Pets

[andrewducker]

I've been thinking about pets for the last few months. As you know, my parent's dog died and they got a new, ever-so-cute puppy. The puppy is delightful to play with, is impossible to look at without saying "Awwww" and generally an emotional parasite of the highest order.

And this got me thinking "Why do we like pets?" I mean, what is it about dogs and cats and other furry mammals that make is go "Awww", when Lizards and spiders and suchlike make us feel quite the opposite?

And then, today, a piece of Scott McCloud's book "Understanding Comics" struck me - he says that the reason that simple cartoons engender more empathy than complex works of art is that by abstracting out defined features, we create an image that anyone can identify with. This then made me think of something I read when reading about dogs when the parents were looking at puppies, that dogs have basically been moulded by people over the centuries so that they are in a state of perpetual teenager-dom. They never grow up to the point of being independent or wanting to lead their own pack - they are always subservient to us, friendly and playful.

This struck me as I watched the end of the Simpsons episode where Selma decides she wants children and then ends up with an Iguana as a pet instead. Pets are children substitutes in a very real way. They're even cuter than babies, talk back less than teenagers, are always up for fun and games, don't have their own lives, won't leave you when they grow up and are basically a lot less trouble, a lot cuter and a lot simpler than relations with human beings.

And they are this way because we bred them into our ideals. If you ask me, it's all a bit Brave New World. I've been feeling uneasy about pets for the last few months, and I think I just put my finger on why...

Comments

[luxcanon.livejournal.com]

Ah! Eugenics.

[andrewducker]

Indeed.

I actually love Brave New World, and I view it as more of a utopia than a dystopia, but this makes me feel uneasy for reasons that I don't think are terribly logical (still working them through).

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I see it as more of a bargain. The various domestic animals (generally) got a good home and a good life, and in return we got work animals and pets. Also, many of the modifications we performed on dogs had a practical purpose - it wasn't that long ago that most dogs and all cats were working animals.

Then again, one of the reasons I prefer cats to dogs is that they are more their own creatures and they have been less subject to modification than dogs.

Then again, I greatly prefer pets to children, so it's far from surprising that I have few problems with pets. Also, since I like the idea of engineering humans, I have few problems with engineering pets.

[cruft.livejournal.com]

"They never grow up to the point of being independent or wanting to lead their own pack - they are always subservient to us, friendly and playful."

That sounds like dogs to me, not cats. Whatever half-imagined relationship I have with cats (since I'm pretty sure that relationship doesn't have the reality of human relationships), it has little to do with their subservience. I anthropomorphize the cats as allowing me the privilege of feeding and housing them, and in return granting me the occasional nugget of affection. The relationship we understand ourselves to have with dogs may resemble the relationship we'd have with an extremely stupid, docile and subservient child, but I think that applies uniquely to dogs, not to pets in general.

[andrewducker]

Most of the cats I've seen have been mandhandled by small children, carted around the house, mercilessly played with and are generally very dependent on people for affection and entertainment.

Admittedly, I know there are cats that aren't like that, but when I encounter cats walking down the street they are usually starved for attention and asking for some. Unless they're specifically out on a killing spree, that is.