tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660418734860036726.post3230894825791923091..comments2015-06-09T14:12:38.371-07:00Comments on Animals and Literature: G & H: Samanthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02508545601332352668noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660418734860036726.post-16525060401777998882015-04-24T14:31:08.080-07:002015-04-24T14:31:08.080-07:00Here's the full link:
http://news.stanford.ed...Here's the full link:<br /><br />http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/beasts-and-books-032515.html<br /><br />Cooley mentions that our ancestors had a better relationship with animals that we do now. I wonder in what ways did our ancestors interact with wild animals. If animals weren't used as food or labor, but as a companion, would that make that animal domesticated? As Cooley mentioned that we shouldn't use our pets to view the animal kingdom, would this be because they are domesticated? It was mentioned in lecture on 4/22 that cats aren't really domesticated and that there is no difference between a wildcat and a house cat. Can we then use a cat as an example to view the animal kingdom since that is the way cats are in nature. It would be interesting to learn more about the relationships of cats and humans.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422077503488717399noreply@blogger.com