Buying your dog a birthday gift? Keep the dog’s interests in mind

31xrko8uzil-_sx425_
iFetch Interactive Ball Launchers for Dogs [Courtesy: Amazon]
When it comes to household animals, dogs continue to be the preferred choice of pets globally. And wherever there is a home with a canine, the dog is usually considered a member of the family. So it does not come as a surprise when more than a third of dog-owning Americans admitted to buying birthday gifts for their dogs (with the occasional celebrity building a two-storey mansion for her dogs). With the global pet products and services industry surpassing the $100 billion mark for the first time in 2016, electronic toys and gadgets are being considered as must-haves for the “tech-savvy” dog (?!)

Consider the following gizmos: TailTalk is touted “the world’s dog emotion sensor” by capturing tail movement and translating it to the emotions that our dogs want to convey. FitBark monitors activity levels of your dog and calculates calories burned. Whistle is intended as a “smart” way to keep track of your pet’s location.

But did our dogs ask for these “gifts” in the first place? Do they even understand these technologies? More importantly, what do these gadgets mean for the autonomy of the animal? By subjecting our pets to technologies that we use daily, are we prioritizing the comfort and entertainment of the owner over the welfare of the animal?

Increasingly, everyday human technologies are being re-configured to be used by other species. In the products listed above, the devices are attached to the dogs’ bodies and used to record data. In the era of the Internet of Things, dogs have been arguably reduced to “things” – just another source of data to be sensed and recorded. Even though owners may feel that these “smart” devices help keep track of their dogs’ health and well-being, the outcomes for efficiency and success of such products are defined in terms of human attributes.

Is it possible to design pet-care products for dogs using attributes unique to dogs? Dr. Ben Kirman and his colleagues explored this question through The Dog Internet, a research project which asked what an “Internet for Dogs” would look like. They developed a series of prototypes for canine users, and revealed some of the unique challenges presented when humans design consumer technology for non-human species. “Our primary concern”, Dr. Ben Kirman reveals, “is for the dogs as end-users, who are often subjected to technology rather than engaging with it in their own terms. Imagine what would happen if a dog could create digital technology for a human – would we benefit or even understand it?”

The team designed to engage with this specific issue by designing technology that are accessible to dogs but not to humans, something similar to the text CAPTCHA in internet forms which asks the user to prove she is a human and not a robot. To explicitly restrict human access, the researchers decided to focus on the uniqueness of a dog when compared to a human – the dog’s strong sense of smell.

Remember the Secret Life of Pets? What if dogs wanted to be alerted when their owners are returning home and in the neighbourhood? What if the dogs wanted to stop whatever naughty thing they were up to and resume acting normal when the owners returned home? The project developed the winsome Dog RADAR as a solution to this “key” problem.

dog radar
The Dog RADAR prototype [Image Courtesy: Dog Internet – Kirman et al]
The DOG RADAR looks like an ordinary squeaky toy to the humans, but it is actually a microcomputer. It uses high frequency audio to detect the presence of the owner’s phone, upto a distance of 1km. When the owners enter within the radius of 1km, the LED lights in the RADAR light up and generate a high pitched whistle audible to dogs but not to humans. Thus the dog is alerted to the presence of her owner. However, when the human is close enough (within 500m) the toy returns to its ordinary state of a squeaky toy – no lights, no whistle – thus concealing its utility to the owner. This makes it a perfect gadget to the dog that likes to party when the owner is away.

 

This prototype (as well as the other models developed by the team) may appear to be funny or even absurd. But the project reveals the challenges in designing technologies only for the animal and not based on what humans imagine to be their pet’s need. Non-human centred design also reveals other ethical challenges which are seldom considered in the pet care products, such as autonomy, privacy and consent of the animal.

The next time you decide to buy that awesome toy on the holiday buying guide for cats and dogs, think again. We might simply be imposing our commercial technologies upon our pets – technologies which are seldom designed with our pets in mind but our own comfort and leisure.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Buying your dog a birthday gift? Keep the dog’s interests in mind

  1. Hi Satish, interesting read as always!

    Anthropomorphism has always been an issue when examining the human-animal bond and how humans interact and engage with animals. However I find it difficult to see the welfare implications or concerns implicit in your article? Statements like “But did our dogs ask for these “gifts” in the first place? Do they even understand these technologies?” are just symptoms of us humans anthropomorphising our concerns onto our canine partners. Even statements like ” More importantly, what do these gadgets mean for the autonomy of the animal?” can be a little misleading. A very simple lead and collar could be seen as limiting the autonomy of a dog. The increase in technological advanced dog “toys” hasn’t really changed anything from the dog’s perspective.

    At the end of the day, as long as the technology doesn’t stop the dog from being able to exhibit its natural and innate behaviours and also doesn’t prevent the dog from access to the basics necessary for life (i.e. food, water, shelter etc.) then really there a very little welfare concerns.

    If anything the welfare concerns potentially go in the other direction with humans directing limited resources away from other more pressing needs and towards these gimmicky gadgets. Is human welfare compromised if clever marketing make people spend money they don’t have on these sorts of products?

    Like

    1. Thanks!
      “A very simple lead and collar could be seen as limiting the autonomy of a dog”… Exactly!
      The purpose of this and other posts on my blog is only to highlight that there are some alternative questions which are seldom asked… and I try to share summaries of articles which I think pose some interesting questions and warrant some reflection on our part. For instance, I think your question “Is human welfare compromised if clever marketing make people spend money they don’t have on these sorts of products?” is very valid. You may also like to explore the last hyperlink in my post: https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a-pet-is-fundamentally-unethical

      Like

  2. Hi Satish, sorry for the late reply. The essay you posted is interesting but unfortunately in my humble opinion it is very misguided and misses the real reason why I sometimes personally struggle with why I think that an argument CAN be made for why keeping a pet is potentially unethical. I realise me thinking this way can come across as very hypocritical given I’m a veterinarian (and own a dog and cat!) but us humans act in very inconsistent and very hypocritical ways all the time.

    Without writing an essay myself I can’t do due justice to why I sometimes think keeping a pet is unethical but fundamentally it is based on the notion that every dollar that goes towards my dog/cat/fish etc. is a dollar that does NOT go towards some worthwhile humanitarian cause. I know that this type of thinking is not new to you and the same argument can be made towards any other venture that does not meet a human’s basic survival needs. I remember hearing a talk (I think it might have been a TED talk by Peter Singer) that said something along the lines of “every dollar that is spent on human entertainment is covered in blood”. However queasy that makes one feel there is some fundamental element of truth to it – can make one feel VERY guilty if you think about it for too long. The effective altruism movement (https://www.effectivealtruism.org/) is something to look into if you haven’t already as it tries (at least in part) to help resolve this question of what we should do with each “non-essential” dollar we have. It takes a practical stance that trying find a sustainable pattern of donation over the long-term is a good place to start (i.e. donating so much that you are now miserable but not in poverty is not exactly sustainable).

    Lastly, going back to essay you linked to – the reason it misses the point is because it is coming from a vegan’s stand point about animal rights vs. animal welfare as two separate entities. I think this is a false dichotomy to make in the real world as humans and animals are inextricably linked – there is no practical way to try and draw a distinction between the two. Anyway, if you have the time a great book to read is “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Kieth. One of the best books I’ve ever read – it explores the nutritional, moral and sustainability aspects of a vegan vs. non-vegan diet. Fundamentally it reveals that no matter what you eat, there is always blood on your plate (e.g. that piece of bread/tofu/corn on your plate was grown in a field that was cleared in order to grow that crop – numerous, sentient beings were killed in order for that field to be cleared so that crop could grow).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s