> Amadeus wrote:
> >Many would never eat a dog or horse or cat - any
> pet animals - but
> >they don't hesitate do munch calves or pigs. Where
> is the difference?
> >Similar for insects, maggots, worms.
> >The real wildlive hunter/gatherers are *not*
> concerned with that, are
> >they?
>
>
> There have been some interesting discussions on this
> within
> anthropology. One theory is that meat-eating follows
> the same sexual
> taboos as kinship. Animals that are close (pets) are
> treated as
> siblings - not to be eaten. Animals that are farther
> out, but within
> human control (tame animals) are treated as cousins.
> They can be
> eaten, but only following certain rules - males
> eaten before sexual
> maturity or de-sexualised for example (in many
> cultures cousins are ok
> to play around with, but not to marry). Farthest out
> are wild animals,
> treated as un-related persons. Here fullgrown,
> virile males can be
> eaten.

Another factor that can't be dismissed in this case is
the "synergistic" relationship between early man and
wolves (early dogs). They apparently found out that
they were more efficient at hunting together than
hunting seperately, so they became "partners" and both
flourished.

There was a book written a few years ago (I can't
remember the name or the author) that brought up a
good point. At the time everyone was screaming about
the demise of the wild wolf population. This author,
however, reminded us that we have MILLIONS of
"neo-wolves" living with us now, and that these wolf
relative are, in fact, one of the most successful
species (survival-wise) on earth. In fact, he
suggested that perhaps allowing themselves to become
domesticated was a (sneaky?) method for ensuring
survival.

Cats, however, are another story :)
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com