Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[mynah]

For example, there is the cost of fuel consumed transporting the pets, and there is the cost of injuries, deaths, and property damage inflicted by pets.

It could be even worse:

For example, there is the cost of fuel consumed transporting the men, and there is the cost of injuries, deaths, and property damage inflicted by men.

Still, I wouldn't suggest getting rid of men simply because they are high risk as far as murder, fuel consumption and property damage are concerned.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by mynah

It could be even worse:



Still, I wouldn't suggest getting rid of men simply because they are high risk as far as murder, fuel consumption and property damage are concerned.

Buffy referred to this when she said:

Originally Posted by Buffy

Is the bias against pets in favor of humans an example of speciesism?

I replyed with this article: >> Speciesism - encyclopedia article about Speciesism.

I think it is a question for another thread and does nothing to dimish the specific wastes of keeping pets. I have not suggested getting rid of existing pets; what I'm suggesting is that in the face of knowing the real costs, people will choose not to have pets in the first place. In the 'ideal' scheme, as existing pets die off 'naturally', the overall number decreases until it's no longer a problem, that is, people no longer keep pets.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

What I was trying to say is that the respondents to that first post have focused mainly on the canine and feline whilst mostly avoiding the subject of reptilian, amphibian, (I think I remember a bird or two being mentioned) avian, bovine (and numerous other "farm" critters which may or may not be both pet and/or food source be it milk, meat or egg) ,invertibrate (again I recall a mention of a bug or two), and various other aquarium dwellers etc.

I think this omission reflects an unstated understanding: that the only animals that should properly be called “pets” are ones that can be … well … petted. By petted, I mean no simply touched without adverse reaction, but react in a manner indicating that the animal is receiving pleasure from being touched.

While a surprising number of exotic animals, including birds of various shapes as sizes, and nearly every tame mammal, from common livestock like goats, pigs, rabbits, and rats to captured wild animals from ground hogs to tigers (though I can assure all with some confidence that I’ve no desire to lay hands, pleasant or otherwise, on giant man-eating predators, regardless of their furry cuteness ), meet this “pettable” criterion, my personal experience with amphibians and reptiles – frogs, salamanders, snakes, lizards, etc. – is that, with rare exception, they don’t (I don’t include exothermic critters’ learning to use their keepers as hand heat sources as “liking to be petted”).

Another good criterion, I think, is that pets need not be caged. If all that prevents an animal from returning to a keeper-free environment are walls, bars, or chain-link, I take that as compelling evidence that the pleasure of keeping such beasts is not reciprocated. This excludes most of the “don’t like to be touched” mentioned above, and a few more.

I’m tempted to mention another pet-defining criterion, the “don’t intend to eat it” , or, more broadly, “don’t intend to kill it for any purpose” criterion, except that it’s clearly a widely varying cultural, not a zoological, trait. For example, my own semi-rural American culture, for example, cute bunny rabbits were a popular gift, given with the understanding that, after about a year or so of pethood, they would graduate to small livestock status, and be made the centerpiece of a special meal. Perhaps not coincidentally, these cute bunnies struck me as borderline on the “like to be petted” criteria (they would put up with it, and at least at an early age, seemed to like it, but as they aged, were increasingly likely to bite the hand that tried to pet them), and barely if at all within the “need not be caged” criteria, as I knew more than a few that, with surprising foresight for an animal who’s name is a common synonym for stupidity, seized the first opportunity to graduate from small livestock to feral wildlife status (leading to some interesting wild-domestic rabbit hybrids seen hopping about the neighborhoods).

Even the top-of-the pet popularity chart holder, the species of my own beloved pets, Felis catus, is remarkably close to wild, being able to make the transition from wild to domestic and back in a single generation with seemingly little difficulty. My mom has a yard-and-house cat who’s parents were feral, and who’s cousins (but not littermates or descendents, as my mom, in a typical display of rural lack of sentimentality, carted all of her kittens littermates to a local adoption shelter, where they were more likely than not eventually euthanized, or, surviving that, certainly sterilized) likely still are.

[modest]

Pets being “wasteful” is subjective and a matter of opinion. The only proper way to evaluate such a thing is to assign value to the pet itself.

If a responsible adult rents a stable and keeps a horse only to ride it a few times a year then what usefulness is that horse to that rider? This is subjective and it would in fact be rude to tell such an adult that this is a waste of his/her money. Are we going to tell people what hobbies on which they should spend money? Are we going to tell them where they are allowed to find enjoyment?

If keeping a dog (which I do) gives me pleasure and enhances my life then how exactly is this reprehensible? My dog:





is worth more to me than the money I spend on her. I'm able to support her and I fail to see the difference between doing that and spending money on a vacation or some other "wasteful" enterprise.

What about my fish? Is this reprehensible?

YouTube - Koi & Goldfish 600 gallon

No - I'm a responsible adult and able to support the things that give me enjoyment. In my opinion, my pets are as useful to me as an Amish person's horse. This is a free country and no one is capable of placing a value on that which I enjoy. A counter example to this would be a 17th century puritan society which all-to-often engaged in reprehensible acts of torture and murder.

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

I dislike caged birds.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Craig D- I think this omission reflects an unstated understanding: that the only animals that should properly be called “pets” are ones that can be … well … petted. By petted,

This is not specified...and a great many consider non-pettable critters "pets".(myself included. Ironicaly I do not consider my dog a pet by any definition though she insists on being petted. She is family which is exactly how she see's herself as well I believe.)
As far as "farm stock" I had a pet calf, it had a name, and I very much enjoyed caring for it (the fact that I was a child then shouldn't matter).

Modest, that's a right fine Pup you got there!

my pets are as useful to me as an Amish person's horse.

What function do the koi serve. The pup could be put to all sorts of useful tasks but the fish? Do you eat 'em? Use them to fertilise your garden? Do you use their water to feed your plants?

[modest]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Modest, that's a right fine Pup you got there!

Thank you. She's an american mastiff. For a big dog, they're very active. Good with kids and they slobber much less than the european mastiffs. She's 1 1/2.

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

What function do the koi serve. The pup could be put to all sorts of useful tasks but the fish? Do you eat 'em? Use them to fertilise your garden? Do you use their water to feed your plants?

My point exactly - you are excluding enjoyment from usefulness. My goldfish and koi - indeed all my animals add pleasure, amusement, value, recreation and satisfaction to my life. How exactly is that not useful?

Why would you ask me if I eat my fish? Only things I can eat are useful? And, by the way, I do fertilize my garden with fish waste seeing as how my pond is also a water garden.

My point was that from an Amish person's perspective our entire 'modern' way of living is wasteful and has little use to them. It's all subjective. I find my computer useful - not just because my livelihood depends on it, but because there is merit in entertainment, education, communication, etc. It's the same way with pets. If everything that is not vital to our survival becomes "reprehensible" then we become puritanical. History is full of examples of why that's bad. It is unhealthy for society to function in such a puritanical way.

~modest

[REASON]

Originally Posted by modest

Thank you. She's an american mastiff.....and they slobber much less than the european mastiffs.

That isn't saying much.

I'm teasing. She is absolutely beautiful.

A friend of mine just recently got a Husky/Masitff mix. He has one blue eye and one brown. His name is Hulk. He's only six months, he's already huge, and his temperment is excellent. I've always liked Mastiffs.


C'mon Turtle, having pets is fun. It's part of the joy of life if done responsibly.


Edit: Hulk is the dog.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by SnappingTurtle

The other excessive industries can get their own thread. I think for a true view of what jobs are involved in the pet industry, we have to look at the jobs involved in the pet industry. But seriously, a clerk at Pet Smart is just a clerk and can clerk at any business. Since the green business is growing, new jobs must be out there. Similarly, the worker at the plastic factory cranking out rubber bones can just as well work squeezing out rubber gaskets for flex-fuel cars. The driver driving all those squeeky toys and food and litter and so on is just a driver, and may as well be driving trucks hauling recycled paper or taking wind-mill blades to assembly sites.

You get the picture.

So, where do shit stirrers get jobs?

You make me laugh. Keep it up!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

you are excluding enjoyment from usefulness. My goldfish and koi - indeed all my animals add pleasure, amusement, value, recreation and satisfaction to my life. How exactly is that not useful?

I....no, but this is a recuring theme in Turtles responces.