SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 01 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)
My cats have been living well past fifteen; one of them is past twenty. I'm quite sure that "industrial commercial crap" is far superior to free-range bird carcasses. The average lifespan in years of an outdoor cat is in the low single digits.
Nature? Nature? Do you miss your cave? Running from predators? Lack of clothing sufficient to keep you comfortable in extreme conditions? The smoke from your fire? The raids from the next village when they would come for the women? I don't think you do (or if you do, you've not given it the consideration it deserves.)
Things change, and change is not always bad. Particularly when guided by compassion, technology, and some thoughtful planning.
Animals - a category in which we firmly reside - adapt to conditions as long as they are tolerable or better. There are plenty of indoor pets that exhibit many signs of contentment and happiness, while being protected from many of "the things the species does in nature." For instance, there are many cats and dogs that would not survive well on the streets, but thrive indoors under the care of owners who make sure they aren't run over, abused by the violent, that they don't consume from diseased and polluted food sources, freeze, overheat, starve, get carried off by a wild animal, etc.
"Nature" is just as likely to kill you as not, you know. Pets too. Nature doesn't give a shit about you. Is it worth that momentary feeling of freedom to run out in the street, only to be crushed by an oncoming vehicle that the animal's instincts have not prepared it to comprehend? I really don't think it is. I laugh when people talk about "freedom" being required for pets. You're completely free running around in nature. Until nature kills you.
You understand why we don't let our kids play in the street without sufficient oversight, right? Because they're not competent to deal with the threats. Why in the world would you think it's okay to let pets play in the street? You think they're more competent than humans? News flash: they aren't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 02 2017, @03:23PM
I hope you're writing that from inside a prison or it would be ironic. I mean the nice guards could protect you from nasty life span shortening evils like sex, drugs (including alcohol) and rock'n'roll. And keep you away from nasty dangerous habits like driving a motor vehicle. Possibly regularly in solitary confinement, maybe so that other beings could not hurt your feelings. If people would get the choice, smart people would increase the quality of their life rather than quantity (length). It's beyond ridiculous you think human technological and life style changes are out of compassion for animal life quality...