Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Moontanman]

It isn't keeping pets that is reprehensible.

 

What's reprehensible is poorly keeping pets.

 

Now that I can really agree with, I would liked to see some figures on the real cost of keeping pets compared to other less than necessary things humans do all the time. I think it is some what disingenuous to say that keeping pets some how prevents people in underdeveloped countries from eating. While I deplore the conditions these marginalized people live under we seem to be willing to help them do nothing but continue their marginal existence. If our pets produce billions of tins of waste very year then humans must produce quadrillions of tons of waste every year. Instead of making grandiose claims lets see some real figures of the cost of pets to society as a whole and the costs of other frivolous past times. I'm betting the pursuit of professional sports consumes far more of our resources than pets do.

 

Oh yeah, Buffy I agree if we can't keep animals as pets how about humans? Yeah I bet that one would really chap the *** of people who don't like pets. Yeah I can see the pet shops now, crowded with lonely middle aged men maybe the eugenics people can breed humans as pets, I can see it now special humans small in stature and less than intelligent, maybe blue skinned with white hair or milky white skin with red hair, the possibilities are endless. the human genome could be every bit as plastic as the canine genome. :hyper: I think we're better off with animals as pets don't you?

[Turtle]

reprehensible Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

 

Should all existing pets be euthanized?

 

I think euthanizing all existing pets would be reprehensible. :eek:

 

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

 

Indeed. Same as what we do now I suppose. :hyper: What do you suggest?

 

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

 

Sounds like a matter for legislators. Do you have a proposal for a bill?

 

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

 

Sounds like a matter for judges. Do you have a proposal for a tort?

 

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

 

Good question. >> Speciesism - encyclopedia article about Speciesism. By the evidence in the link, a debate all on its own no doubt. What position do you take on the question?

 

OK Off for more coffee and then on for more debate. :cup:

[Turtle]

Now that I can really agree with, I would liked to see some figures on the real cost of keeping pets compared to other less than necessary things humans do all the time. ...

 

Here's a starter page I was going to post presently: >> :hyper: Industry Statistics & Trends

[Moontanman]

Here's a starter page I was going to post presently: >> :hyper: Industry Statistics & Trends

 

43.4 billion? A drop in the bucket, how much money is spent on frivolous things like the fashion industry? How many suits of clothing does one person really need? I could get by easily with three changes of clothes. why do people need dozens of pairs of shoes, dozens of shirts, dresses, dozens of pairs of paints, hat's, coats, many people have hundreds of changes of clothes they never wear! wouldn't a few jump suits be plenty for anyone? and if the jump suits were the same for everyone then the cost would be low. we as a culture waste so much money it's mind boggling. but who decides what is waste and what is necessary for our sanity? Personally I think pets contribute more to our culture than fashion or professional sports so maybe it's a good thing I cannot decide for everyone!

[Turtle]

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". ...

 

Turtle, I think it is negligible, as many other said this is not even a drop in the sea. ...

 

Why must responsible people thus feel ashamed if they choose to own a pet that provide them pleasure, and gets treated like a child , when half the worlds population breed like rabbits, with no regard where their next meal will come from?

 

Now that I can really agree with, I would liked to see some figures on the real cost of keeping pets compared to other less than necessary things humans do all the time....

&

43.4 billion? A drop in the bucket, how much money is spent on frivolous things like the fashion industry?

 

Is it fair to say that all these arguments above make for straw dogs? That is to say, they do not deny the reprehensibility of keeping pets, but seek to lessen that reprehensibility by comparing it to other examples of human activity worthy of rebuke?

[Moontanman]

Is it fair to say that all these arguments above make for straw dogs? That is to say, they do not deny the reprehensibility of keeping pets, but seek to lessen that reprehensibility by comparing it to other examples of human activity worthy of rebuke? :hyper:

 

Then I categorically deny it:evil: Can you support your contention?

[Turtle]

Then I categorically deny it. :D Can you support your contention?:cup:

 

Yes of course. :D My contention is supported by your contradiction, which is to say that if there is nothing reprehensible about keeping pets, then there is no need to defend the practice by comparing it to others, or by any other means. :hyper: :)

 

On to more points I haven't addressed.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In addition to direct benefits such as those Moontanman mentions above, it’s generally accepted that responsible pet keeping provides health benefits, too.

 

In short, the physical acts involved in having pets – feeding them, playing with them, and simply petting them – appears to be physically and mentally good for most people. Though I’ve not read a specific study supporting the claim, I think studies have shown that, even controlling for other causes (eg: perhaps healthy people are more likely to keep pets, so the correlation between pet keeping and heath does not indicate the first contributing the latter), pets significantly promote physical and mental health.

 

They do keep the mice population out doors rather than in my house. Trespassers to this rule will be violated, so not only do they provide me with entertainment and companionship, they serve a purpose. They have a job they do.

 

All of these arguments seek to put an economic value on pet keeping, and I have no problem with keeping working animals. However, I find it unsatisfying to accept a general claim of a working benefit, such as companionship, followed by the claim it is somehow beyond enumeration. Shall a person acquire a Doctor's prescription perhaps, before taking ownership of a pet for companionship?

 

It isn't keeping pets that is reprehensible.

 

What's reprehensible is poorly keeping pets.

 

Only one of those two is dependent on the other. If no pets are kept, no pets are kept poorly. ;) :( :eek:

[modest]

Thinking about what it would be like getting rid of pets... [beware occasional sarcasm :D]...

 

It's an end to a 43.4 billion dollar per year industry which would be... [fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-negative-connotation-word] or so say the people who work at PetSmart. I'm sorry, used to work at PetSmart :hyper:

 

On a positive note, there will be no more cats hunting robins, blue jays, and doves on my street. Of course, the birds are also trying to figure out where the bird seed in the bird feeder went. Sorry birds--people are starving, ya know? I think the value of a human life is a little higher than feeding the red birds on sunday morning. Besides, PetSmart is closed - where am I supposed to buy bird seed? Wait, I think someone mentioned a black market of pet supplies... Let me get my bullet proof vest and glock-9, I'm gettin' an 8-ball of bird seed :)

 

Horses on the other hand think they're getting a pass. First, they don't consider themselves pets. Second, they think they're too useful for humans to do without. What they fail to realize is that may be useful, but they're also delicious and people are starving. If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak after all. Right Mr. Ed?

 

I'm guessing by the time the last domesticated dog dies we'd have a completely functioning robotic one to take its place. Synthetic pets will be all the rave. Since they're fake, you don't have to feed them food. While you'd think this would go a long way toward not offending the starving people who used to work at PetSmart... For some reason it just pisses them off :eek:

 

Incidentally, the extra power needed to run all these synthetic pets has depleted the world's fossil fuels leading to a shortage of heating oil and natural gas. So, people are freezing to death. Once again, you'd think they'd be content knowing their synthetic pets will live on... But, no -- It just pisses them off :cup:

 

And, you know what the really sad thing in all this is... Go look at your dog or cat right now. Look it right in their eyes.... It has no idea that the price it takes to fill up its feeding dish every day could feed a whole family in Africa. Literally every breath your animal takes is one less breath that some poor orphan in East Timor will have. Every comfortable night little Mittens spends curled up on his hypoallergenic pillow from PetSmart is one night closer to the end for little Kuan-yin. Nope, Little Mittens doesn't even know

 

~modest

 

My cat Cloe:

 

[CraigD]

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.

Put explicitly and symbolically, this argument is

1. A uses resources B required by C.
   
2. There isn’t enough B for C.
   
3. C is preferable to/more important than A.
   
4. Therefore, A is wrong.

In this example, A = keeping pets, B = food, energy, and “resources for pet products other than food”, and C = feeding people.

 

1 and 3 are, I think, true, 2 not.

 

Shortages of food and energy for humans, and many other essentials and luxuries, is I think, due not to a inherent natural shortage of these resources, but due to intentional restriction of their supply. Arguments containing (and thus promoting) the hidden assumption that the opposite is true are, IMHO, worse than merely false – they can and do promote incorrect and destructive decision-making by individuals and governments, harming individuals and societies, and retarding the advancement of science and civilization.

 

On the surface, the suggestion that the keeping of pets should be discouraged in order to reduce starvation of humans seems mostly harmless (at least to humans), regardless of whether it is correct. However, I believe it and arguments like it – which include arguments against space exploration, basic science, and art – are potentially terribly harmful. By promoting the false assumption of scarcity of essential resources and commodities, they promote less harmless seeming arguments. Once acceptance of the assumption that there is not enough of a critical resource ( for a particular collection of people © to survive and prosper has been achieved, it’s easy to gain acceptance of truly terrible act, up to and including the killing of other people (A) competing for the resource.

 

Note that I am not making the “slippery slope” argument that prohibiting the keeping of pets leads in increments to genocide. I am arguing that promoting the incorrect belief that resources such as food are in critically short supply by such means as noting that pets consume the same food resources as humans, does.

 

More discussion of this idea – the scarcity/abundance dichotomy – appears in the thread 3799, and such post as If I may engage in a fit of opinionated, wild speculation….

[Overdog]

I don't know how my family would have made it without dogs, growing up in the backwoods of Alabama in the '50s.

 

I don't know if you would call these dogs pets or not, but some of them were, at least to us kids.

 

The primary source of animal protein for my family of eight was what we caught and what we killed. Catfish, Deer, Rabbits and Squirrels mostly, supplemented with Chickens we raised and the eggs they produced. We had a few pigs, but only enough to kill one a year.

 

Life would have been very hard without those dogs. A dog can flush a squirrel you'll never see, or a rabbit or Deer.

 

Extremely valuable pet to have when times get tough.

 

If we get rid of Dogs as Pets, they may become nearly extinct. They depend on us, as we have depended on them. I think it would be shortsighted and unwise not to keep them around...

[Turtle]

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.

 

Acknowledged. Your pictures being worth 2,000 words, I have only left them out in the interest of brevity.

 

On a side note, it was a local news story on a pet monkey refuge that prompted me to opine on the subject. Yes, they asked for money. :doh:

 

If Japan is any judge, the problem is not limited to the US. (scroll down for article) >> Pet Fashion Trends

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Seeders

They do keep the mice population out doors rather than in my house. Trespassers to this rule will be violated, so not only do they provide me with entertainment and companionship, they serve a purpose. They have a job they do. -end Cedars

 

All of these arguments seek to put an economic value on pet keeping, and I have no problem with keeping working animals. However, I find it unsatisfying to accept a general claim of a working benefit, such as companionship, followed by the claim it is somehow beyond enumeration. Shall a person acquire a Doctor's prescription perhaps, before taking ownership of a pet for companionship?

 

 

I cant believe you ignored the dung beetles...

 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by the above. Could you clarify? As I interpret it, you are stating that their companionship has no economic value, or that the value can be easily calculated or that a working pet cant be evaluated on multiple levels; and I really dont understand the suggestion that one should be evaluated by a doctor first.

 

-Reaching for the ritalin- :doh:

[Turtle]

Put explicitly and symbolically, this argument is

1. A uses resources B required by C.
   
2. There isn’t enough B for C.
   
3. C is preferable to/more important than A.
   
4. Therefore, A is wrong.

In this example, A = keeping pets, B = food, energy, and “resources for pet products other than food”, and C = feeding people.

 

1 and 3 are, I think, true, 2 not.

 

...

Note that I am not making the “slippery slope” argument that prohibiting the keeping of pets leads in increments to genocide. I am arguing that promoting the incorrect belief that resources such as food are in critically short supply by such means as noting that pets consume the same food resources as humans, does.

 

More discussion of this idea – the scarcity/abundance dichotomy – appears in the thread 3799, and such post as If I may engage in a fit of opinionated, wild speculation….

 

Interesting distinctions. It seems you have couched your argument for the falsity of 2 in the truth or falsity of another debate. A hot one no less if potential terrible harm is at stake. :doh: :D

 

I'll try this parry.

 

Your #2 is a mischaracterization of a general implication in the OP, i.e., keeping pets is wasteful. Where waste is using up something unnecessarily, waste is waste no matter the supply. I might rewrite #2 to say that B is wastefully utilized and C is negatively affected by the waste. Therefore, A is worthy of rebuke.

 

:cup:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

All of these arguments seek to put an economic value on pet keeping, and I have no problem with keeping working animals. However, I find it unsatisfying to accept a general claim of a working benefit, such as companionship, followed by the claim it is somehow beyond enumeration.

Will you expect your wife to prove her financial worth how about your kid (if or when you should be fortunate enough to have either) How bout your friends?

 

I love my pup she is the daughter I will never have (BTW how about an exemption for those of us that have absolutely no desire to produce offspring). I think being a baby mill is far more reprehencible...think of all of the puppies that are deprived just because some "cow" wants to spit out another one:hihi:

[Turtle]

I cant believe you ignored the dung beetles...

 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by the above. Could you clarify? As I interpret it, you are stating that their companionship has no economic value, or that the value can be easily calculated or that a working pet cant be evaluated on multiple levels; and I really dont understand the suggestion that one should be evaluated by a doctor first.

 

-Reaching for the ritalin- :doh:

 

I just hadn't got to them yet. :D If'n they were a solution to pet poo, why aren't they in use?

 

I'm not saying there is not economic value, just saying that if one is asserted as an argument against not keeping pets, then it needs quantifiable substantiation. The difficultly providing such quantifiable substantiation is part of the strength of my general argument. :cup:

 

The Doctor's involvement I meant as a counter to the assertions that there is a medical benefit to keeping pets. If this is the case, then I argue that logically a Doctor ought to say if someone has a medical/psychological theraputic need of a pet, and possibly even what kind of pet.

 

Gotta break for supper. I'll get to everyone at a turtle's pace, no worries.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

BTW, BTW..I don't place the value of most human life any higher than that of most animals and in fact place most human life below that of select animals.

 

Example If I had to chose between my pup's life and that of my neighbor I'd very likely chose to save my pup...I just don't see the "VALUE" of human life.

Exactly how are we any more important than even the most vile of critters in the grand scheme of things? (beyond that we say we are)

[Overdog]

BTW, BTW..I don't place the value of most human life any higher than that of most animals and in fact place most human life below that of select animals.

 

Well, I think you are likely to catch a lot of static for that remark, but I must say it is refreshing to hear that not everyone views human life as "sacred".