This book is a bit of a dry read I think. Don’t get me wrong, the topics are interesting, but the way it’s written made it difficult to stay engaged in it. That aside, I did find the various definitions of what an animal is to be funny, and at the same time worrying. Funny because of how people can’t agree on something that to me seems so trivial, and worrying for the same reason, with the addition that these definitions could be taken advantage of by deeming that something is not animal cruelty when it would be by another states perspective. I was unaware that llamas and alpacas were also part of the camel family. I knew they had humps, but I did not know they were that related. Though that explains a lot, that they all have humps, they all spit, they all lack lower teeth (I think), and they all have the same posture. To answer one of the discussion questions, my behavior towards animals does not change upon my location. Here in the US I will treat a dog with respect and as a companion, and if I were to go to Asia, I would still treat it as such. Not as food. An answer to another question is that media and pet markets appeal to our emotions when they show animals in cages looking very sad, afraid, and alone. I personally change the channel/scroll past them when I see them because I can’t stand seeing those animals like that. The types of working animals was expected to be brought up, since this book is about human-animal interactions. I know that Huskies are labor dogs for sleds in the North, Labradors are usually seeing-eye dogs, German Shepherds are used in law enforcement, and the list goes on. I am expecting the topic of farm animals as food to be brought up in the latter half.