Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday October 01 2017, @11:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the Bow-Wow-Meow-Squeak! dept.

The recent popularity of "designer" dogs, cats, micro-pigs and other pets may seem to suggest that pet keeping is no more than a fad. Indeed, it is often assumed that pets are a Western affectation, a weird relic of the working animals kept by communities of the past.

About half of the households in Britain alone include some kind of pet; roughly 10m of those are dogs while cats make up another 10m. Pets cost time and money, and nowadays bring little in the way of material benefits. But during the 2008 financial crisis, spending on pets remained almost unaffected, which suggests that for most owners pets are not a luxury but an integral and deeply loved part of the family.

Some people are into pets, however, while others simply aren't interested. Why is this the case? It is highly probable that our desire for the company of animals actually goes back tens of thousands of years and has played an important part in our evolution. If so, then genetics might help explain why a love of animals is something some people just don't get.

[...] The pet-keeping habit often runs in families: this was once ascribed to children coming to imitate their parents' lifestyles when they leave home, but recent research has suggested that it also has a genetic basis. Some people, whatever their upbringing, seem predisposed to seek out the company of animals, others less so.

Is the desire to keep pets really hard-wired in our DNA?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:21PM (2 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:21PM (#575546) Homepage Journal

    Every single home that involves pets is filthy.

    "Filthy" is a subjective and relative term, particularly in the context that you've used it. You consider the pet homes filthy relative to your own personal standards. I'd suggest that your standards shouldn't be applied to other people because pet ownership quite clearly isn't having a significant negative impact on their health. Given that people benefit from a little dirt to kick start their immune systems, it may even be beneficial. In summary, most people are likely to disagree with you, but what standards you apply to yourself are fine. I think you were trolling anyway.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:33PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @01:33PM (#575549)

    Are you people blind?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Sunday October 01 2017, @02:39PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Sunday October 01 2017, @02:39PM (#575567) Homepage Journal

      I didn't restate their point. They said that pet owners are oblivious to filth. I disagreed by pointing out that "filth" is a subjective term. I will concede though that anyone claiming their home is "perfectly clean" is just as guilty of the same subjective relativism.

      The OP went on to suggest some possible benefits of pet ownership, involving genetics and raising children. I didn't restate those points either. I made a different point about immune systems.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?