
Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being - whack
https://www.psychreg.org/pet-well-being/
======
Ididntdothis
For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s
probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a
very nice touch and made it much more humane.

~~~
dudul
It is indeed not for everyone since I personally hated it :)

I find it extremely distracting. When there is a dog around, you'll always
find a bunch of people throwing the ball with it or something like that in the
middle of the open space.

And there is of course the dog owner who just doesn't care where the dog is.
Doesn't care that it's coming to my desk to lick my shoes, or bothering me
while I'm trying to eat in the kitchen.

Purely based on empirical observations (so, it's worth what it's worth) I feel
like dog owners automatically assume that everyone else loves dogs as much as
they do. They care very little about people who are scared, allergic,
disgusted, etc.

~~~
danbolt
I have dog allergies and work in a workplace that allows dogs. It's not
terribly fun, and I feel like I'm fighting a politically-uphill battle to not
be seen as _the bad one_ while still having a decent space to work.

~~~
lotsofpulp
It's ridiculous how many people have "service" animals nowadays. I don't care
for the smell of animals, nor can I vet the training abilities of all animal
owners, so I'd rather not deal with them at all. Somehow everyone has an
emotional problem nowadays that requires a pet to be with them at all times.

~~~
papln
This is clearly false hyperbole.

~~~
owlninja
I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. The
worst part is all these companies selling emotional support animal
certificates or registries, despite the fact they are usually meaningless.

~~~
x2f10
>I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase.

Of course there is. Emotional support animals are now being offered as an
alternative to medication.

~~~
darkpuma
They're also now being offered as an alternative to your pet getting stowed
with the luggage when flying...

------
charliesharding
Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I
wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked
with increasing rates of mental health problems

~~~
dawhizkid
I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because
I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I
suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.

~~~
charliesharding
One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids
that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your
children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become
scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that
they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable
of saving then it's worth a shot :)

~~~
mikestew
"Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be
upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than
hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.

~~~
malvosenior
Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be
upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are
incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any
random person being an upper-middle class consumer.

~~~
homonculus1
Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted
one.

~~~
malvosenior
There are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an
unwarranted assumption.

------
floatingatoll
Has anyone done a study on pet inanimate objects, such as rocks or coconuts or
plants?

Not to undervalue live animal pets, but people are pretty intensely personal
about their pet objects, too — and if the same benefit can exist for a pet
rock, then you can say that your pet has a small carbon footprint and be twice
right.

~~~
coldpie
That's an interesting thought, especially plants. While my cats are precious
to me, I'd put my home garden at a very close second place. Twice a day I go
out and review my garden and it never fails to improve my mood. Noticing what
is new each day, performing the chores that need attention, discovering little
surprises (I saw a stag beetle this morning!).

~~~
recusancy
That's probably more related the fact that going into greener spaces helps our
moods.

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-
getti...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getting-you-
down-get-back-to-nature)

------
pmiller2
I love my dog. I really do, and I'm sure she grants me some health and
psychological benefits just for being around.

But, for all the benefits, she's still a multiple hundred dollar a month
expense between food, vet bills, boarding when I want to go away on vacation
and can't take her, dog walkers when necessary, etc. Being a good dog owner is
expensive!

Then, there's also the fact that I'm a renter. My dog is 3, so, when you
combine these two facts, that means I'm looking at up to ~10 years of housing
problems, because the number of apartments that allow pets at all is maybe 10%
of the total.

I've already decided that, if it came right down to it, if I need to move and
my dog becomes an impediment, that I will need to find her another good home.
But, as I am in a rent controlled, pets allowed apartment in a location that
has a "just cause for eviction" law, I don't see that day coming any time
soon.

TL;DR: Pet ownership isn't all benefits. It's expensive and also can bring
housing problems.

------
makerofspoons
I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to own more dogs and cats- they
have a substantial carbon footprint for being extravagances:
[https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carb...](https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/)

~~~
Liquix
Something you classify as an 'extravagance' could be classified by others as
'best friend', 'most uplifting part of the day', revered by the egyptians' 'my
only reason for getting out of bed when faced with crippling depression', etc.

Amusement parks, restaurants, and the manufacture of your latest high-tech
gadget also generate carbon footprints. One could argue that none of those
things are strictly necessary for society and could be classified as
'extravagances'. But we continue to use and purchase them - because they bring
joy and value to us.

~~~
AdamJacobMuller
Beyond what you're saying (which is quite true), if you're rescuing dogs, as I
mostly do, the only way you can say there is a net increase in carbon is
because I'm providing a better quality of life for my dogs (which undoubtably
increases carbon emissions) and causing my dog to live longer than it would if
it was wild or killed in a shelter.

I don't particularly see "reduce carbon impact by killing dogs/animals" as
being a winning slogan.

~~~
nootka
Looks like we have a bit of a modest proposal going here.

