I was talking today with someone who argued that having pets – mostly dogs and cats but it applies across the board – is just another form of bling. The cost of feeding the animals that eat meat, in lives of other animals, and planetary degradation is huge – billions of animals, millions of acres, clear felling of ancient forests and so forth – for animals that are artificially bred (sometimes for looks), and produce so many offspring from unwise owners that millions of them have to be killed each year and there are continual fights to ban these animals from common grounds because owners allow them to defecate with abandon to the detriment of the health of others.
There is no doubt that it is true that millions of animals are sacrificed to the cult of pet ownership. That disease and over population follow owners who do not care enough and do not intend to try to care enough. That over-bred animals are often sick with a hundred ailments not found in their wild counterparts, and the cost of making the pills and potions which are sold at exorbitant rates by veterinarians just makes the case against pets stronger.
There is however one argument for them: the affection of love and generosity of owners who look after their animals and the needs of the people they live amongst. It would be good to legislate bling out of the picture, but a mistake to obliterate the unseen bond between animals and humans.
But first humans should have to prove they can love enough to have one in their family.