When I was a child I had 3 pet dogs. Being one of three boys, we teased these dogs to the point that they would often find a way to get out of our fenced compound and follow my scent to school. One of the dogs bit a postman and was put down. The was a cute boxer with his tongue sticking out. I guess he didn't expect him to bite his ankle. One of our two labradors was hit by a car, the other was put down because it kept getting out of our compound and coming to my school.
I loved my family pets, even if we mistreated them by teasing them. We would get under a blanket and maul each other. This would get them, to the point of biting, at which point we would hit them for biting. Maybe we deserved it if we incited their animal instincts. Not sure otherwise why they were like that.
After the age of 14yo I no longer had any pets. I think once I started learning philosophy and developing human relationships, I lost interest in pets. Why have a relationship with a pet when you can have a relationship with a human being. If you can have a loving relationship with a pet, can you not have a greater relationship with a human. Some will say there is nothing preventing a person from having a relationship with both humans and a pet(s), but the law of discrimination means that you are either interacting with a pet or a human. You might share a love of pets with another person, but you can really only relate to one at a time. Just try talking in 2 languages at the same time. Distracting right?
Some might make the argument that pets (and I mean dogs) fill a vacuum left when their partner is out at work. This argument has some plausibility, but it makes me ask why this 'home-stay' partner has spare time to engage in a secondary relationship. Why are they not out working as well. Well I guess if they have a child then they might have a more satisfying relationship with a child. Nope, I dont have a child, but I know that children will from the age of 3 years old exceed the intellectual capacity of a child.
Why then do people buy pets? I think its because they have low self esteem. Pets do not pronounce judgement, they do not usurp one's authority, though they may question (bark) it. Dogs are pleasers and always looking for attention. They are there when you want them. The question is - Should a person want them? Shouldn't one challenge those insecurities, seek out better human relationships, if one's experiences have been so bad that you feel threatened by others. Maybe if people are threatened by others opinions, maybe its because you actually know you are wrong but want to evade the knowledge.
So why get a pet? I can think of no good reasons except security, but I can think of a great many problems that relate to pet ownership. Consider the following:
1. They cost money - your partner has productive capacity, most pets do not
2. They require attention, washing, playing, feeding, caring, whether you like it or not
3. You can't just take pets anywhere, eg. restaurants, beach, dates, etc
4. Pets can be loud, barking all the time.
OK they can offer security if that is required, but then a great many pets (including dogs) dont even do that. If it was just about placing some food in a fish bowl, no problem. But why the bother when there is so much more to be had from having a human relationship.
A child has a number of the say drawbacks but the long term benefits are so much greater. Its a 4 year period of bed wetting compared to 12 years of subserviance from a dog that knows you are better than him. Why don't pet owners see it?
Relating with any living thing provides a value, a form of nourishment. We rejoice in the idea of being surrounded by living things, whether green plants, flowers, pets and humans. The question is why we would engage in any relationship which has less capacity to satisfy us when there is better relationships to be had? I am not precluding pet ownership as a legitimate activity, just questioning the 'primacy' that some people give it. Some people invest more consideration in their pets than their children. Why? Because kids talk back. The reality is that adult relationships demand more of people, and rather than stepping up to the challenge, I dare say some pet owners are avoiding a critical responsibility. I believe a great many parents get pets to distract kids, to give them something to do, so they are less of a burden on them. I believe a great many parents send their children to private school so that they will be less of a burden on them.
I am not attacking the love or value of a relationship with animals - I am reflecting on the lost consideration of children, who have the potential for a great deal more love than a pet. Notwithstanding that, you will like this video. Love you animals, but appreciate your human relationships more because they have much greater potential to make you happy. This means learn to love yourself more such that incidentals are not elevated out of proportion.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
I loved my family pets, even if we mistreated them by teasing them. We would get under a blanket and maul each other. This would get them, to the point of biting, at which point we would hit them for biting. Maybe we deserved it if we incited their animal instincts. Not sure otherwise why they were like that.
After the age of 14yo I no longer had any pets. I think once I started learning philosophy and developing human relationships, I lost interest in pets. Why have a relationship with a pet when you can have a relationship with a human being. If you can have a loving relationship with a pet, can you not have a greater relationship with a human. Some will say there is nothing preventing a person from having a relationship with both humans and a pet(s), but the law of discrimination means that you are either interacting with a pet or a human. You might share a love of pets with another person, but you can really only relate to one at a time. Just try talking in 2 languages at the same time. Distracting right?
Some might make the argument that pets (and I mean dogs) fill a vacuum left when their partner is out at work. This argument has some plausibility, but it makes me ask why this 'home-stay' partner has spare time to engage in a secondary relationship. Why are they not out working as well. Well I guess if they have a child then they might have a more satisfying relationship with a child. Nope, I dont have a child, but I know that children will from the age of 3 years old exceed the intellectual capacity of a child.
Why then do people buy pets? I think its because they have low self esteem. Pets do not pronounce judgement, they do not usurp one's authority, though they may question (bark) it. Dogs are pleasers and always looking for attention. They are there when you want them. The question is - Should a person want them? Shouldn't one challenge those insecurities, seek out better human relationships, if one's experiences have been so bad that you feel threatened by others. Maybe if people are threatened by others opinions, maybe its because you actually know you are wrong but want to evade the knowledge.
So why get a pet? I can think of no good reasons except security, but I can think of a great many problems that relate to pet ownership. Consider the following:
1. They cost money - your partner has productive capacity, most pets do not
2. They require attention, washing, playing, feeding, caring, whether you like it or not
3. You can't just take pets anywhere, eg. restaurants, beach, dates, etc
4. Pets can be loud, barking all the time.
OK they can offer security if that is required, but then a great many pets (including dogs) dont even do that. If it was just about placing some food in a fish bowl, no problem. But why the bother when there is so much more to be had from having a human relationship.
A child has a number of the say drawbacks but the long term benefits are so much greater. Its a 4 year period of bed wetting compared to 12 years of subserviance from a dog that knows you are better than him. Why don't pet owners see it?
Relating with any living thing provides a value, a form of nourishment. We rejoice in the idea of being surrounded by living things, whether green plants, flowers, pets and humans. The question is why we would engage in any relationship which has less capacity to satisfy us when there is better relationships to be had? I am not precluding pet ownership as a legitimate activity, just questioning the 'primacy' that some people give it. Some people invest more consideration in their pets than their children. Why? Because kids talk back. The reality is that adult relationships demand more of people, and rather than stepping up to the challenge, I dare say some pet owners are avoiding a critical responsibility. I believe a great many parents get pets to distract kids, to give them something to do, so they are less of a burden on them. I believe a great many parents send their children to private school so that they will be less of a burden on them.
I am not attacking the love or value of a relationship with animals - I am reflecting on the lost consideration of children, who have the potential for a great deal more love than a pet. Notwithstanding that, you will like this video. Love you animals, but appreciate your human relationships more because they have much greater potential to make you happy. This means learn to love yourself more such that incidentals are not elevated out of proportion.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
Posts
