Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Turtle]

pet 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

I find keeping pets reprehensible in a world where people are starving to death every minute. Not only the direct loss of human food to pets, but the energy used to produce, package, distribute, and sell it, as well as the same waste in resources for pet products other than food. Add to that the billions of tons of animal waste disposed in the environment, and I find no moral or economic justification for the keeping of pets.

Discuss.

[Buffy]

Should all existing pets be euthanized?

If not, what should we do about the black market that will inevitably ensue?

If non-human pets are to be prohibited due to the unfairness to starving humans, will humans be allowed as pets?

Can it be considered cruel to take pets away from those people who have no human family or partners?

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

------------------------------------------
I've mostly always had dogs, and I've always considered them "family" rather than "pets." In my house they get treated like royalty: they get their own stockings at xmas and eat food as good as the rest of us. They sleep on the furniture, and they're required to do chores like fetching the paper just like my kid is.

Conversely, I think the people who raise pit bulls and presa carnarios and teach them to attack other dogs and people should be lined up and shot.

Is it a waste of resources? Maybe. Probably no worse than most of our other wastes of resources, and arguably the one we consider the worst these days--their carbon footprint--is minor compared to our Hummers.

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man,
Buffy

[Theory5]

No matter what it is someone is always willing to take part in it. People buy clothes with very little practical use in the name of "Fashion". people stop eating meat because it was once living. Most SUV's are purchased to show that you have money, not to off road, or carry stuff in them. people grow one type of plant in their yards and tend to them carefully while destroying other useful plants, and insects.
I however am partial to keeping animals for companions. Why can't there be cross species friends? Someone for who sexual and other psychological boundaries don't exist.

[Thunderbird]

Please help me help this dog, please send money. Americans send a avalanch of millions of dollars.




Please help me find housing, drug treatment, job training and employment for this Man when he gets out. Crickets chirping.

[freeztar]

"Pet" is one of those strange words where a verb has transformed into a noun...

I choose not to keep any pets/animals in my house, or otherwise through ownership. In this sense I completely agree with Turtle. Pets/mammalian-family-members are expensive and do have an impact.

'Reprehensible' is a bit strong in my book. People have lots of reasons for owning pets and I think that is fine. What really makes pet ownership a problem, imho, is irresponsible pet owners who do not properly take care of their pets by getting them spayed or neutered, etc.

Turtle, when you say "pets", do you mean *all types of pets*? (eg fish, scorpions, rhinos, etc.)


On the other hand, I also agree with Buffy. Domesticated animals can make great companions. Having grown up with a couple "family dogs" in my youth, I do understand the mutual joy that can exist (not implying you don't Turtle).

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Cute. Probably would get run over or used in a dog fight if it hadn't gotten picked up.

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Look at him. Probably hiding a Kafiyeh under that Argyle sweater disguise. Drug addict: gets what he deserves, and he's probably a Democrat, gay, pedophile to boot. You know what Reagan said about teaching a man to fish. Give him a handout and since he's gay he'll just end up a Welfare Queen...

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Americans send a avalanch of millions of dollars.

The American Humane Society would beg to differ of course...

Don't worry T-Bird, I'm *agreeing* with you...

He who feels no compassion will become insane,
Buffy

[Theory5]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Please help me help this dog, please send money. Americans send a avalanch of millions of dollars.




Please help me find housing, drug treatment, job training and employment for this Man when he gets out. Crickets chirping.

There are less dogs behind bars than humans. As Stalin said

One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic

People look at a dog in a cage and view him as one dog in trouble. People look at one guy in prison and view him as a Representation of everyone who is in jail. Also dogs aren't responsible for their actions. Unlike most humans.

[sanctus]

Turtle, I think it is negligible, as many other said this is not even a drop in the sea. Compared to use mais (and other eatable crop) for biofuel (additionally thinking to do something good!!!!), or the habit of many people in western world to not finish their plate and throw the rest in the bin (not even compost!), taking the car for 200m and then whining for petrol prices...just a few examples and I could give many more.

Additionally, many animal food is made of things we would throw away otherwise. One could say those things we would throw away would be eaten by starving people, well...wouldn't the western world be even more disliked if we gave the poor the rests we are disgusted to eat?

In conclusion, I don't say that keeping pets has no impact, but so little compared to other things (another example: imaging to invest 10% of the money spent in worldwide armament in projects in the third world then the third world would cease to exist)...

[C1ay]

So where do I fit on the reprehensible scale from 1 to 10 with a 10 being totally reprehensible.

In the spider category I have a theraphosa leblondi, a eucratoscelus pachypus and a brachypelma baumgarteni. The first eats mice and the other two crickets. I keep them mainly for observation but there is some entertainment value in observing them. Their companionship value is zero.

In the reptile department I currently have a pogona vitticeps and a python regius. Both of these are adopted animals that would have been set loose by their previous owners and died in our local environment. I observe their natural habits and there is a minimal companionship value. The first eats mainly crickets and some greens from the yard and the second mice.

I frequently adopt a variety of reptiles and arachnids that were previously pets and their owners became disenchanted with them. You could call them pets since I enjoy them but I don't usually acquire them for that purpose, more often to preserve their life. This is one of the reasons I am against the industry marketing pets like iguanas and large snakes. People think they're neat until they realize how big they get and then they don't want them anymore

From time to time I am graced with endangered species, that come into the local pet store that I care for until I can find them a home since they cannot sell them. Such was the case with two recent flavomarginata, Chinese Box Turtles. Someone dropped them off at the pet store because they didn't want them anymore so I got to take care of them until I forwarded them to their new home at the Tennessee Aquarium.

All in all I have generally felt my keeping of such animals as pets is because of my morals, not in spite of them. Is their an error in my judgement?

[C1ay]

I would also like to point out that for some there are health benefits with pet ownership, particularly the elderly where they replace a lost companion. Is this amoral?