Petophilia

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=18.75% BGCOLOR="#444444" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="0" WIDTH="95" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 46 WIDTH="91"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="46" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="91" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <div> Pet ownership is said to improve  our  capacity to be empathic and ecologically sensitive. </div> <div> 74 million dogs and 90 million cats are thus detained in the USA</div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#003333" FACE="Arial" ><B>backlander </B></FONT>     |     <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="backlander "><U>home</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="muffled_threats.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Muffled Threats"><U>Muffled Threats</U></A>   |   <A HREF="why_the_music_stopped.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Why the Music Stopped"><U>Why the Music Stopped</U></A>   |   <A HREF="everybody_must_fish.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Everybody Fish"><U>Everybody Fish</U></A>   |   <A HREF="rocket_ride.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Rocket Ride"><U>Rocket Ride</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id193.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Title 193"><U>Title 193</U></A>   |   <A HREF="winners_and_losers.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Run for it"><U>Run for it</U></A>   |   <A HREF="princess_diana.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Princess Diana"><U>Princess Diana</U></A>   |   <A HREF="why_amber_means_go_like_hell_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Time to Stop"><U>Time to Stop</U></A>   |   <B>Petophilia</B>   |   <A HREF="royal_jelly.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal Jelly"><U>Royal Jelly</U></A>   |   <A HREF="school_days.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="School Days"><U>School Days</U></A>   |   <A HREF="school_bus_days.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="School Bus Days"><U>School Bus Days</U></A>   |   <A HREF="alcohol__addiction_and_urban_life.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alcohol"><U>Alcohol</U></A>   |   <A HREF="pro_life_equals_no_choice_equals_anti_christianity.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Day Light "><U>Day Light </U></A>   |   <A HREF="god_s_plan_for_man.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Gods Plan For Man"><U>God's Plan For Man</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Workplace Apartheid "><U>Workplace Apartheid </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id188.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Phantom Lives"><U>Phantom Lives</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id187.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="If Truth be Told"><U>If Truth be Told</U></A></div> <div> Petophilia</div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>IS HAVING FLUFFY JAKE?</B></div> <bR> <div> Millions of pet owners are co-opting helpless creatures into parodies of family and community life.  </div> <bR> <div> These relationships are destructive to the animals involved, and they erode social, political and economic well-being.</div> <bR> <div> The figures below are from the USA in 2004.  Although large, they are conservative because fresh and saltwater fish have been removed from the list. Fish are marginal pets.  The numbers involved are often so large (many households boasting a dozen or more) those individuals are usually not singled out with names and treats.</div> <bR> <div> Moreover, we seem to agree, <I>fish</I> do not carry much moral weight.  </div> <bR> <div> Thus, an obvious harm flowing from sorting species into <I>pettable</I> or <I>not pettable</I> is that, when individual creatures are devalued (deemed not pettable), the loss of parent species tends to be regarded as inconsequential.  To be sure, when `clear and present' costs are demonstrable, moral outrage can still occur. The loss of biological diversity is worried about because undiscovered pharmaceuticals may vanish, a `less resilient web of life' may undermine human well being, and over-fishing definitely threatens sustainable food supplies.   </div> <bR> <div> Such utilitarian perspectives have yet to distinguish themselves as moral or prudential wellsprings. This is almost certainly because they tend to overlook subtle or remote issues.  Like cancers, early detection of social and economic problems is often critical for successful treatment.</div> <bR> <div> What is certain is that an amazing number of urban dwellers own pets:</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="471" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 32 WIDTH="201"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="32" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="201" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="35"><div> Dogs</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="31"><div> Cats</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM><NOBR><div> Birds</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM><NOBR><bR> <div> Other</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM><NOBR><div> Reptiles</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="41"><div> Totals</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> Pet-owning households (millions)   </div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="35"><div> 43.5</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="31"><div> 37.7</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="34"><div> 6.4</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="37"><div> 5.7</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="52"><div> 4.4</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="41"><div> 97.7</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> Average number of pets owned</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="35"><div> 1.7</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="31"><div> 2.4</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="34"><div> 2.6</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="37"><div> 3.2</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="52"><div> 2.5</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="41"><div> 2.48</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> Total number of pets  (millions)</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="35"><div> 73.9</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="31"><div> 90.5</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="34"><div> 16.6</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="37"><div> 18.2</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=BOTTOM WIDTH="52"><div> 11.0</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="41"><div> 210.2</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <div> This means roughly one captive animal per person.  Thus, the US and Canada have 250 million people and an equal number of pets.  If each costs $1 per day, the annual cost is $365.00 X 250 million = $91.25 billion.  </div> <bR> <div> North America's dog population generates two million tons of feces and four billion gallons of urine annually, and serves as a vector for more than sixty-five diseases, including rabies, tuberculosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lyme disease and histoplasmosis.  </div> <bR> <div> More that 90 million cats kill millions of songbirds every year. </div> <bR> <div> These costs are well known.  Listing them again will not change anyone's mind.  Unfortunately, we have not considered consequences that are more serious.  As well, there is a positive reason to think about these matters. North American's `petophilia' has set the stage for a grass roots response to issues that are proving impossible to resolve from the top down.  </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> ----</div> <div> The argument does not depend upon the dubiousness of providing animals with luxurious lives when billions lack even rudimentary food and shelter. The interesting issue involves owners' well-being. If, on balance, they are being harmed, no good can possibly come from the practice.  </div> <bR> <div> The following propositions seem self-evident:  </div> <bR> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Pet ownership is discretionary.  No one is forced by biological or psychological imperatives to enter into these arrangements.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The pleasures of pet ownership are one-sided.  It does not matter whether Fluffy or Jake appear to enjoy their circumstances.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The only certainty is that they have been house broken.  </div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Pets never need to apologize for what they get up to.  This is because they cannot be said to have chosen their circumstance.  Their options are restricted to capitulation, fawning, performing, and begging to secure morsels and attention. These are the prostitutions petophiles seem to delight in.  </div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Human beings have not been content to housebreak naturally occurring animals. Selective breeding has spawned sub-species requiring constant surveillance, food, manicuring and defense.  Dogs `downsized' their once relatively large wolf brains as part of the bargain struck with early human beings.  Large brains are metabolically expensive and could be dispensed with when scavenging, servility and barking at strangers became coping skills sufficient for dog days.  </div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Pet owners believe that their willingness to provide this nurturing is evidence of stellar moral character.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">No one has investigated what human beings gave up in the bargain.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Petophiles point out that pets have a much better life than farm animals. It is true that farmers, especially corporate farmers, have manipulated species they find interesting into grotesque caricatures.  Chickens and turkeys convert food into flesh so rapidly that their skeletons often cannot support them. Decades ago, `nouveaux chicks' lost the ability to brood naturally.  They must now be reproduced under thermostatically controlled incubators.  </div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Genetically modified organisms are the `next big thing' in the pantheon of human imperialism <I>vis-à-vis</I> what we are pleased to think of as lesser creatures.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Even so, the lives endured farmed animals are usually mercifully brief, compared to the interminable harms suffered by pets.</div> <bR> <div> Pets are also attractive because large families, communities and natural surroundings have vanished from urban lives.  On the surface, surrogate children and friends make sense in a crowded, polluted, increasingly estranged world. Ironically however, pets may be part of the reason these problems exist.  The stress of urban life, aggressive politics and round the clock commercialism may make possessing and dominating other creatures irresistible, but fixing these problems would be far better.     </div> <bR> <div> The question we should therefore ask?  Are we really better off transmogrifying hapless creatures into pets as a means of coping with pressure and stress?  Would we not be more likely to prosper if we spent comparable amounts of time and energy fixing problems?</div> <bR> <div> In other words, in terms of owners' well-being, keeping pets is worthwhile and defensible if, and only if, political and economic predicaments are irreparable. </div> <bR> <div> In every other instance, co-opting animals as family and community surrogates is pernicious.  What could be worse than opting for palliative care, when cures might be found?      </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> ----</div> <div> Suppose North Americans disencumbered themselves from their pets.  (I mean, of course, by attrition.)  A great deal of money would be saved, and an enormous environmental burden eliminated.  People would find themselves with more time and energy on their hands.  These resources could accomplish a great deal.  Without pets to lord it over, we would be less prone to arrogance and false claims of empathy and responsibility.  Without pets, we might very well resurrect something of family and community life. </div> <bR> <div> The more dramatic possibility is that North Americans might direct some of the $91 billion dollars now spent on pets towards the populations they have been brutalizing.   In the face of such a provocative demonstration, ideologues, warmongers and terrorists would find less receptive audiences. The rising tide of anger now threatening everything - including Fluffy the cat and Jake the dog - might recede into something manageable.</div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>