الفصل الاخير من كتابي جين الكلب

The Final Chapter:
Now we can say that the dog behaviors as a result of domestication represent the primitive cultural behaviors of human.
While it is true that domesticated dogs have been shaped by human culture and have developed certain behaviors as a result of their domestication, it would be inaccurate to say that these behaviors represent the primitive cultural behaviors of humans. Dogs have their own unique set of behaviors and instincts that are separate from human culture. Although human try to imitate the primitive cultural behaviors because the extent effect of psychotropic and pharmacological drugs used by super power to control authorities in our territories which play second party in domestication of nations.
 
Additionally, the concept of "primitive" cultural behaviors is problematic as it implies a hierarchy of cultural development and reinforces outdated and inaccurate stereotypes about certain cultures being more advanced or civilized than others.
 
It is important to recognize that while dogs have been influenced by human culture, they are still a different species with their own complex behaviors and social structures. It is also important to approach the study of animal behavior and culture with respect and an understanding of the unique experiences and perspectives of non-human animals.
Dogs have a variety of unique behaviors and social structures that have evolved over thousands of years of domestication. Here are a few examples:
 
1. Communication through body language: Dogs use a variety of body language cues to communicate with other dogs and with humans. This includes things like tail wagging, ear position, and facial expressions.
 
2. Pack hierarchy: Dogs are social animals that live in packs, and within a pack, there is usually a clear hierarchy. This hierarchy is based on factors like age, size, and personality, and it determines things like who gets to eat first and who gets to play with certain toys.
 
3. Scent marking: Dogs use scent marking to communicate with other dogs and to establish territory. They may mark their territory by urinating on objects or rubbing their scent glands against them.
 
4. Play behavior: Dogs engage in play behavior with each other and with humans. Play behavior helps dogs to develop social skills and to bond with others.
 
5. Retrieving behavior: Many dog breeds have been selectively bred to retrieve objects for humans. This behavior is not something that is typically seen in wild candies, and it is a unique behavior that has evolved as a result of domestication.
 
These are just a few examples of the unique behaviors and social structures that dogs have. It's important to remember that different breeds of dogs may have different behaviors and that individual dogs may also have unique personalities and preferences.
While dogs are descended from wolves and share many similarities in their behavior and social structures, there are also some notable differences between the two species.
 
One of the key differences is that dogs are more flexible in their social behavior than wolves. Wolves live in highly structured family groups called packs, which are usually made up of a breeding pair and their offspring. Wolves have a strict dominance hierarchy within the pack, and each individual's rank is determined by factors such as age, size, and personality.
 
In contrast, dogs are able to form social bonds with a wide variety of other dogs and humans, and they do not have the same kind of rigid dominance hierarchy as wolves. Dogs are also more tolerant of social interactions with unfamiliar dogs, while wolves are typically much more wary and aggressive towards unfamiliar individuals.
 
Another difference is that while wolves use vocalizations and body language to communicate with each other, dogs have evolved to communicate more with humans through things like eye contact, facial expressions, and body language cues that are specifically tailored to human communication.
 
Overall, while dogs and wolves share many similarities in their behavior and social structures, dogs have evolved to be much more flexible and adaptable in their social behavior, which has allowed them to form close bonds with humans and to thrive in a wide variety of different environments.
Dogs' social bonds with humans differ in several ways from their social bonds with other dogs. Here are a few ways in which these bonds differ:
 
1. Emotional attachment: Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and have evolved to form strong emotional bonds with humans. This bond is characterized by loyalty, affection, and a desire to be close to their human companions. While dogs can form close bonds with other dogs, their bond with humans is often much deeper and more complex.
 
2. Communication: Dogs have evolved to communicate with humans through a variety of means, including body language, vocalizations, and eye contact. They have learned to respond to human cues and signals and to read human emotions. While dogs communicate with each other through body language and vocalizations as well, their communication with humans is often more complex and nuanced.
 
3. Social hierarchy: Dogs have a social hierarchy when they interact with other dogs, and each dog's place in the hierarchy is determined by factors such as age, size, and personality. In contrast, dogs do not view humans as part of their social hierarchy and do not interact with humans in the same way that they interact with other dogs.
 
4. Dependency: Dogs are dependent on humans for many things, including food, shelter, and companionship. Human caregivers provide dogs with the resources they need to survive and thrive. While dogs can form close bonds with other dogs, their survival and well-being does not depend on their relationships with other dogs in the same way that it depends on their relationship with humans.
 
Overall, dogs' social bonds with humans are often deeper, more complex, and more emotionally significant than their social bonds with other dogs. Dogs are highly social animals that have evolved to form close relationships with humans, and these relationships are a key part of their well-being and happiness.
So the super power which governs the word use these roles of domestication to control the authorities in third word specially in our region I mean the near east and Mediterranean area some parts of Africa to rule out the sources of energy and maintain civilized fear. Their weapons are civilized sectarianism actinic local wars and professional armies which lead to increase in the number of refugees internally and externally by creative chaos.
I cannot say whether the authorities are happy with the domestication or not by superpowers or not, as it is a complex and multifaceted issue that likely varies from individual to individual and from country to country.
 
However, it is important to note that the domestication of dogs has been a process that has taken place over thousands of years and has involved a complex interplay between humans and dogs. While domestication of peoples have been shaped by human culture, they have also had a significant impact on human culture and have played important roles in areas such as history, and companionship.
 
It is also important to consider the ethical implications of domestication and to ensure that people are treated with respect and compassion, and that their welfare is prioritized. This includes providing them with proper nutrition, shelter, and medical care, as well as allowing them to exhibit their natural behaviors and instincts.
 
Ultimately, the question of whether the authorities are happy with the domestication by superpowers is a complex one that requires careful consideration of the many different factors involved, including the welfare of the nations themselves.
Balancing the needs of authority with the needs of humans can be challenging, but there are several strategies that can help to ensure that both groups have their needs met. Here are a few examples:
 
1. Responsible ownership: One of the most important things we can do to balance the needs of authority with the needs of humans is to promote responsible ownership. This includes things like providing proper nutrition, shelter, and medical care, as well as training and socializing them to be well-behaved around humans.
 
2. Public education: Educating the public about the needs of dogs and how to interact with them safely and responsibly can help to prevent dog bites and other negative interactions between dogs and humans.
 
3. Breed-specific legislation: In some cases, breed-specific legislation may be necessary to protect both dogs and humans. This can involve things like requiring certain breeds to be muzzled in public or limiting the ownership of certain breeds to individuals with a certain level of training or experience.
 
4. Dog-friendly spaces: Creating public spaces that are designed to be dog-friendly, such as dog parks and designated walking trails, can help to ensure that dogs have access to exercise and socialization opportunities while minimizing negative interactions with humans who may not be comfortable around dogs.
 
5. Collaboration between people advocates and government officials: Working together with government officials and other stakeholders can help to ensure that the needs of people are taken into account when making decisions that affect them, such as zoning laws and public safety policies.
 
Overall,balancing the needs of authorities with the needs of humans requires a collaborative and multi-faceted approach that takes into account the interests and well-being of both groups. By promoting responsible ownership, educating the public, enacting breed-specific legislation when necessary, creating friendly spaces, and collaborating with government officials and other stakeholders, we can help to ensure that authorities and humans can coexist in a safe and mutually beneficial way.
Neopragmatism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the practical consequences of ideas and the importance of empirical evidence in decision-making. While neopragmatism can play a role in many different areas of life, including politics and social justice, it is not necessarily connected to the concept of getting behind the civilized world.
 
The idea of a "civilized world" is a complex and contested concept that can mean different things to different people. Some may interpret it as a world in which human rights are respected and upheld, while others may see it as a world in which certain cultural or technological advancements have been made.
 
Neopragmatism, with its emphasis on practical consequences and empirical evidence, can certainly be applied to discussions about what it means to be a "civilized" society and how we can work towards creating a world that is more just and equitable. However, it is important to recognize that different philosophical and political perspectives may have different ideas about what this world should look like and how we should go about achieving it.
 
Ultimately, the question of how to create a more civilized world is a complex and multifaceted one that requires input from a wide range of perspectives and disciplines, including philosophy, politics, economics, and social justice. While neopragmatism can play a role in this conversation, it is only one of many different perspectives that can contribute to a broader understanding of what it means to be a "civilized" society and how we can work towards creating a more just and equitable world.
There are many different philosophical perspectives that can contribute to creating a more just and equitable world. Here are a few examples:
 
1. Feminist philosophy: Feminist philosophy is a broad and diverse field that focuses on the ways in which gender shapes our social, political, and economic systems. Feminist philosophy can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the ways in which gender-based discrimination and oppression intersect with other forms of discrimination and oppression.
 
2. Critical race theory: Critical race theory is a framework for understanding the ways in which race and racism shape our social, political, and economic systems. Critical race theory can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the ways in which racism and other forms of discrimination perpetuate structural inequalities.
 
3. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is a moral theory that emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism can contribute to conversations about social justice by focusing on the impact of policies and actions on the well-being of individuals and communities.
 
4. Existentialism: Existentialism is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes individual freedom and choice in the face of the inherent meaninglessness of the world. Existentialism can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the importance of individual agency and responsibility in creating a more just and equitable world.
 
5. Environmental philosophy: Environmental philosophy is a field that focuses on the relationship between humans and the natural world. Environmental philosophy can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the ways in which environmental degradation and climate change disproportionately affect marginalized communities and emphasizing the importance of sustainability and environmental justice.
 
6. Postcolonial theory: Postcolonial theory is a framework for understanding the ways in which colonialism and imperialism have shaped our social, political, and economic systems. Postcolonial theory can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the ongoing legacies of colonialism and the need to address global inequalities.
 
7. Social contract theory: Social contract theory is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the importance of social cooperation and the role of government in creating a just and equitable society. Social contract theory can contribute to conversations about social justice by highlighting the importance of creating social and political systems that are fair and equitable for all members of society.
 
These are just a few examples of the many different philosophical perspectives that can contribute to creating a more just and equitable world. Ultimately, it is important to approach issues of social justice from a multi-disciplinary and intersectional perspective, taking into account the complex ways in which different forms of oppression intersect and impact individuals and communities.
Integrating philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes can be challenging, but there are several strategies that can help to ensure that these perspectives are taken into account. Here are a few examples:
 
1. Education and training: Providing education and training on different philosophical perspectives can help decision-makers to understand the importance of considering different viewpoints and how to apply these perspectives to real-world issues.
 
2. Inclusion and diversity: Ensuring that decision-making processes include a diverse range of perspectives can help to ensure that a variety of philosophical perspectives are taken into account. This can involve things like recruiting decision-makers from diverse backgrounds or creating opportunities for input and feedback from a variety of stakeholders.
 
3. Ethical frameworks: Developing ethical frameworks that are based on philosophical perspectives can help decision-makers to navigate complex issues and make decisions that are consistent with these perspectives. For example, a utilitarian framework might prioritize decisions that maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while a feminist framework might prioritize decisions that promote gender equity and equality.
 
4. Transparency and accountability: Ensuring that decision-making processes are transparent and accountable can help to ensure that different philosophical perspectives are taken into account and that decisions are made in a fair and ethical manner. This can involve things like making decision-making processes public or creating mechanisms for review and appeal.
 
5. Collaboration and dialogue: Encouraging collaboration and dialogue between decision-makers and stakeholders from different philosophical perspectives can help to ensure that a variety of viewpoints are taken into account and that decisions are informed by abroad range of perspectives.
 
6. Research and evidence-based decision-making: Incorporating research and evidence-based decision-making can help to ensure that decisions are grounded in empirical data and that they are consistent with different philosophical perspectives.
 
Ultimately, integrating philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes requires a commitment to inclusivity, transparency, and ethical decision-making. By providing education and training, promoting diversity and inclusion, developing ethical frameworks, promoting transparency and accountability, encouraging collaboration and dialogue, and incorporating research and evidence-based decision-making, decision-makers can ensure that a broad range of philosophical perspectives are taken into account in the decision-making process.
Integrating philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes can be challenging for decision-makers. Here are some challenges that they might face:
 
1. Complexity: Philosophical perspectives can be complex and nuanced, and it can be difficult to understand and apply them to real-world issues. Decision-makers may need to invest time in learning and understanding different philosophical perspectives and how they apply to specific issues.
 
2. Bias and subjectivity: Decision-makers may have their own biases and perspectives that can influence how they interpret and apply philosophical perspectives. It can be challenging to remain objective and to consider different viewpoints in a fair and unbiased manner.
 
3. Conflicting perspectives: Different philosophical perspectives may lead to conflicting conclusions about what the best course of action is in a given situation. Decision-makers may need to carefully weigh the pros and cons of different perspectives and make difficult choices about which perspective to prioritize.
 
4. Implementation challenges: Even if decision-makers have a clear understanding of different philosophical perspectives and how they apply to a given issue, it can be challenging to implement policies and decisions that are consistent with these perspectives. Practical considerations, such as resource constraints and political feasibility, may make it difficult to fully integrate philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes.
 
5. Limited resources: Decision-makers may have limited resources, such as time and funding, to invest in learning and integrating different philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes.
 
6. Lack of expertise: Decision-makers may lack the expertise and training needed to fully understand and apply different philosophical perspectives. This can make it challengingto effectively integrate these perspectives into decision-making processes.
 
7. Resistance to change: Integrating philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes may require changes to existing policies, procedures, and systems. Decision-makers may encounter resistance from stakeholders who are resistant to change or who do not fully understand the importance of considering different philosophical perspectives.
 
Integrating philosophical perspectives into decision-making processes requires a commitment to learning, objectivity, and collaboration. Decision-makers may need to invest time and resources into understanding different philosophical perspectives, develop strategies to mitigate bias and subjectivity, weigh conflicting perspectives, and find ways to overcome practical challenges and resistance to change.
Finally we have to remember the rule of 15 which mean I,5 billion years from the bang bang,15000 years from domestication of dog, next 15 years the big winner will change its color from yellow to red.