>>16711369 (OP)This sort of environment and behaviour is natural to the dog. It's the result of coevolution with humans. The dog loiters around and in proximity of settlements, distant enough to retain its dignity and freedom, close enough to get whatever scraps and social stimuli while the human can count on the dog to raise alarms or join in on hunting trips. A sane human embedded in a functioning society will naturally be opposed to let the beast into their dwellingy and the beast probably finds those dwellings awkward at least. They respect each other.
But the dog is also the oldest crime of humanity that we still have proof for. It takes selective breeding (compare Lyudmila Trut) to not only remove the dogs ancestors natural distrust of humans but even reverse it to some degree. The crime becomes particularly obvious when a modern westerner, to compensate for a eroding society in which they find themselves unable to form meaningful conections, buys such animal to 'own' it, brings it into their hohse and showers it with affection. The sensitivity of the animals bonding behaviour needed to make the arrangement showcased above work is far too great to not cause emotional havoc. This is of course no problem, up to the point when, like every morning, the 'owner' locks the animal inside human dwellings, lesves to work, forgets about the animal while the later is left to smolder and suffer from it's bred and carefully cultivated in attachement issues. The 'owner' will then return to repeat the abusive cycle, the animal fills the void in them only to be emotionally crushed again the next morning.
Dogs in this setting have no agency, no freedom and no dignity. They are the victim of selfish abuse.
If this does not resonate. Ask yourself if, in a twisted hypothetical scenario, where someone was to abduct humans and conduct on them experiments like the ones by Lyudmilla Trut, would you feel at ease with the result if it was one where after a few generations (cont.)
