Dog buttons: an ethical dilemma
Recently, The New York Times published an article about the social media phenomenon of dogs using buttons to “talk.” For those who aren’t familiar with these “dog buttons,” basically they are large buttons that, when pressed, say a pre-recorded word or phrase out loud. The most basic buttons say “Outside,” “Play,” or “Food,” but some dog owners claim their dogs can generate sentences like “Dad gone [dog name] mad.”
If you know me, you know that I absolutely HATE these buttons for three reasons.
Practical: while I believe that dogs do indeed understand basic buttons like “Outside” and “Walk,” I do not think that they can “speak” complex sentences like “Car loud scared” when an ambulance screams down the street.
Ethical: in my opinion, it’s profoundly unethical to ask dogs to speak our human language to communicate. Humans objectively have more knowledge and power over dogs today, which I believe obliges us to take the time and effort to “speak” their language. It’s our job to translate, not our dogs’.
Evolutionary: this is a highly speculative concern, but salient nonetheless. Let’s suppose the buttons work and allow dogs to communicate complex emotions. Will they lose some of their innate canine “language” because of this? I worry that, similar to children who lose proficiency in their native language when they start an exclusively English-speaking school, dogs who frequently utilize buttons to “chat” with humans will lose some of their own native language.
Let me elaborate on each concern.
The first, practical, has already been expounded upon by researchers. The language skills of Koko the gorilla, Clever Hans the horse, and dozens of other “talking” animals have been exposed as (highly intelligent and attuned to humans) animals who are simply responding to their handlers’ often unconscious cues, trying to get a reward or please us. Say a dog presses the buttons “Water outside now,” his owner lets him outside, and he gleefully swims in the pool. Most assume the dog was genuinely expressing his desires to his owner, but its more likely that he simply pressed buttons he knew would get a positive response from his owner and then was independently thrilled when he got to go outside and swim. A lot of research shows that dogs have wildly different understandings of emotions and time than do humans.
My second concern is ethical. I don’t think this has been discussed enough re: dog buttons. Humans have tremendous amounts of power over dogs. Society has been built for humans, by humans. We are far better suited to it than are dogs, and have obligations to keep them safe and happy through training, management, and boundaries. My German Shepherd love to trot around Los Angeles untethered, but I leash her to keep everyone safe. Because we must restrict dogs so heavily, we must give them as many opportunities as possible to express their “dogness.”
Buttons force dogs to assume the burden of translating their needs and desires into human language. They impose another burden on these animals who already limit their natural behavior to suit human society. Humans should take on the burden of translation; we’ve co-evolved with dogs. It’s fairly easy to discern if they’re begging for food, need to go outside, are sad, or hurt just by attuning yourself to their natural cues like body language and vocalizations. It’s our job.
I also worry about the evolutionary impact of buttons. This is a “pie-in-the-sky” concern, but I think it’s important to consider. Let’s say dogs can express complex thoughts with buttons. Will ones who regularly use buttons lose some of their natural social skills and communication techniques in favor of this artificial form of language?
Dog buttons represent the increasing “elitification” of pet dog ownership. A generation ago, dog ownership was simple. You walked them twice a day on a normal collar and leash, played some fetch, and tossed them table scraps if they were lucky. If they misbehaved, maybe you yelled or popped their collar. Some slept outside or in the basement. This was normal, and still is outside of urban centers. And, by and large, most dogs and owners lived good lives together.
What we consider “good” dog ownership has become increasingly complex since millennials came of age. Now, you must train your puppy from day one. Normal pet dogs need harnesses, slow feeders, anxiety medications, complex obedience training, CBD treats, raw food, waterproof jackets, luxury boarding accommodations… the list goes on. Keeping dogs outside or popping their collar are considered abusive.
And yet… canine obesity is at an all-time high. You can’t walk through a town without encountering reactive or terrified dogs. Anxiety medication is doled out by vets after a single appointment. “Canine separation anxiety specialists” charge hundreds of dollars to tell you not to leave a crying dog alone, ever, because they’re having a panic attack.
Normalizing dog buttons, convincing pet owners that their dogs need them to be actualized and truly agentive, does two things: it sets an unrealistic and inaccurate bar for “good” dog ownership and it keeps time-strapped dog owners from doing the things that their dogs truly need (play, outdoor time, sniffing, running, etc.). In the time it takes you to train a dog to use a “food” button, they could have been playing or walking outside with you. That, I argue, would do you both far more good.
The Times article mentions that most of these dog button owners are women who spend a LOT of time at home with their dogs. They’re upper-middle class with remote jobs, or are dog trainers themselves. They have the time and energy to fulfill their dogs and train buttons. Most people don’t have that luxury. Interestingly, many of the “talking dogs” suffer from significant anxiety and/or behavioral issues. I can’t say that this is a causal relationship, of course, but the correlation is interesting nonetheless.
What do you think about dog buttons?