Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being | Hacker News Reader

Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

psychreg.org

62 pointswhack87 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is clearly false hyperbole.

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.

>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.

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

>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.

I feel the same way about people who have kids.

Despite being allergic to dogs I loved having dogs at my workplace...and miss it as no dogs at my new work.

I understand why people would not appreciate it. We had good rules and good owners. The dogs stayed in the owners office most of the day and only visited those who wanted to see them.

At least in my office almost everyone was happy to see the dogs.

My workplace allows dogs but is quite strict about them being on leash at all times and not to be left unattended. It works out quite well.

> in the middle of the open space.

There's your problem. You work in a bullpen. Dogs are one of many triggers for problems in bullpens.

True. When I worked at the place with dogs we had offices. Open office or cubes just suck in principle. With or without dogs.

Totally agree. It’s a matter of personal preferences just as any other kind of office setup. Some people love open office, some don’t, some like dogs in the office, some don’t. It would be nice if was easier for people to work according to their preferences.

Awww, this makes me sad. I am a dog lover and I forget that some people are really not. I'm currently in a small office where the CEO brings his dog. It's an older, smaller (I think terrier) breed and he's the only one that does it currently.

But this dog is fantastic! I think I've heard him bark like 2x in the 3 years I've been there, he's quite laid-back and wanders around the office but is more likely to follow the CEO around and lay at his feet or he sleeps outside the conference room when the CEO is in meetings. He will come to the kitchen when people are in it, but he has been trained to stay out of it so he just sits at the door.

I love, love, love having him in the office and I think everyone else does too (but now I'm hoping there aren't people adversely affected that don't speak up). Even when the CEO is traveling, sometimes his wife will drop him off for the day because the dog is so chill and people like the interaction, will take him on walks around the business park, etc.

> open space

There's your problem right there

I hate to be a party pooper, but make sure that if you bring animals to the office they are hypoallergenic.

For cats, you want to look for breeds that produce less Fel D1 protein. There is probably something similar for dogs.

One office I once interviewed at had the CEO's dog roaming around and I had to decline the job offer for this reason. I'm sure that I could have talked about it but nobody wants to be the one who kicks the office dog out.

Was there something specific you didn't like about that dog?

I'm going to guess being allergic

Bingo.

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so this isn't chump change.

Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.

> The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful.

Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death.

Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company.

Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/

It's not the office pet, it's many people's family pet that this policy targets allowing. People are realistically not going to replace a beloved family pet in order to be able to bring them to work.

In this case, the responsible solution would be to provide a room where animals would be restricted, such as an indoor dog-park ventilated to the outside.

The only time I saw animals roaming freely in an office was the office pet and those should be hypoallergenic.

Or restrict you to a particular room or area. That's the same difference except it makes more sense to me, since you are one of the rare people that are allergic to a common household pet.

This collective consciousness apologizes. We often forget that we alone represent 10 to 20% of the human population. We will confine ourselves to the boiler room of our respective offices and continue to work from there.

We have estimated that the increase in the number of visits for acute asthma care for adults with dog allergies who live with dogs could add up to $0.5 to $1.0 billion per year to the cost of care. Our control over the global economy is reaching new heights every day.

It's not about buying an office dog, it's about people bringing their own pets to work. I'm not denying that it affects a portion of the population - like I said, there's a tradeoff that companies have to make.

The anaphylaxis thing isn't a reasonable point at all, since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.

> since people for whom that's the case will self select out of working at offices that have pets.

Which is exactly my point. In my opinion, it is a waste to exclude 10% to 20% of the workforce to entertain the few people who really want to bring pets to the office.

There's also the important to mention fact that adult-onset allergies exist. Allergies can appear suddenly and you would end up with an employee who needs to leave the company for medical reason.

Some people might not be made aware of the presence of animals until it's too late to turn back.

This has happened to me in the past. I only was made aware of the presence of a dog late in the hiring process. They had me tour the office and it's only when the dog randomly passed by that they told me "and this is [dog name] our office dog".

Suffice to say I'm not working there - and dogs don't even trigger death inducing symptoms for me (cats however do). I may have skewed perceptions of my own value, but I think it is their loss.

> Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.

Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.

Oh? Who's covered... the people with allergies, or the people who need a dog to work? I wasn't aware. Do you have any evidence for this?

Both. However, here we are talking about pet animals and not service animals.

    Under Title III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and virtually all state laws, a service animal is an animal that has been trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability

and

    In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is someone who has a physical or mental impairment that seriously limits one or more major life activities, or who is regarded as having such impairments. Asthma and allergies are usually considered disabilities under the ADA

That raises an interesting question: suppose a business has one employee who needs a service dog and another who is allergic to dogs. Both individuals can be accomodated individually, but there is no realistic way to accommodate both without creating "undue hardship" to the business. Who wins priority?

This may be an unrealistic scenario, but it's at least an interesting hypothetical.

We tried that for awhile at a previous job. It was fun at first, but there were two problems:

1) Dogs like to poop. A lot. Even with a responsible owner, if the dog runs around the office frequently, they would poop, and someone would step in it, and that is gross.

2) Dogs like to bark. Most dogs are fine, but occasionally there would be one that wouldn't shut up and get them all started.

After a few months, they got rid of the policy.

Unfortunately, based on my very limited experience, most pet owners don't want to properly train their pets, and these are the consequences of lack of training (assuming these pets don't have a specific mental disorder).

If you ask experienced dog trainers, they would all tell you that pooping and barking can be fixed with proper training for pretty much any dog.

Huh. I worked at an office with dogs for ~4 years and never experienced pooping or barking problems or heard rumors of such issues.

The biggest problem we had were allergies. There was an eventual compromise with dogs only allowed in specific conference rooms that had air purifiers running.

I think the pooping mostly stemmed from it being a pretty big office, and a non-enforcement of "keep your dog near you". Maybe with better policies it wouldn't have been an issue.

Yeah, I have dog/cat allergies and it can be terrible, depending on the dog/cat.

Sounds like yet another reason to have private offices.

Like dogs, some people just don't shut up, and once two people are talking, the rest often don't see much reason to stay quiet, since the silence has already been broken.

I love dogs and have one myself, but I don't think this is always a good idea. Maybe bring your dog in once a week or something like that but every day is too much. Some people have allergies, some dogs are poorly trained etc.

Once a week would already be nice. How about bring your dog day once a week? Then add a “no meetings” once a week and the workplace would already be much better.

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

Maybe, maybe not, but one should also consider the well-being of the kids in this world.

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.

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 :)

Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.

"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.

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.

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

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

The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint.

You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.

There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions.

Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).

But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor!

Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.

People should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.

And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce.

Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.

Low birthrates cause many problems, look at Japan. They have a massive labor shortage and a ballooning elderly population with not enough people to take care of them.

I don't think it's clear at all that a lower birthrate is a good thing.

Japan is a bit of an extreme example. A manageably low(er) global birth rate would be better for the climate, among other things.

Japan isn’t that different from most other first world countries:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-r...

Japan is indisputably a demographic outlier. It's the oldest country, meaning even without having the absolute lowest birthrate, its population poised to shrink at one of the fastest rates on earth. Combined with its conservative immigration, low birth rate is only part of the picture.

Yes, but encouraging a lower birth rate in first world countries will quickly put them in the same position as Japan currently is in.

I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.

That is an extreme viewpoint. The number of people thinking this way may in fact be “increasing” because of the social media echo chambers that make almost any extreme viewpoint seem normal to those who have them. But I seriously doubt the number of people that actually refuse to have children based upon fear of climate change is high enough to make any waves in population numbers.

I would agree with you on this as well. It may appear that this is a more popular way to think and it very well could be increasing more than it had in the past, in western first world technology bubbles.

However I feel for every person coming to this conclusion there are 100 more people on this planet who are ignorant to this trend and will continue to keep having babies, whether intentional or just by the circumstance of where they live.

Opinion/Personally I was on board with the whole, "I'll just adopt" rather than bring an additional carbon creature into this planet. However I went from being idealistic and 20, to rational and 30 and during this time met the love of my life whom if I had not met her I would never consider having a child of my own. I think that is a big factor, finding someone who you truly want to grow old with and start a family.

The idea of a creature made up with some of her genes and mine is amazing. Also call me selfish but why should I deny myself the experience of having a child because of some unforeseen doomsday future event that even with me denying myself the experience will happen anyway. Sure I may slow it down by not having a child, but the chances of 1 less human on this planet impacting the future of the world is about as probable as me creating a child who will solve the worlds climate issues, again just my opinion on the matter.

It's not selfish to reproduce, it's literally why every living organism exists. The "I'm not going to have kids to save the climate" is definitely a tiny, mostly social media based, echo chamber.

Most people would think it's absurd to view having children as "selfish" since it definitely requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice and is generally viewed as building the future of your family, community and humanity.

It's actually kind of sad that this anti-human trope is becoming so prevalent on message boards.

Merely “having kids” is probably a little broad of a statement. There is little question that having a loving family, spouse, etc. at home while being financially and emotionally stable is going to head off some mental health problems, or at least manifestations of them. But someone that is financially and/or emotionally unstable, doesn’t have anyone to help with the kids but who must work, etc., will find that children dramatically increase their stress levels, which will exacerbate any existing mental health issues.

It's likely quite individual but personally I feel like I am less satisfied with life now that I have young children due to them dominating the agenda and life in general. I am however expecting kids to "pay off" in the happiness department in old age. I would imagine having no family at that stage in life would be quite bleak.

The first few years are indeed fairly taxing and energy/happiness sapping overall. Once they can have a conversation and you can experience (and guide) them learning things, it gets way, way better!

I think one kid improved my life quite a bit. At three of them, it's hard to really enjoy time with any of 'em—not impossible, but much, much harder—yet the amount of time, effort, and money they take is way higher. Probably worse than no kids from a pure how-happy-am-I-on-average perspective.

I'd think the relationships between the personal happiness and life-satisfaction at various states looks something like:

three kids < no kids or two kids < one kid

But they're all youngish, so we'll see how things change as they get older. Reckon there'll be a couple years in the middle where things are pretty good, then, odds are at least one or two of them will make life a living hell during their teenage years. But when they're grown up and I'm old probably that'll be OK.

[EDIT] though we'll see how I feel at 55 when I make the mistake of running the numbers and realize I could have already retired if we'd had zero :-/

No. In the early years, having children is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult than a typical pet both physically and mentally and therefore would be crazy to draw a conclusion from a study on pets.

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.

I know too many guys intensely personal about their six-figure jalopies. They don't seem particularly healthy to me but maybe I'm missing something...

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!).

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...

You might like this episode of Hidden Brain: [Pets, Pests And Food: Our Complex, Contradictory Attitudes Toward Animals](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...)

>VEDANTAM: When we come back, do our pets actually improve our lives?

>HERZOG: Pet owners were better off in terms of their psychological and physical health than non-pet owners. But as they pointed out, so are people with Mercedes-Benzes.

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.

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...

We shouldn't be encouraging people in developed nations to have people either. They have a much larger carbon footprint.

The article you cite explains that clearly.

why only developed? developing ones too! Really, we should just sterilize everyone. It's the best way to go carbon zero.

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.

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.

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

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose.

I'm not in disagreement with you on that last part- extravagances like amusement parks, gadgets, and restaurants should be appropriately taxed until the resources they consume come down to sustainable levels. Everything needs to be scaled back.

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose.

Keep on wondering, because I doubt anyone will bend over to fit your view of the world. Starting with the foundational point that you have no idea why people have pets at the individual level, or even macro based on what you've post so far on the subject.

EDIT: you also assume that pet owners don't already volunteer, have human best friends, and feel that they have purpose. The pretense is strong in this one.

I made no such assumption. There is nothing that can be done about the animals that are already here. But someone considering an animal for their mental well-being might be better served volunteering instead. The data shows adding an animal to your lifestyle increases your environmental impact considerably. Working in the community garden adds almost nothing and potentially would provide the same positive effect.

So would going to a gym. But it's easier to build a habit of taking care of something you love at home than doing a chore you have to drive/walk across town to do.

Well put. The pet is going to be a source of companionship and happiness even if you're too tired to go volunteer or hit the gym. It's also more than just an endorphin hit or not being alone; it's a complex and rewarding relationship.

To the original poster - humans have been keeping pets since prehistoric times [0]. Behavioral patterns which have been ingrained into our genetic makeup & the collective subconscious for 10,000-40,000 years probably aren't going to change much in the next 100 or even 1000 years.

I fundamentally agree that we need to reduce our carbon footprint as a species, but feel we fundamentally disagree on the emotional and spiritual benefits of owning a pet. Regardless, I hope we can at least agree that it may be easier and more effective to start by looking at more modern, less ingrained, and higher-output sources of carbon.

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-s...

> "Some people now spend more on feeding their pets than they do feeding their children,"

Yes, this is easy when you have zero children and more than zero pets; and I'll wager a good amount of money that its true only in that case

> In the U.S., American dogs bless us with 10 million tons of waste a year.

10 million tons of waste a year is really not that much for 350 million people, for the benefits of having pets its a great tradeoff

I highly doubt that the number of pets matters at all in accounting for the difference in carbon footprint between the US (15.7[1]) and Brazil (2.4[1]) or India (1.8[1]). Focusing on pets to reduce carbon footprint before fuel consumption or the short lifespan of industrialized goods is like improving your finances by foraging for coins in the street instead of cutting down on your all-inclusive U$300/month cable package

[1] metric tons of CO2 emission per capita, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

It is, however, a simple way for individuals to avoid growing their carbon footprint. Not doing something is easier than changing an entrenched lifestyle. It's the same as saying "don't buy a large home", "don't buy a large vehicle (or preferably any vehicle at all)", "don't travel" - you're not missing out on anything, you're simply avoiding a destructive behavior. If you have a dog or cat already there isn't much you can do about it at this point.

You know what else has a carbon footprint? The computer that your're using to post on hackernews. How about instead of wasting electricity you go volunteer in your community?

Can you please not take HN threads further into flamewar? Especially not by going personal.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com