Abolishing Pets

Mike-O

Mike-O

Active member


This is a rising issue and a hot fucking potato at that.

Pets can create joy, happiness and liveliness, even for decades and generations - just by being there. On the other hand, pets as they exist now can also be called a marketing phenomenon, and some go even as far as comparing pet ownership to anorexia, bulimia and other destructive ailments.

There's no denying that pets are a well-operating business with rising ecological and animal protection issues. Owning nearly any pet, especially in urban areas, puts amazing stress on the environment when taking in hand of the amount of food and water that different pets need or consume during their lifetimes.

Another issue with pets is the right of ownership. Dangerous breeds of dogs are bred and raised especially to look hard, tough and consequently suffer from many problems, leading to unneeded attacks and suffering towards humans or other animals. Some countries or areas are developing laws or regulations that would require one to pass a certain course before being able to become a pet owner.

Pets can be helpful and useful for us humans, one of the only species capable of taming others to do their bidding and certainly attack dogs, helper dogs and other domesticated animals have and still ease many burdens off our society. But shutting out these helpers and use-animals, is there any real reason to conserve the pet industry as it stands? Looking at all the animals that end up suffering because their owners didn't care for them or simply grew tired of them at some point, not to mention that so many are only bought or acquired to fill a simple need.

Could pets, as we see them now, become obsolete?

puppy5.jpg
.

 
Nope. People LOVE their pets. They would often do more for a pet than a person, which is weird, but I can almost understand it. Pets don't have a voice of their own so owners take it upon themselves to do everything they can for a pet, while a person can take some of that responsibility on themselves.

 
Seeing as if I didn't get my cats they would have died of disease in a barn, I say that pets are not only good to have, but adopting a pet could help save it from suffering and a slow death. Just my 2 dollars.
 
I actually agree with MikeO, too many animals have to suffer just so some can live in nice homes, pet ownership just perpetuates it. But people are selfish, and people really don't give a shit about animals they don't personally own, so I don't think we will see the end of pet ownership in the next 500 years. If you own a dog, just know that there is at least one other dog dead or suffering because pet ownership exists.

But where do we draw the line? I mean people let their house plants die, millions of flowers are thrown away by florists everyday. Hook those babies up to the right sensors and you can detect their distress.

There will always be shitty things happening around the world, you just have to decide for yourself what kind of things you need to disassociate yourself with. Eating meat, owning slaves, pet trade, paying taxes...

 
i understand looking at it from that perspective but i dont think its realistic to think that pets will ever be obsolete, that is until they make robots that give awesome handies.
 
Pets are the bomb. I have two dogs and would do anything for them. Its weird to say that but they have so much emotion and definatly understand you and what not. Ill be honest, i like my dogs more than my sister
 
Are your cats the offspring of feral cats? I'm thinking about the coming years, not what has happened.

If pet ownership as it exists now became more antagonized, regulated and controlled, overbreeding and crossing of house pets would might decrease as it would not be as profitable as it could be now, and the pet industry as we know it would cease to exist, further lending into the disappearance of thousands of breeds of, for example, dogs with such a long line of hereditary diseases and ailments that it's basically near torture just letting them live "normally".

 
this is dumb...

this is your article in brief:

The vast majority of the time they cause happiness, insert marketing/bigman argument. Somehow vaguely link mental illness to them with no further point.

random issue about how they eat and drink like humans.... but these are bad for environment, unlike humans and their children.

Breeding: which has greatly decreased compared to 50 years ago, its bad for mean looking dogs. insert generalization that mean looking means face eating human killers, disregard genetic diversification arguments...

uncomprehensible argument about work dogs being the only breed? work dogs are a breed now? something about breaking pet industry sucks for work dogs ( which are not part of the consumer pet industry but government agencies, private dog training facilities...) finish it all with a hippie message that people don't take care of them, don't deserve them... this is much worse than parents who have children but get shitfaced and beat them and don't take care of them.

sorry, I just had to word my frustrations with this argument.
 
How do you take a discussion starter as "my argument"?

I laid down something for both the pros and the cons that're floating around this particular topic and asked a simple question.
 
No. I do think that dogs are overbred through. Many breeds have tons of health problems. I still don't think anything will, or really should be done though. Or at least not by the government.
 
I live on a farm and i love having animals and pets. That being said i think my family and I are very good owners of pets. But just across the street is a horse stable where you wouldn't believe how people mistreat they're animals or just don't show up for weeks at a time and expect other people to keep they're pets alive.

I love my pets and don't think rights to ownership should be removed for everyone but maybe a test that would show if people are able/willing to properly care for their animals wouldn't be such a bad idea. But the real question is with so many ill fit pet owners what are we going to do with they're animals?
 
I'm also for some kind of test/course when it comes to buying certain animals or certain breeds of animals. Akin to something like a driver's license with animals marked under "high responsibility" or "probability of abuse".
 
Shaman thinks you're trying to hard and not try to start shitstorm. Obviously there will always be marketable aspects of the pet industry, but as a loving dog owner I look past it and enjoy the time I have with my pet.
 
and if there are people who think they should be illegal, they are retarded and should not be given the option of voicing their opinion.
 
and to think that you thought my post in that other thread was stupid. definitely agree with elgato here, you're trying too hard to create a debate over nothing.

yes, it is sad that some people take terrible care of their pets, that sucks. sure they can take a test, but that doesn't mean that once they bring the pet home they won't neglect it. however, i suppose it would deter people from buying pets on a whim.
 


234317.jpeg.

That's my dog. I don't hate pets.

This is an issue that is being discussed all over, and now more recently in Finland. The main points raised in the discussion are, for example, the costs and needs of owning pets and the ecological footprint they create compared to the number of humans suffering from famine around the world.

Then we take in hand the sheer amount of happiness and help that pets, such as loyal dogs, can give to people all around the world.

Read the OP again, I'm asking if you believe that pets as we know them now, will become obsolete - more regulated, coralled and drawn away from the pure end-consumer function that drives so many animals toward cruelty even in civilized Western society.

I for one think it's an interesting discussion, not a stupid one.

 
I don't think this is about "taking away" anything, but more or less just watching the winds change in modern ecological environment and how it could affect something as simple as having pets.

I mean, stop breeding and selling animals for purposes of becoming pets and once the last generation who owned pets dies off, most knowledge of contemporary pet ownership and actions is gone out the window.
 
for the most part I really do not like your opinion on most topics. In this thread and the Carl's Jr one you make yourself sound like a bit of an asshole
 
Humans are the ones making the animals suffer and die to make money, it's not the dogs fault and it's not responsible pet owners fault. If people would stop being greedy sadistic fucks then there would not be an issue and people could still have loyal pets that provide them with a lot of comfort.

Harshly regulating or ending the pet industry, places to buy pets other than the "pound" or humane society or shelters, seems like a much better idea. I got my dog from the pound ages ago, he was abused and had a broken leg from some redneck hunting fuck (my dog is extremely scared of guns, lound noises, and the sight of a weapon)

the environmental argument of water and food sources starving humans instead of well off humans pets is a valid one though

 
I mean what, take lovin pets from familys and do what with em? Make family sad, and kill the pet? Im not sure im to lazy to google but dogs have helped people who have been depression. I mean, the majoirity of people who own pets keep and love them, and cherish them all they can. Im just saying my view on this, but I do see where you are coming from OP.I mean look at this video..

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
I would be fine with no pets, I don't really like them and I think they are a waste of resources. That being said, many people like them and as long as they clean up their shit and keep them away from me I am cool with it. so ya the human race will always have pets
 
Yeah I've never heard this in the US media ever, I can't imagine my childhood without my ol' pup pluto at my side. As far as addressing animal abuses I think tag laws should be more strictly enforced, and say routine visits to check up on the animals conditions and short talk with owner.
 
I agree, I was pretty surprised and impressed when I adopted my cat that the shelter ran a background check, interviewed me about my living conditions and habits and how I planned to take car of it and pay for it. They also took my landlords info to make sure that. Was allowed to have I guess a lot of animals are abandoned because of lease rules. And they actually called them.. I also have to have my ID scanned. Sme people just arnt responsible or good enou people to have pets.
 
By the way relevant to the thread animal right nuts in California try to get laws passed like this all the time. They successfully got pet fish banned from being sold in SF a couple years ago. Even though I support jumping through the hoops to verify a pet adoptie is a potential good owner I think banning the sale of any pet within reason is facist crap. No hippy should be able to prevent a little kid from owning a pet fish it makes me ticked off
 
i have a wiener dog, like five fish, a couple of horses and at least two cats. (we have a big barn with alot of hay and shit so the number of cats is a constant variable, sometimes theres some cats up there, sometimes there arent, whatever)

and i plan on keeping all of those things.
 
I'm talking about the long-term implications of possible changes in pet control and regulations, and if humans will grow to live without pets, not taking them away. I've seen that video a few years back, it's very sad.
 
Did you really give up skiing to start retarded threads like these?vibes bro from my therapy dog/pet who has provided more sick kids and old people the ability to smile than you ever could.

get a clue or laid

lack of pussies makin you dumb

 
He's not saying that were gonna take away all the animals from people just people that are unable/unwilling to care for their animals properly. People that have pets now (or when something happens) will keep them but to obtain new pets you will have to take a test.
 
I see this as ending up sort of like making guns illegal to own. Sure law abiding citizens would not have pets, but there would still be people owning them in secret, probably for dog fighting. All it would do is take away the loving homes. There would still be animal cruelty, maybe not as much, but it will still be there.
 
Not exactly, I just said what issues are being raised about this deal, I didn't say anything about taking any pets off anyone.

The people who are torn on this subject are those who have undying love for their pets yet are unwilling to look at the big picture, and then those who believe pets in urban or even rural environments serve no other purpose than to satisfy or fill a created need but refuse to look at all the good things our animal friends can offer us.

I for one know three people who bought pets just to "look cool" - one has a boa constrictor, one has a poorly trained and cared-for bullmastiff and one has a turtle. None of them take proper care of their pets. That's why I would be definitely willing to enforce some kind of crash course on pets and their needs before they'd have the ability to just cash one out whenever.

And Skifishbum wolololol, the fuck do you know.
 
What the proponents are basically saying, is that we might all grow to see "pet ownership" - be the pets cats, dogs, lizards, fish, hamsters, gerbils... as needless to the human continuum due to the diminishing resources and scarcity of those resources, which are put ahead of feeding other humans around the world but are wheeled into the very large industry around pet nourishment, for example.

I didn't know this isn't a visible issue in the US, but it is in Finland at least, with even the CEOs of Finnish Zoo's and animal rights activist organizations advocating a future with no pets as we regard them today.

 
Beneficial social change doesn't occur through force. You can't start from "people treat pets badly and expend too many resources in pets" and go from there. First, you need to ask WHY people do those things.
 
The dog shooting thread brought this into mind. Just the pretty ridiculous outcry and demands for punishing the officer go hand-in-hand with the perception of modern pets, be they dogs, cats or fish... All delicacies in some parts of the world, and respected even thought eaten in the end.

Where does the line stop and if man surpasses the emotional and practical use for animals as pets, what will happen?
 
No, you misunderstand. It would require a large paradigm shift when it came to animalia and our relationship towards it. Think of robotics as one factor, soon we will be able to cross the Uncanny Valley with life-like 3-D holograms and pictograms of animals blazoned on robotic creatures, man made.

Maybe not available to the poor at first, but aside from the mudhut dwellers, pretty much every technological advance spreads like wildfire throughout the globe, and looking at man's basic survival and the scarcity of resources, limiting pets is one definite way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top