
Are pets really good for us? - pseudolus
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/13/are-pets-really-good-for-us-or-just-hairy-health-hazards
======
imgabe
I have what I'm sure is a very unpopular opinion that most people probably
shouldn't own dogs.

Dogs evolved alongside humans and were bred to help us with specific tasks
like hunting, herding, etc. When you take an animal with a genetic drive to
perform certain activities and turn it into a fashion accessory or have it sit
alone in a house most of the day, I think the dog tends to go a little crazy.
I don't think it's a good life for them. If you can't realistically be with
your dog most of the time, or if you don't have a purpose for the dog (like
herding sheep) you probably shouldn't have a dog.

~~~
commandlinefan
Seconded. My wife has a dog who ends up being alone most of the time. My wife
and I go out for dinner, we go on vacation, and of course we both go to work,
and the poor dog has absolutely nothing to do. I can tell she’s sad, miserable
and lonely, but my wife wanted a dog. I do my best to at least be nice to her
(the dog, that is) when I’m around.

~~~
greggman2
Can you afford a walker? Of course spending more time with the dog would be
good but just a suggestion. I have a friends who use a walker. They actually
do spend time with their dogs quite often but they didn't want the dog to be
totally alone while they are at work.

------
slfnflctd
There is no correct answer to this question-- a whole lot of harm and
suffering still all too often goes overlooked. Each individual situation is
different.

Is it possible for pets to be good for us, and us for them? It would certainly
seem so; most of us have seen fairly clear cut examples of this. But sometimes
it's a one-way street, and other times (i.e. a maladapted creature being
abandoned) it's even a no-way street.

Far too many 'pet' animals are arguably worse off than if they had never been
born. Not spaying or neutering is inexcusable. [Unless you professionally
breed, in which case statistically you are more likely than not to be causing
a lot of suffering in that process.] Trap, neuter and release programs are
essential. Continuous evaluation (and improvement) of quality of life should
be part of every animal's existence we choose to force a human habitat upon.

Remember that these are thinking, feeling beings, not as different from us as
we like to think. They didn't ask to be born, and most of them don't have a
lot of choice in how they live their lives. The more aware of these issues you
become, the more questionable a whole lot of pet ownership becomes. If you're
gonna do it, please, be one of the good ones.

~~~
alacombe
I could just the same argue that _neutering_ is in fact _the_ inexcusable and
utmost selfish behavior. None of my pets are neutered, and I very much want
them to breed in their life.

~~~
slfnflctd
As long as you can account for and adapt to optimize the well-being for each
of their descendants, no problem. If, however, you are foisting an unknown
number of new sentient beings into this world with no idea of who will take
ownership of them or otherwise be accountable for their happiness, this
behavior is seriously unethical and potentially negligent in a legal sense.

------
ludamad
I just took my husky for the rounds around a hospital. She's incredibly aloof
and will sometimes pay attention to the people around her, yet the love they
felt for her brightened their day. I think pets in the right circumstances
have profound mental health impacts

~~~
GhettoMaestro
Interesting. Do a lot of hospitals do this? I would bring my dogs (one at a
time) to visit people!

~~~
noelsusman
It's fairly common. Typically you need to have your dog certified as a therapy
dog by somebody like Therapy Dogs International. It's also common for larger
hospitals to have a dog or two on staff with a full time handler.

~~~
GhettoMaestro
Thanks. I've always wondered if my ultra-chill dogs could be of use to other
people besides myself and my wife. I will check into this.

------
HarryHirsch
Dilbert explains to Wally the purpose of petting a cat:
[https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-05-24](https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-05-24)

------
Funes-
Yes, as long as we are good for them.

I've had ill relatives with impaired mobility that really enjoyed the company
of pets; it makes a _huge_ difference on people who can feel lonely at times.

------
pseudolus
Just as importantly, are we good for our pets - or just hairless health
hazards?

~~~
Johnny555
I think in terms of longevity and comfortable living, humans are a clear win
for pets. But in terms of life satisfaction, it's not clear. Maybe my dog
would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own food, never to
be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash - that's a tougher
life (and almost certainly a shorter life), but maybe more satisfying for a
dog than living in a house with seemingly arbitrary rules of what he can and
can't do. Though he never would have survived in the wild with the broken leg
he suffered as a puppy (before I adopted him).

~~~
mikestew
_Maybe my dog would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own
food, never to be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash_

One my dogs could answer that for you, as that's what he did for a while
before he got picked up. He was also skin and bones. Sores in his mouth from
licking out of cans. Much like humans, domestic dogs might like to _think_
they want to get back to their natural roots, but they're also like humans in
that most of them won't last very long. The primary cause of death for feral
dogs is starvation. It was going to be Brody's fate had someone not picked him
up and taken him in. Go ask Brody which he'd prefer. If he could talk, I'm
pretty sure his answer would be, "what the fuck do _you_ think as we stand in
the warm house with a 40lb. bag of dog food mere feet away? Dude, I weighed
_twenty_ pounds less than I do now." Do not feel bad about giving your dog
regular meals, a roof, and protecting them from themselves.

With that rant out of the way, sorry, I didn't mean to piledrive your point.
Because I _do_ consider such things, even knowing the likely outcome were it
fully implemented. So I let them chase rabbits and squirrels in the yard. If
they haven't caught one by now, they never will. And if you're a rabbit dumb
enough to come into a yard with two pit bull terriers (or any terrier), well,
you need to be kept on your toes. And we go camping, run around in the woods,
pretend we really could catch those elk if we wanted to. All of us, humans
included, are about as wild as domesticated suburban beings should be allowed
to be.

------
diminoten
This is going to sound a bit morbid, but it's helpful for me when I'm thinking
about mortality to realize that my dog is going to die _way_ before me and I'm
not worried about that, so why am I worried about my own death, which is
vastly further away?

~~~
bradknowles
I do worry about it. I have gone through that process multiple times, and each
one was absolutely heartbreaking. I was completely and totally bereft, for an
extended period of time.

But looking back, I must confess that most of my grief was for myself, not the
animal that passed away. In the death of any sentient being, I think the grief
is mostly for those left behind, not the ones who are gone.

So, I’m not too much worried about my own death, just trying to do the best I
can to make sure that the ones I love will be well-cared for after I’m gone.

------
fldrog
It's pathetic how some end up taking all these decisions based on research and
statistics... If you don't want a dog just don't take one instead of trying to
find scientific reasons on why not to own one and then writing an article
about it.

------
shujito
yes they are

~~~
sneak
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

~~~
graeme
This is a misapplication. Usually the law is for headlines like "Will this
city be the next silicon valley?", claims against conventional wisdom.

Here, the author is questioning conventional wisdom on pets. Her question
could also have been phrased as "Are we wrong about the health benefits of
pets?"

Betterridge's law would produce opposite conclusions on both headlines. If you
can formulate it that way, it's not a good application of the law.

------
lupinglade
Cats are a lot cleaner, if you want a clean indoor pet. Dogs are better for
spending time outdoors. Don’t feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).

~~~
zarmin
>Don’t feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).

Absolutely correct. Don't feed any pet commercial pet food! Feed raw. I
recommend Darwin's Raw Food, but there are many others out there.

I accidentally gave diabetes to my beloved cat Penguino. He was eating
standard dry (and occasionally wet) cat food for the first 6-ish years of his
life. Suddenly he dropped from 13 lbs to 9 lbs in about a year. Fast forward
four years and thousands of insulin and vet dollars, he is much healthier and
on a raw diet, but will need insulin 2x a day for the rest of his life.
Mishandling his food and health is one of my deepest regrets. And it was
almost entirely avoidable, had I had the right information.

~~~
dangus
Why would this anecdote about diabetes be assumed to have any correlation to
commercial pet food?

My vet recommended _against_ raw diets because they’re easy to contaminate and
difficult to manage properly.

Why would you just assume that diabetes couldn’t possibly be genetic?

~~~
zarmin
Some cats may be predisposed to the condition, sure, but it's not
deterministic. There is a correlation between carbohydrate and fiber intake
and a number of feline health conditions. You can read more here:
[https://catinfo.org/feline-diabetes/](https://catinfo.org/feline-diabetes/)

My cat's raw food is delivered once every few months, it's kept in sealed
packages in the freezer, and I've never had a problem with contamination or
managing the food. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would
encourage you to do your own raw food research.

------
Jamwinner
What is the impact of a pet on your co2 output annully?

~~~
the_gastropod
As with anything, it's largely affected by how much you pay attention to it.
Pets belonging to people who already have large carbon footprints probably
have large carbon footprints. People who are conscientious of their carbon
footprints probably have "greener" pets.

With enough effort, a pet could have virtually no impact on a family's carbon
footprint. For example, in the U.S., we typically throw away 30-40% of our
food. If a family feeds their pet(s) with food that would otherwise wind up in
a landfill, they'd actually come out ahead.

