> _“What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”_
(living thread)
**Pets are wrong.**
I don't mean that pets hold wrong #opinions, of course: I mean that the idea of keeping small animals around for fun is a mistake.
Let me refine that: keeping #pets _in urban environments_ is _almost always_ wrong.
* It's a misallocation of resources (invest that same money and attention on a fellow human being; or improving the welfare of farmed animals, which have it much, much worse than your chihuahua).
* Many pets are probably miserable (caged rodents, reptilians and birds; cats and dogs living in apartments; any animal lacking space, exercise, challenges, prey, mates, etc).
* For cities, some pets may be healthy (eg, cats killing mice), but many others facilitate disease, stain the streets with their droppings, are dangerous to people, or are noisy.
* Pets waste much-needed empathy and send the wrong signal: there are so many pressing issues, and so many millions of people (and billions of farmed animals) in need of help, and so many causes lacking funds and visibility, that choosing to buy a pet and spend money on it seems a weird whim.
Exceptions I understand: guide dogs and the like; pets for lonely people who really can't find friends or caregivers; purely rural environments.
@tripu I tend to agree with you generally, but there are some minor details that irk me. Such as that empathy can't be wasted on an animal, for empathy to be wasted it would need human levels of doublethink.
And while it is sad that there is a need to get empathy and closeness from animals for lack of human togetherness, i would rather critizise society than petholders.
I would also not critizise the noise from pets, humans are usually worse in that regard.
> _“Empathy can’t be wasted on an animal, for empathy to be wasted it would need human levels of doublethink”_
I'm not sure I understand that. Of course empathy towards any sentient being is never literally “wasted”, because empathy is always good. But we can't worry about every possible thing there is, we have to pick our worries. By choosing to focus on a single cat (with a relatively good life) we detract somehow from billions of (probably more deserving) beings.
> _“I would rather critizise society than petholders”_
Agreed. I tend to speak of individuals because talk about “society” or “the system” is often a convenient way to diffuse individual responsibility. I think that's the case here, too: how exactly is society responsible for me deciding to buy a single animal and care for it, instead of caring (or caring more) for lots of other animals in worse conditions? It's a matter of deciding priorities and individual choice.
> _“I would also not critizise the noise from pets, humans are usually worse in that regard”_
In Spanish cities there are lots of monk parakeets (pets that escaped or were freed) now being very noisy, eg in the early morning.
If I go out and keep shouting in the middle of the night, my neighbours will (rightly) call the police — yet in many places there are cats loudly meowing or fighting, and dogs barking, often at night. Why?
@tripu
> By choosing to focus on a single cat (with a relatively good life) we detract somehow from billions of (probably more deserving) beings.
If the person chose to adopt an animal over caring for people close to them, i would suggest that likely those people are not very receptive or there is a hurdle. So the adopting of an animal would be a symptom, not the cause. Like: "social structures are so bad, i seek refuge in adopting an animal since i am overwhelmed with the alternative"
I think we do agree on this and differences are merely a matter of which details to stress and which to neclect in presentation.
