Most homes have at least one pet and for many of us our pets bring us considerable joy.
However from an environmental perspective, with the world's resources under increasing pressure, columnist Erik Assadourian argues that pet ownership needs a drastic rethink.
He reports that 'Two German Shepherds use more resources just for their annual food needs than the average Bangladeshi uses each year in total. And while pet owners may disagree that Bangladeshis have more right to exist than their precious Schnookums, the truth is that pets serve little more societal purpose than keeping us company in an increasingly individualistic and socially isolated consumer society.
Thorstein Veblen observed way back in 1899 that dogs' 'value to their owners lies chiefly in their utility as items of conspicuous consumption'. Granted, few dog - or other pet owners - would self-identify with this - thanks in part to the pet industry's effective marketing strategy to humanize pets (83% of pet owners now consider their pets part of the family).
Instead, many would argue that pets provide people with companionship, improve health, reduce stress, and even provide a reason to get out and meet people. But would this still hold true in a society where robust levels of social capital existed? And more so, is the continued ownership of pets actually preventing the rebuilding of community ties (after all, why invest one's time and energy in opinionated people with differing views when one can instead spend time with a faithful dog that will enthusiastically amuse you any time you want)?
But our pet population consumes a huge amount of resources which, in our climate constrained reality, are no longer available. With a human population of 7.2 billion and a dog and cat population now in the hundreds of millions (it's estimated at 179m in the US alone), the Earth cannot sustain these populations – especially as a growing percentage of pets live their lives as ravenous consumers.' Another argument is not linked to the environment but to animal rights.
Can animals live as full a life in our homes as they would in the wild?
The reality is we keep dogs behind gates and fences, or on leashes. We confine fish to small tanks. We prohibit most natural behaviours. Are we justified in keeping an animal just for our own human needs?
A pet rethink needed or a petty argument?
What do you think?
Image source