(no subject)
Nov. 26th, 2002 04:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
geekchickhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39210-2002Nov25.html
The latest findings about dogs are really the latest findings about people. Those East Asians of yore shared what little meat they had with dogs because they valued what dogs brought them -- not something eminently practical, but unconditional love. For that reason, they took the pooches wherever they went, eventually crossing the land bridge to the Western Hemisphere. They wanted what we do.
Not everything we do serves a pragmatic, evolutionary purpose. We seek comfort, love -- something a dog provides for which there is no one word. [...]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-26 07:04 pm (UTC)anotheranon
2002-11-26 19:02 (link) Delete Well.... dogs also offered assistance hunting, and guard/alert capabilities. While companionship may have been the deciding factor, dogs would have had to have been useful or I doubt that early humans would have shared scarce food supplies with them.
Being a cat nut, I have to add the following: how cats have evolved to better manipulate people and, of course, the Annals of Improbable Research's Pliocene pussy cat theory.