Hello WL, thanks for your interest and feedback on this topic. I too grew up in Illinois (Danville) and had many pets growing up (dogs), so I can relate to where you're coming from. I think it's awesome when people, such as yourself, adopt unwanted animals (especially ones that hae been so horribly abused like Daisy), but I'm not sure that we're really dealing with the cause of the "disease" (unwanted animals), we're merely treating the symptoms by adopting them.  But this disease exists and it's important to care for those individuals that need care, which I think is a really good thing.

 

So how do we deal with this problem? I think it's by finding solutions to the root causes while we continue to treat the symptoms. But nobody seems to be addressing the root causes of this issue. That's what I'm trying to do here. I know the idea is unpopular, but something radical must be done if we're serious about alleviating the suffering of pets.

 

I agree with you about the need to abolish all animal testing, as well as the need to abolish breeding programs (puppy mills).  I believe that most people lack the insight into our relationship with animals that you have and that they see them as existing to make our lives better in whatever ways they deem necessary or appropriate. For those people, pets occupy a lower strata of moral worth and they justify buying pets for their entertainment value or for their symbolic status (eg-when young men buy pit bulls to demonstrate their machismo). But when these animals become burdens to their owners, they are easily "dumped," at the local shelter and the average person will simply brush off the fact that their former pet will likely not be adopted, but will be euthanized in a matter of weeks.

 

Althought the above scenario is a generalization, something like this must account for the 5 million or so pets that are put to death every year in this country. And this scenario doesn't even consider the day-to-day treatment of pets, who, because of their unique bio-social position, are dependent on us, but cannot be guaranteed "ideal" care because no model of what's ideal exists. They also suffer because they are the result of our artificial selection and nature never intended for their pheno- or genotypes to exist, unless you're talking about wolves, but  wolves and dogs are radically different creatures when it comes to a discussion of healthy members of the Earth's natural community.

 

I look forward to discussing this issue with you further. Please let me know where you see specific weaknesses in the argument for abolition, and I'll be glad to try to elaborate on my position.

James, this is your question: Should I get rid of my fish and ask my friends not to obtain cats or dogs? Should I ask them to put down their pets or release them? If your argument doesn't suggest a policy one way or another (satisfy the demands of critics), what is your conclusion?

My argument is simple: we shouldn't allow pets to be perpetuated because they suffer in their relationship with humans. It's our choice. The animals that are here already should live out their natural lives. I made this clear in the conclusion--maybe the formatting got in the way. See my profile for the word document I uploaded.

Shannon

Hey, all:

Hey, Shannon: I have sat out for a while, partly because some of the things I would say are somewhat off the topic, and I have some very specific opinions on some of the issues here.

First, though, I was reading a paper which stated that although every language has a word for "violence", no language has a clearly opposing term, thus every language simply expresses it as the negative of violence, i.e., "non-violence". In Sanskrit "himsa" is the term for violence, and "ahimsa" is the term for its opposite. I suppose it is not a coincidence you have the username "Ahimsa"?

On your paper, you need to do several things. First, use the "Return" key twice between paragraphs--just a simple mechanical way of introducing more white space. This will help your "Solution" and "Conclusion" stand out, which seem to have been missed. Second, give it a title. Then your byline is needed, to help you retain intellectual ownership of the work.

You then need to separate completely your exchange with Singer from the paper, or integrate some of the arguments into the paper, and lose the play by play. As it is, it detracts from your argument.

There are a couple of places where you overreach--here is one:

"These human choices over animals’ minds and bodies have altered them to a degree that they no longer stand as members of the natural community; separated from their ecological niche, pets are a product of human culture. No longer wild and independent, pets therefore depend on human care for their well being and survival."

The separation between domestic and nature is much weaker than you state--nearly nonexistent--the examples of feral cats, feral dogs, feral pigs, feral horses, all causing great environmental damage just in the USA and all products of domestication, had better be enough for you to revise this paragraph. You then need to strictly read the whole paper and coolly decide what needs to be modified so your reach is not chopped off--or have it reviewed by someone who will do the same.

There are a couple of papers you should read, as they will help put your paper in a more grounded context. You refer to one of the authors secondarily. That is Lynn White, and his paper is "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", and the other is Garrett Hardin's paper "The Tragedy of the Commons". Both have application here, or even if you don't think so, they are both extremely insightful and useful. The Lynn White paper is from 1972, and the Fundies still can't get out from under it. Some of its points mirror yours, and Hardin's paper bears on your conclusion.

Having read your paper now, and seen your efforts and background, I am surprised you asked me much earlier about humans being omnivores, and saying it is cultural and not biological. The evidence is overwhelming and your paper reveals some of it, in the domestication of animals for their meat. Other conclusive evidence comes from both anthropologists and paleontologists, on every continent save Antarctica. It also comes from simple studies of anatomy and diet. Most primates are omnivores, as well. It is quite possible Homo started standing to scout game better, and early humans had the stamina and brains to outlast any other terrestrial species on the planet. This was very handy in the Great Rift Valley, and is no accident.

Whether the difference is cultural or biological should not even come up--an analogy in speech is appropriate--the development of speeech is universal, thus biological, but the result--language--is cultural, since it is dependent on place. That humans are omnivores is universal therefore biological, but what and how much is eaten is cultural--dependent on place.

You can certainly choose not to eat meat--that is an argument you won't have with me, and it is also cultural, but that is a separate question from the historical and biological issues of pets.

Work on the things I suggested and then when in final form, put your paper up here as James has suggested.

David
Messages done with sustainable enerygy, with Wind and Sun!

Should I get rid of my fish and ask my friends not to obtain cats or dogs? Should I ask them to put down their pets or release them? If your argument doesn't suggest a policy one way or another (satisfy the demands of critics), what is your conclusion?

Wen, please read the document below (if you have time) and feel free to give me feedback. I have a completely different perspective on our relationship with pets and I've written about it extensively here.

Shannon

INTRODUCTION
Throughout history people have competed with animals for resources such as food and shelter. Long ago, large predators preyed on hominids (early humans) and many animals were feared and avoided as a matter of survival. But these early humans--although largely vegetarian--also hunted smaller animals and were scavengers of carrion. Overall, there was a general balance of power between early humans and animals; they existed side-by-side, neither group having a clear advantage over the other for millions of years.
But as humans developed technologically, the human-animal relationship changed. Tools were developed that eventually became weapons; in time, the hunting of larger animals became commonplace. The balance of power between humans and animals began to shift. In response to this shift, hunter-gatherers gradually developed complex spiritual views toward nature and animals, with the underlying belief that like themselves, animals possessed spirits or souls. Eventually, animals were looked upon as teachers and elders to humans and when taking an animal’s life was necessary, much respect was given to the hunted beast.
Then around 10,000 years ago a dramatic shift in power occurred when (some) humans initiated the practice of animal domestication. This process may have started off rather innocently, yet after some time, it came to represent a deliberate choice of humans to take control over nature and the lives of other beings. For these new “shepherds,” the old ways were soon forgotten and a new model of the world slowly emerged, one in which humans saw themselves as superior to nature and animals and justified the domestication of animals for human benefit. And once they were fully domesticated, animals became completely dependent on human care.
Throughout the history of domestication, most animals were culled from their natural habitats to become food or to provide work for human beings. But some of the animals brought into human society became “companion animals” and were kept because they provided labor and protection, as well as a type of friendship. The keeping of pets brought several advantages to people, but it also disturbed ancient and deeply held beliefs about humans and animals’ places in nature. Although this process occurred slowly, it eventually destroyed many peoples’ primal view of the living world that held natural forces and animals in awe. Historian Roderick Nash argues that through the development of domesticating animals, a paradigm shift in thought occurred and claims that “[f]or the first time humans saw themselves as distinct from the rest of nature (1982, p. xiii)."
After centuries of domestication, however, humans gained complete control over animals’ lives and disempowered them through confinement, selective breeding and increased human familiarity with them. At this point in time, “control came to be valued in and of itself. It was the way of the good shepherd, a patriarchal model for the guilt-free exploitation of animals and natural processes (Mason 1993, p.145)." Castrated and harnessed, penned and shackled, pets no longer retained the powerful and mysterious qualities their wild ancestors once held when they were shadowed by early hunter-gatherers. Over time, these animals came to be viewed more with contempt than with awe.
The domestication of animals and the agricultural economy began in the Middle East, which is widely held as the birthplace of western civilization. The Middle East was also the region where the great monotheistic religions developed. The ways of the shepherd were attractive to the leaders of the new religions, so it was no accident that they were quickly adopted by the neophytes and helped form the foundation of western religion. When united, these two forces eventually forged the basis of our current western cultural values towards animals.
Western cultural conditioning has diminished the value of pets (and animals in general) vis-a-vis human beings. This is because western views of the world are generally hierarchical and dualistic, placing humans morally above and separate from animals in their value systems. Many of the ideological roots to this “western perspective” on animals can be traced to the teachings found in the books of the three great western religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Through the creation story set forth in Genesis, God called for human “dominion” over the earth and all its creatures. Dominion in this context may be interpreted as control or power over animals (as in domination), or it may represent human responsibility for their care (as in stewardship). In the following passage, however, the writers of the Bible made clear that God called for the domination of animals, when he declared to humans that "the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hands they are delivered (Genesis 9:2)." This was no accident, according to William Leiss, who argued that “the Bible seemed to indicate that the earth was designed to serve man’s ends exclusively (1994, p.30).”
Regardless of the meaning intended in Genesis, history provides us with ample evidence that, in the West, dominion came to mean power and control over animals’ lives. This interpretation of the teachings in Genesis has had a profound impact, as it has justified humans’ exploitation of animals through a divine mandate. “Christianity” declared historian Lynn White, “...not only established a dualism of man and nature, but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends (Gottlieb ed. 1996, p.189)." Human dominion over animals didn’t begin with Christianity however, as this concept was developed thousands of years before the Bible was written. Yet western religion did more than simply perpetuate an older ideology, it lent great authority to it--from the one and only God.
The western perspective has also been heavily influenced by secular traditions. For example, the concept of the “great chain of being,” which was developed by Aristotle and was influential during the European Renaissance, views nature as a hierarchy, with humans at the top, animals in the middle and plants at the bottom. This simplistic concept rationalizes the use of one group for the benefit of another. In this scheme, animals exist for the sake of humans, while plants exist for the sake of both humans and animals. This heavily biased brand of western “reasoning,” which remains popular in modern times, stands in the way of a truly egalitarian relationship between humans and nature in general and serves to perpetuate the existing inequity between humans and pets today.
The dogs and cats of the world today are the recipients of a “friendship” that humans bestowed upon their ancestral groups thousands of years ago. Unfortunately for these animals, the “friendship” that humans offered has failed them. This is largely due to a value system that is hierarchical and dualistic, placing pets below and outside of humans’ moral boundaries. This anthropocentric mindset toward pets--and animals in general--has been perpetuated through the millennia and it is largely due to this “western cultural perspective” that pets suffer under human care today.
THE “PET PROBLEM”
Pets, such as cats and dogs, are unique animals in that they occupy a sort of biological “no-man’s land” between “civil” human society and “wild” nature. For example, all wild animals are subject to the forces of natural selection, where pressure is exerted upon an organism’s phenotype and genotype by the environment in which they live and equilibrium is ultimately reached between the organism and the natural environment or the animal becomes extinct. But in the case of domesticated animals (i.e. purebreds), humans exert artificial pressure on phenotype and genotype through breeding, not so the organism can reach equilibrium with the natural environment, but to meet certain human aesthetic desires or breed standards (like size, shape, facial features, temperament, etc.).
The wild ancestors of today’s pets were removed from nature’s selective pressures long ago and since then, they’ve been genetically altered through artificial selection for thousands of generations; “success” for the domesticated animal is thus ultimately determined by the breeder, not nature, in this “man-made” predicament.
These human choices over animals’ minds and bodies have altered them to a degree that they no longer stand as members of the natural community; separated from their ecological niche, pets are a product of human culture. No longer wild and independent, pets therefore depend on human care for their well being and survival. And it is this dependency on human care that puts pets’ well being in jeopardy.
The issue of dependency presents one of the major problems with the human-pet relationship: no objective standards of care exist for pet animals, so humans decide what is best for them based upon their “best guesses” and their (western) cultural conditioning. Pets’ nutrition, exercise, reproductive capabilities, medical care and levels of attention and affection are all decided on a subjective basis by their keepers. This paradigm can be contrasted to some degree with the “care” given to zoo animals that have known natural habitats, where efforts are made to recreate the conditions of their environments. Given this situation, humans simply try to do “the best they can.” This may serve human psychological interests well, but cannot serve the best interests of their pets.
For example, people with good intentions often end up harming their pets. “Animal hoarders” are people that often suffer from mental health problems such as obsessive-compulsive disorder that “adopt” unwanted and stray animals. “For most hoarders, it is likely that their actions are the result of a true pathology, even though they are still usually able to function quite well in society," according to Randall Lockwood, HSUS vice president for Research and Educational Outreach.
In one recent case of animal hoarding the results were quite disastrous. When animal control officers from the Humane Society entered the home of a Maryland couple on May 1, 2003 they “found more than 300 cats, including more than 70 felines in various forms of decomposition.” In addition to the pervasive smell of death, volunteers also encountered surfaces covered with inches of waste and garbage. In one area of the home, investigators described “stepping on several layers of feces and skeletons” as they walked; here, the carnage was described as simply “unbelievable.”
While humans deliver varying degrees of care for domesticated animals, pets are rarely the center of attention. Some pets are doted upon, while many others lead miserable, lonely lives at the hands of their human “masters.” In this case, western hierarchical and dualistic thinking allows individuals to console themselves with the thought that their pet “is just a dog” or “only a cat” so they needn’t feel too guilty about the quality of food, shelter, medical care or attention they provide them. Yet pets suffer just the same, while humans continue to perpetuate their kind, as well as their dependence on people. This is one area where humans ostensibly try to manage the problem they’ve created, through controlling their pets’ reproduction.
It is a well-known fact in the animal welfare community that there is an “excess” of pets in our society. But how did pets’ numbers exceed the amount of homes available to them? The uncurbed breeding of pets in general is the source of the pet “overpopulation problem,” yet a major inconsistency exists, when breeders continue to produce pets (purebreds), while millions of others (“mutts”) are being killed in shelters every year. From this perspective then, the overpopulation problem is largely a “mixed breed problem,” because they’re the one’s who pay the highest price. But the breeders’ work continues, largely unhampered by the animal welfare community, suggesting that purebreds aren’t contributing to the pet overpopulation problem.
In an effort to curb pet overpopulation, spaying and neutering is administered, yet this is done on a selective basis. While veterinarians and other animal “advocates” admonish individuals to be “responsible,” by sterilizing their companion animals (generally the unwanted “mixed breeds” adopted from the local shelter), pets with a higher aesthetic value are typically allowed--or even forced--to reproduce. Moreover, local animal shelters require that adopted animals be spayed or neutered before they leave the premises, reinforcing the “pet hierarchy.”
Surprisingly, some purebreds are subject to selective sterilization as well, but for very different reasons. Veterinary Specialist W. Jean Dodds notes that “[m]any purebreds are sold as youngsters on a spay/neuter contract to prevent them from breeding, either because the breeder wants to control how the family is procreated or the offspring are of lesser quality and not deemed suitable for breeding – thereby maintaining the good reputation of the breeder’s stock.” This statement demonstrates the breeder’s vested economic interest in protecting the quality of his/her commodities, and as long as pets are considered property, this condescending view of pets will be maintained.
But those pets of high aesthetic and economic value are put to the task of producing the manifold varieties of purebreds found across the land. Some of these animals live in filthy, cramped conditions in what’s called “puppy (or kitty) mills.” According to the HSUS, some of the “documented problems of puppy mills include overbreeding, inbreeding, minimal veterinary care, poor quality of food and shelter, lack of socialization with humans, overcrowded cages, and the killing of unwanted animals.”
Many animals never leave these “breeding factories” where females produce litter after litter for the pet industry. These "brood bitches" lead miserable lives while producing the highly esteemed purebreds that so many people desire, but they are immediately killed once their reproductive capacity wanes. Making purchases from pet stores perpetuates the suffering of these animals, as roughly 90% of puppies in pet stores come from puppy mills. Yet when people go shopping for the cute, cuddly “babies” found at the pet store, hardly anyone thinks to consider the living conditions of the parents, who are so easily forgotten.
At the other end of the life spectrum is the issue of pet euthanasia, where one finds similar selective forces in action. In total, around 4 million unwanted pets are put to death in the U.S. every year, due to human neglect and apathy. Although exact figures are unknown, it is once again those pets that lack pedigree--the mixed breeds or “mutts”--that pay the ultimate price because of the “pet population problem.”
While highly prized purebreds are routinely sought out and huge sums of money are often paid for them (500,000 per year sold through pet stores alone) , those pets lacking “purebred status” are killed by the thousands every day, reflecting the inherent hierarchy of our western cultural value system. The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights understands this problem well and argues that “[p]urchasing [purebred] dogs from commercial sources ensures the continued death of other dogs [mixed breeds] waiting for homes in our animal control facilities or shelters.”
Yet “rescue” organizations exist that are dedicated to adopting out particular breeds (purebreds) from shelters and other facilities that kill unwanted pets. It is due to their aesthetic appeal and/or their commercial value that certain breeds are being singled out to be saved by these organizations. Although it is admirable that these rescue organizations prevent the unnecessary deaths of some animals, they perpetuate the hierarchical relationship humans have with pets and it begs the question; who will come forward to “rescue” the others? These “feel good” organizations are another way that humans can shift the blame to others who aren’t “doing their part” to address the pet problem and a means of feeling good about themselves, while ignoring the larger fact that millions of unwanted animals are euthanized every year.
The pure-breeds may be luckier in the above cases, but they too suffer under human care. The breeding of “purebred” animals has resulted in some unwanted side-effects for pets and their owners; according to the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, there are more than 330 heritable and genetic disorders in 166 common purebred dogs. In their Guide to Heritable and Genetic Disorders in Dogs AVAR warns that

[t]here is another consideration with respect to [purchasing] purebred dogs, particularly those from irresponsible breeders or the so-called puppy mills. This is the issue of congenital or genetically transmitted disorders. Purebred dogs of many breeds… are prone to specific abnormalities, which may be familial or genetic in nature. Often, these health problems are unapparent to the average person but could result in misery for both the dog and her or his guardians.

Some of the common genetic disorders include hip [displaysia] and joint problems; autoimmune and other immune-mediated diseases; endocrine disorders like thyroid, adrenal and pancreatic diseases; eye diseases; skin and mucous membrane diseases; blood diseases; cardiac diseases; and central nervous system disorders.
These diseases are routinely found in many dog and cat breeds, although Teri Barnato, director of AVAR, notes that cats suffer fewer overall genetic diseases than dogs, due to less breeding. Simply put, purebred pets suffer from higher rates of disease compared to their “mixed breed cousins,” due to their lack of genetic diversity. Many pet diseases also cause severe and/or chronic pain for the animals involved and routinely contribute to their deaths. In their effort to achieve aesthetic perfection in their pets, humans have created genetic “invalids” that are trapped--oftentimes for years--inside painful, broken and dysfunctional bodies. And it is important to remember that these animals are intentionally bred with full knowledge of their predisposition to develop these genetic disorders. Yet breeders, for whom these pet diseases are apparently of little significance, continue their quest to meet purebreds’ highly rigid “breed standards.”
W. Jean Dodds DVM explains that genetic disorders are prevalent in
“purebred” pets due to the
…linebreeding (breeding within a particular “line” of animals-i.e. within the family) and inbreeding (close breeding within a family for several generations-i.e. father to daughter, mother to son, siblings to each other etc.) commonly practiced over the years to “fix” both phenotype (appearance and behavior) and genotype (genetic makeup) of these animals, the potential risk for genetic disorders is relatively high compared to that of randomly bred mixed breeds. Also, the “popular sire effect” or “founder effect” can spread both the good and undesirable traits rapidly within a breed for 10 or more years. With the advent of storing frozen semen from these [animals], their beneficial and detrimental impact could last well beyond their lifetimes.

It is also purebreds that are generally subject to body modification, which is done purely for aesthetic reasons, demonstrating the degree to which humans will go to meet breed standards. For example, tail-docking and ear trimming are purely cosmetic practices that are routinely done to pets while the animals are only weeks old--often without the use of anesthesia--only to meet “breed standards.” Other types of body modifications include de-clawing and de-vocalizing, controversial practices that are utilized to control animal behavior that doesn’t conform to the environmental conditions that humans impose upon them.
Control is an important concept in humans’ program to manage the behavior of their pets, so training has become a standard element of pet ownership. This is an outright effort to minimize an animal’s individuality (and animality) and to impose “human-approved” behaviors in their place. Animals’ instinctual urges are generally brought under control through the use of several devices, including leashes, muzzles, shock collars, electric fences and other confinement devices; these are all part of the pet owner’s repertoire for maintaining power over their pets. Controlling animal behavior through training is psychologically important in the human-pet relationship, as it reflects and reinforces the dominant position of the human in the hierarchical western cultural world-view.
One of the proposed solutions being offered to the “roaming problem” of cats, for example, is the use of confinement. This concept is part of the Humane Society of the United States’ “Safe Cats” campaign, which was arguably devised to protect pets from being harmed. Sterilization--which also curbs cats’ urges to roam--is often used in conjunction with keeping them indoors as part of the program. “Safe Cats” undoubtedly has the positive effect of protecting cats from injury, disease, etc., and the unintended effect of protecting wildlife from the devastating impact of cats’ hunting, but it also proposes to do something highly unnatural: thwart cats’ instinctual urges to hunt, roam and reproduce. This campaign reinforces the drive to control pets’ behaviors that conflict with human interests and reveals the biological and behavioral predicament that humans created through domesticating animals.
Some pets are controlled much more heavily than others; service dogs, rescue dogs, guide dogs, police dogs, etc. all go through extensive training programs to meet various human needs. These animals may be well cared for and form tight bonds with their “handlers,” but they are bred (created) specifically for the tasks that humans have laid out for them. Fighting dogs, racing dogs, hunting dogs and show dogs serve different purposes for humans--entertainment. Some of these animals are continually exposed to dangerous conditions (hunting and fighting dogs) and the others are only useful as long as they’re productive (racing dogs). Yet when these animals’ abilities to serve the financial, legal, social and the egotistical needs of their masters wane, they are simply discarded.
THE SOLUTION: ABOLITION
In order to address this issue in its entirety, it’s necessary to ask if pets--kept under the conditions outlined above--should exist at all. After all, it was and is humans’ choice to bring pets into this world and it can be humans’ choice--out of a deep respect and compassion for animals--to prevent them from entering it. The choice to abolish domesticated animals will be unpopular and difficult to implement, but it will bring enormous benefits to the many races of animals that humans keep as pets.
The task of abolishing pets will be administered through preventing their reproduction. The method used to accomplish this goal is quite simple; since the practice of sterilizing animals is already widespread; humans simply need to substitute the partial application of this technique for the complete application of it. This step will not come easy, as laws must be created to enforce a ban on human breeding practices. Those animal owners, who choose to ignore the ban and continue breeding their pets, shall face strict penalties, including having their pet(s) confiscated, in order to prevent them from being bred.
It is only through the complete sterilization of the pet population that humans will eliminate the ill effects of animal domestication permanently. It should also be noted, however, that those pet animals currently living should be allowed to live out their natural lives while the task of abolishing pets is carried out. As cruel as the abolition of pets may seem, this choice is rooted in a deep compassion and it seeks to prevent the perpetuation of an inequitable relationship between animals and human beings that has lasted for thousands of years.
CONCLUSION
Pets are biologically unique; they are a product of artificial selection and their wild ancestors were removed from their ecological niches long ago. They are therefore a product of human culture and they depend on humans for their care. But humans cannot provide adequate care for pets, because no appropriate model exists for them to do so. People try to care for their pets “the best they can,” but these efforts inevitably fall short of the animals’ needs, as pets occupy a unique space between nature and culture, which makes their needs extraordinary. It is undoubtedly wrong to perpetuate animals’ dependency on human care in this light, as the evidence illustrates rather clearly that pets suffer in numerous ways in their relationship with humans.
Pets have been genetically altered through breeding programs over countless generations to meet human needs and suffer from numerous physical disorders because of this fact. Pets’ bodies are routinely altered in painful operations as well, in order to satisfy human aesthetic standards and to meet specific “breed requirements.” Some animals (“brood bitches”) will spend their entire lives in miserable conditions in “breeding factories” that service the pet trade. Pets’ lives in general are tightly controlled by their human masters; through training, surgical techniques and confinement, pets’ behaviors are brought under control to suit their owners desires. In addition, the sterilization and euthanazation of pets is practiced selectively, reflect the inherently hierarchical structure of humans’ program to manage the issue of pet overpopulation.
As it stands, 4 million unwanted animals (mostly cats and dogs) are deliberately killed (“euthanized”) every year in the U.S. alone. This figure adequately demonstrates the failure of humans to care for the animals they keep as pets. Still others are injured or killed by automobiles and other machinery, in hunting accidents and by accidental poisoning. And finally, there are millions more pets who are the daily victims of abuse and neglect; lacking adequate food, water, shelter, exercise and attention from their human owners. None of these problems are likely to change, as long as pets are seen as property or commodities to be bought and sold like the slaves of days gone by.
Based upon the conditions outlined above, I contend that all pets suffer from some form of neglect and/or abuse at the hands of their human “masters.” For these reasons, I argue that there should be a dramatic reevaluation of the human-animal relationship and call on humans to abolish the practice of pet “ownership” altogether. This choice reveals the extent of power that humans have over nature, yet this shouldn’t come as a surprise, because pets were domesticated specifically for human benefit. Humans can therefore exercise that power to liberate animals from the chains of human cultural bondage, if they choose to do so. This may seem like a cruel, dramatic step, yet based upon the abundant evidence of the suffering of pets, this would be the most compassionate choice humans could offer them.

Conversations with Peter Singer

I recently had the opportunity to discuss some of the issues concerning the abolition of pets with Animal Liberation author Peter Singer. I explained to Singer that I feel the plight of pets is an incredibly important issue that's being largely overlooked. I told Singer that I thought this was due to the issue “falling between the cracks” of the concerns of the environmental ethics and animal rights camps.
After I outlined the theoretical framework of this project and the argument to abolish pets, Singer responded that he was concerned with the animal rights movement being branded “extremists,” if they were to support the goal of abolishing pets. He said I “need to be careful with it, in my view - whatever the rights and wrongs of the case for abolition of companion animals, the belief that the animal rights movement is opposed to them is often used by our opponents as a way of showing how extreme the movement is.”
I understood Singer’s concern for the animal rights movement with regard to supporting the proposal for pets’ abolition, but his next comment, however, caught me off guard. Here, Singer compared the conditions of pets to those of “food animals” and argued “since animals raised for food are treated so much worse than companion animals, the issue [pets’ abolition] clearly shouldn't be a priority for the animal movement anyway.” While it’s true that as a whole, food animals are treated worse than cats and dogs in western society, I don’t feel it’s fair to compare their exploitation; both groups suffer in their relationship with humans, yet the unique conditions that cause suffering in the human-pet relationship are being largely overlooked.
I responded to Singer’s “utilitarian” position by stating that I understood that advocating for the abolition of pets is viewed as an extremist position, yet the current suffering of pets under human care is an extreme problem. And something surely must be done about it, especially since it seems that nobody is doing any serious examining of the issue. I also told Singer that one thing I disagreed with him about is that because animals raised for food are treated far worse than companion animals, the suffering of companion animals shouldn't be a priority for the animal liberation movement. The two issues are inextricably linked; just because one group has it worse than the others doesn't mean we should abandon a serious re-examination of our relationship with pets.
I continued my argument by referring to Singer’s thesis in Animal Liberation, which referred to the non-essential difference in suffering between humans and animals. In the comparison of the exploitation of food animals and pets, I said ‘the difference in [their] suffering is in degree, not kind’ and the source of this suffering is the same--western cultural conditioning, which devalues nature and animals. The problem exists along a continuum right up the "Great Chain of Being."
I then asked Singer if he would read my essay and give me feedback on it if he had time, since there are no authors who've seriously written about this topic. To my surprise, Singer responded, saying, “I've read your manifesto. Your crucial claim seems to be this”: ‘The choice to abolish domesticated animals will be unpopular and difficult to implement, but it will bring enormous rewards to the many races of animals that humans keep as pets.’” He then cautioned: “to establish that claim, you have to show, not only that many pets are abused, and some are killed before their time, but that, even including the many pets who are loved and cared for well, the lives of pets as a whole are, on average, so bad that it would have been better for them never to exist at all.” Singer then directed me to some of his own writings for review and suggested: “You may well have different views on these issues, but if you think it is better for dogs and cats that they cease to exist, you can't just ignore it.”
Singer’s letter ended with an observation on the strategy I (mis)used to argue for abolition of pets: “I also thought you omitted one of the strongest arguments for abolishing dogs and cats: that because they are carnivores - or at least, most people feed them meat - keeping them supports factory farming.” I told Singer that I agreed with him that one of the important issues that was omitted in the essay was the fact that when people keep pets it perpetuates factory farming. I also said that I don't think it's fair that food animals (and the environment) suffer due to people keeping pets.
But, I told Singer that I felt that this is a separate argument, one that would be made from a more comprehensive place, perhaps calling for the abolition of all domesticated animals (an even better argument). What I'm trying to argue in this particular essay, I told Singer, is what he hit on in the first part of his letter--that pets (specifically) as a whole, on average, suffer under human care--and something must be done about it. Unlike Singer, I don’t believe that life, itself (in this particular context), has inherent value and his all-or-nothing scenario for pets ignores the quality of life for those animals who suffer in subtle ways under human care. Singer’s utilitarian position paradoxically overlooks qualitative concerns, in order to make “absolute” quantitative ethical decisions.
Now, I’d like to address Singer’s contention that to establish my claim: ‘the choice to abolish domesticated animals will be unpopular and difficult to implement, but it will bring enormous rewards to the many races of animals that humans keep as pets,’ I’ll have to show “that the lives of pets as a whole are, on average, so bad that it would have been better for them never to exist at all.” I don’t believe it’s possible for me to satisfy Singer’s (or any other critic’s) particular demand, because I don’t see this as a quantitative issue. I responded to Singer by saying that
[i]t seems that what we're talking about here is largely a qualitative issue and not a quantitative one. I realize that it's difficult, if not impossible to prove my claim. But one thing that I want to stress is that the care humans provide to pets is subjective and reflects a deep, culturally ingrained sense of the animals’ inferiority relative to humans. How can they get a fair deal from us when the deck is stacked so high against them? I don't believe that they can.

This is a very complex issue and some people will continue to believe that pets as a whole are, on average, doing well, in spite of the claims I make in this essay. I concede that I cannot convince everyone that my solution for pets is the “right” one. But simply ignoring the problem is, in my opinion, unconscionable. As Singer put it well, “[i]f a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration (p.8).” Therefore, something dramatic must be done to address the suffering of pets, and the abolition of pet ownership is, in my view, the most compassionate and compelling path humans can take.

References Cited:

Books:

Leiss, William. The Domination of Nature McGill-Queens University Press,
Montreal 1994

Mason, Jim. An Unnatural Order: Uncovering the Roots of Our Domination of Nature and Each Other Simon and Schuster, New York, 1993

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1982

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation Avon Books, New York, 1990

Websites:
The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR)
http://www.avar.org/

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
http://www.aspca.org/

The Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS)
http://www.paws.org/

The Humane Society of the United States
http://www.hsus.org

Thanks for the comments Rachel and Wen.

Wen, I'd like to respond to several things you brought up. It's true that pets wouldn't exist without people--but pets are more than just (mental, social or cultural) constructs, they're sentient beings. And many human groups have and do exist without domesticated animals. Many California Indians, for example, never kept pets--right up until the time of their contact with Europeans.

How do people suffer because of what domesticated animals do? Or need? I have ideas about what you're talking about, but I don't want to guess about what you're referring to here. You also say that pets suffer for various reasons, but you fail to say why. Why do you think they suffer?

Do you not think that pets are dependent on humans for their well-being? And if they are, if we neglect or abuse them, are we not then responsible? How can we ever know if we're doing a good job of taking care of our pets? What model do we base their care on? What do you think about standard breeding practices that cause inherited genetic disorders causing hundreds of chronic diseases? And, if they're they dying in shelters by the millions yearly because we've abandoned them, does that not contribute to their suffering?

I'd say the evidence is clear that the human-pet relationship causes ample suffering for the domesticated variety.

Do you mind describing what the virtues are in being a pet? I'm curious. What particular problems do you see with the human-pet relationship? Do you feel that our relationship with pets is in their best interest?

I'm looking forward to your responses.

Shannon

Interesting discussion! I'm not sure about the wider moral values of 'owning' a 'pet' but on a personal level I don't see the point. I would never own a dog as I don't feel the need to own or care for such creatures and don't feel they could offer me anything either. (That may sound harsh but it's true! - I don't want to take a dog for walks, pick up its poo, worry about its mental state, play games with it, have its company etc etc).

Cats I see as a different matter. I've never owned one but lived with some in flat-shares. I see them as more independent creatures who generally look after themselves but need feeding and I guess health care if unwell. And regardless of how loveable I view cats, I think that's where I wouldn't feel comfortable. Like you say Shannon, humans decide what a cat is fed and I wouldn't want that responsibility as I have no real way of knowing what the cat wants or needs to eat. It may purr more at some food than others but this is only a comparison not a real choice.

My predominately vegetarian flatmate feeds her cat a 'good quality' brand of cat food which is mostly meat products. Fair enough, I guess but is it a double standard??? I'm not sure but I was horrified to discover on reading a can recently that the 'meat' is made up of waste bits not fit for human consumption. Although I eat a little meat, I felt bad feeding her cat something that I wouldn't touch if I was dying of starvation. It doesn't feel right to me.

As for health care, I don't regard western human medicine too highly so would struggle with having to rely on regular vets and standard medicines, treatments etc that I do not fully understand the short or long-term implications of using on an animal.

As for birds in cages and indoors and fish in bowls and tanks - ugh! I find that incredibly sad. But how do I justify that with my fish & meat eating even if it is limited and predominantly free-range, organic??? Another double standard I guess. Perhaps when I achieve my dream of having a self-sufficient small-holding with chooks, pigs and a goat I may feel differently about eating such creatures. Or perhaps I will simply appreciate them more.

Anyway, that's my point of view and why I will probably never acquire an animal as a pet.

Wow- great to stumble upon this discussion!
As you can see by the photo, i live with a canine of 10 years, she is amazing! She doesn't 'do' tricks for treats, and among other things has a way of communicating the most subtle things (if i am willing to really listen!).
She picked me out at 7 weeks old, when i went with a friend who was wanting a dog in her life. The litter of 10 was dropped off at PAWS by a breeder at 4 weeks old- because the breeder didn't want anyone to know her 'pure-bred' Aussie had a mixed litter. I've heard from some folks that she was more humane in her choice than other breeders would be.
Sometimes i really struggle, knowing the responsibility i have to care for her to the best of my ability. Being vegan for five years, brought many issues to the mind- she is a carnivore by nature- and i feel i do not have the right to take that away from her.
I am so grateful that she is a part of my life, and when i am really present with her- she seems to be happy with me.
Oh- Her name is Stella Mae.
On the other issues being discussed here- I am passionate about leaving wild creatures to be in the wild- as much as is possible in this era of very few real wild spaces. Zoos bring tears to my eyes- it just doesn't seem right to cage animals for our viewing pleasure.
Thanks for the opportunity to explore in this dialog. i look forward to hearing more!
Loka Samasta Sukhino Bhavantu- May All Beings Everywhere Be Happy and Free. Linda

Hey, all:

Yes, Michael, you bring up a very very important distinction. I regard "pets" as being only domesticated animal species, and only then can Shannon's question be fairly answered. I, for one, completely agree with you, that wild animals in captivity are not "pets", they are captives.

If the only place one has seen parrots are in a cage, or ferrets in a box, or anything else of which natural selection has been the driving force, one can be slightly excused for not understanding. Seeing huge, screaming, wheeling flocks of parrots in the wilds of Mexico, just as a simple example, is a thrill like nothing else, and after that seeing a parrot in a cage is like looking at a sad drugged psychopath, screaming inside to be free. They truly might as well be stuffed.

In addition, the business of collecting and selling exotic animals and plants is terribly destructive to the native habitats and could be used as yet another illustration of "The Tragedy of the Commons". The percent of captives which actually survive is usually in the low single digits, and the location where they were collected from is completely destroyed. On top of all that, release of exotics into the wild by bored or stupid owners is a huge environmental problem, monetarily and in biodiversity losses.

To answer your question, Shannon, like many things, much of the answer is "it depends". I despise little handbag teacup dogs on one extreme, and, not to the same degree, feral animals of all kinds on the other extreme. The types of mistreatment we impose on these two groups are different, but quantitatively not different at all. We laugh at fat dogs and cats on TV and YouTube, cases which are themselves types of abuse. Dog breeds and their original purpose are greatly misunderstood and ignored, and we shake our heads in ignorance when someone is attacked, someone's couch is torn up, or someone can't sleep for all the barking. Attempts to spay and neuter pets is like waving a bandaid at an alligator living under your porch--symbolic and a "no-win".

Being a "good" owner may not be enough. I had a dog whom I loved, and once I noticed she was getting fat. She always ran with me while I rode a bike, so I just made the rides longer, to help her lose weight. Gradually, though, she slowed down, and after it was too late, I took her to a veterinarian who said she had a liver tumor. So I even have doubts about being a "good" owner. I have not had a dog since.

On a related topic, we mistreat domestic animals all the time in the name of commerce, of which I know we are all aware. Still, I am a meat eater, as humans are omnivores. There is a middle ground between swearing off meat forever and accepting cruel rearing practices, and that involves the same principles practiced in sustainable, responsible, local agriculture.

It is a good question, and I hope many others will add their ideas.

David
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Pets are good for people, but are people good for pets? I'd like to hear some responses to this question, especially if you consider yourself an animal lover.