to achieve a necessary result? No, eg getting horses out of a burning barn, or other urgent, maybe dangerous situations, where a prompt response is required, and where not using necessary leverage might be far more ethically questionable.
But when the person or animal, despite receiving empathic training and despite having often done (whatever) before, simply says “no, don’t want”?
Because refusal does not necessarily mean anything is scary or uncomfortable at all - can be simply a preference for doing something else, or even nothing - would you then consider it unethical to insist?
Ethics are the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles which ought to govern it. I agree that far more interpretations today are highly ‘individualised’ and personal, as you say yours are. But that would also mean no standardised codes of acceptability, and certainly no basis for arguing yours, or mine, or Joe Public’s ethics are any better than any other, which is far more worrying.

An emergency is not training. I can pull a child forcibly from the path of an oncoming car while knowing putting my hands on a child I don't know is inappropriate in other situations. It's really not that difficult a concept.

I dont know why you want to argue about what the word "ethics" means. I've explained what I meant.

 

[PurpleSpots]

There just seems to be one underlying concept/argument:

Whether all beings have the right to autonomy, protection of self, desires, feelings (positive and negative), and a right to determine what happens in their own life, guided by all of the above which only they can experience within their own self.

Or whether mankind is so arrogant to state that they alone have the right to all of the above, and that all others must bend to whatever they (mankind) determine they want others to in order to please mankind.

(It's fairly obvious which side of the argument I come down on, so this reply in itself is expressed in a biased way.)

 

[meleeka]

Ok, that is a belief (which may / may not be accurate), and not what was asked.
I presume any teacher, trainer, coach etc would review their approach if met with repeated failure, for practical reasons at the very least.

It appears a lot of riders mentioned in this thread just strap them down a bit more and kick harder with their spurs until they get the result they want.

 

[smolmaus]

It appears a lot of riders mentioned in this thread just strap them down a bit more and kick harder with their spurs until they get the result they want.

Yes. It's quite clear, from page 1 of this thread and several others, that if you want to use fear and force to train there isn't much can be done to actually stop you.

 

[Exasperated]

An emergency is not training. I can pull a child forcibly from the path of an oncoming car while knowing putting my hands on a child I don't know is inappropriate in other situations. It's really not that difficult a concept.

I dont know why you want to argue about what the word "ethics" means. I've explained what I meant.

Quite, in certain circumstances, fear or force may well be justified.
And as before, when the refusal (by horse, human, other creature) which has been ‘brought up’ in a wholly considerate and consistent way, is purely “don’t want, don’t see why I should”? Or when positive insistence of another, unwanted, behaviour which has been routinely discouraged, is asserted by the trainee? You would not, I hope, think that never happens?

There just seems to be one underlying concept/argument:

Whether all beings have the right to autonomy, protection of self, desires, feelings (positive and negative), and a right to determine what happens in their own life, guided by all of the above which only they can experience within their own self.

Or whether mankind is so arrogant to state that they alone have the right to all of the above, and that all others must bend to whatever they (mankind) determine they want others to in order to please mankind.

(It's fairly obvious which side of the argument I come down on, so this reply in itself is expressed in a biased way.)

But when the ‘rights’ to self-determination, fulfilling desires, complete autonomy etc happen to endanger / distress / inconvenience others? Those are human, not animal, concepts. Along with ‘rights to autonomy’ go responsibilities and duties and a whole range of limitations on what is permissible behaviour, irrespective of what might be preferred. Applies also to animals living and working with humans, whether they understand the concepts or not, and ideally cooperatively rather than wholly compulsively. But still applies. Neither can always do as they prefer, whether that is for their own or the good of others.

You use your big human brain to figure out why they don't want to. Is it scary, is it uncomfortable, have you set them up successfully with past training to be able to say yes etc. Not rocket science, but it does require thinking and observing, yes.

Ethics can be entirely personal, but when I say "ethical training" I generally mean without using fear or force.

If ethics are to be purely personal, individualism reigns supreme.
That is extreme nonsense, and entirely contrary to principles of any sort of welfare, or criminal code. Any child / wife / dog / horse beater could apply their own ‘ethical standards’ - be very careful what you wish for.
You have the definition of ethics.
What I read on this forum, from various contributors, is a general sort of idea that the notion of ethics and ethical training sound very principled and admirable; but that what many contributors actually mean is that their, personal view of things must be the ‘ethical’ one, and anyone who disagrees or does differently must be ‘unethical’, and therefore bad - in contrast.
That’s illogical, blinkered to the point of intolerance, and about as arrogant as it gets.

 

[PurpleSpots]

But when the ‘rights’ to self-determination, fulfilling desires, complete autonomy etc happen to endanger / distress / inconvenience others? Those are human, not animal, concepts. Along with ‘rights to autonomy’ go responsibilities and duties and a whole range of limitations on what is permissible behaviour, irrespective of what might be preferred. Applies also to animals living and working with humans, whether they understand the concepts or not, and ideally cooperatively rather than wholly compulsively. But still applies. Neither can always do as they prefer, whether that is for their own or the good of others.

It is a largely human concept to try to limit the free will of others in order to be convenienced by their lack of it.

If you watch a group of animals in their natural, or near-natural, habitat and with freedom to exist as their species dictates, all beings have autonomy, freedom to express desires, the ability to have and express feelings, etc. Whether they understand the concepts or not, they simply live them. As do other species interacting with that first species.

It's only really humans who try to take over completely for their own gain. Other species do sometimes take advantage of other beings, but they don't usually completely limit their free will. We are, on the whole, a pretty rubbish species when it comes to interacting with the world and other beings around us.
I don't mean that personally to anyone reading this (including myself), it's simply our species on the whole.

If humans had not risen to being the most influential beings on the planet then the world would be a very different - and dare I say it better - place. To improve how we affect the world around us we need to look to other species, not keep patting ourselves on the back for being right about everything. Because we're not. And the only way we have any chance of hearing the input of other species is to actually allow them to express themselves freely. Otherwise we are just artificially creating the answers in them that we want to hear. Because we can. And we shouldn't.

 

[Burnttoast]

It is a largely human concept to try to limit the free will of others in order to be convenienced by their lack of it.

If you watch a group of animals in their natural, or near-natural, habitat and with freedom to exist as their species dictates, all beings have autonomy, freedom to express desires, the ability to have and express feelings, etc. Whether they understand the concepts or not, they simply live them. As do other species interacting with that first species.

It's only really humans who try to take over completely for their own gain. Other species do sometimes take advantage of other beings, but they don't usually completely limit their free will. We are, on the whole, a pretty rubbish species when it comes to interacting with the world and other beings around us.
I don't mean that personally to anyone reading this (including myself), it's simply our species on the whole.

If humans had not risen to being the most influential beings on the planet then the world would be a very different - and dare I say it better - place. To improve how we affect the world around us we need to look to other species, not keep patting ourselves on the back for being right about everything. Because we're not. And the only way we have any chance of hearing the input of other species is to actually allow them to express themselves freely. Otherwise we are just artificially creating the answers in them that we want to hear. Because we can. And we shouldn't.

I think this has a lot to do with why most humans prefer pets to wildlife. Wild animals have their own existence, you can't tell them what to do and they aren't 'there' when it's convenient for the human. I love wildlife watching, where you can't be offended by the fact that practically every time you see an interesting-looking bird in the distance it chooses the exact moment you pick up your binoculars to fly off, never to be seen again. No control. Many people are lacking a sense of control in their lives, and pets help satisfy that whether they (the pets) want to or not. That sometimes gives me the ick slightly, particularly when you see someone projecting their anger or anxiety onto their animals by demanding greater compliance or performance or by being an insecure, unpredictable place for the animal to be.

 

[rabatsa]

Ants. Ants farm other species. The gods help us if ever ants were to take over the world.

 

[PurpleSpots]

largely

Other species do sometimes take advantage of other beings

Whether they understand the concepts or not, they simply live them.

Is it really so uncomfortable when a fundamental concept is pointed out that the only way to ease those feelings of discomfort is to try to pick holes in an angle of the concept which has actually already been taken into account, as if it disproves the whole concept?

ETA: Sorry rabatsa, I wrote that in an unnecessarily frustrated way. It just seems to be a theme of this thread and others like it that instead of building on a way forwards, an exception is found as if to discredit the whole concept of anything moving forwards and changing for the better, ever. The comment about ants was more likely just a comparative point to consider. But if we are all to share the horror of the thought of being farmed by ants if the world order was changed, doesn't that tell us something about how other animals feel while being farmed or exploited by us? And shouldn't we therefore try to always treat others how we would like to be treated ourselves?