Hacker News Reader

Comment by absurdo | Hacker News Reader

Semi-rant:

I’m very disappointed to see such wide adoption of pets, especially dogs, as “replacements” of children in adult lives. I do not think it’s healthy for adults to do this because it infantilizes the adult. It is actually very sad, almost pitiful to see it happen. I think pets are wonderful for children because it helps them to develop a connection with living beings that aren’t humans, to see emotions are a universal trait.

More frequently I see now grown people wheeling their dogs in baby carriages. If this is some cosmic-scale humor by nature because we have overpopulated the planet and it’s intentionally sabotaging the environment, then I’m afraid the joke is on us.

View on HN

Advertising to pet owners is reaching absurd levels. Pet owners are now “pet parents” and the marketing is basically identical to marketing directed at new (real) parents.

While there are some surface level similarities to owning a pet and having children, it’s absurd to conflate the two as if they are equivalent.

I don't think most people using silly terms like "pet parents" are actually conflating parenthood with caring for a pet.

I don’t know what percentage are sincere about it, but I have absolutely heard it used in advertising in ways that seemed completely straight-faced.

Not most but there definitely is a weird subculture out there.

The /r/petfree subreddit is hysterical in the opposite direction at times but there is some fascinating content on there sometimes. An example: a social media post of someone mourning their child's death, folks commenting about the death of their pets as if it were comparable:

https://www.reddit.com/r/petfree/comments/1kzlt3o/people_arg...

> My three year old killed by a drunk driver. A lady said I know how you feel, my dog died last year

> Idk about you but I loved my dogs more than anything. I felt guilty for a long time bc I sobbed for days after each was put down but didn't cry at my cousin or grandfather's funeral

> I loved my dog and mom exactly the same, and their deaths both felt the same

> It's been scientifically proven that a dog death can effect you more than a human one

Why would someone go out of their way to make r/petfree to demonize pet owners is beyond me. But hey, that’s the internet nowadays I guess. Rage fueled machine.

Well, I'd imagine they'd do it because they are frustrated with pet owners. Half the content on that sub is people bringing their dogs to places dogs shouldn't go and I share a frustration with that. I'm not about to curate an entire community dedicated to it, but still.

People have pretty strong motivation to conflate the two - namely, access to privileges traditionally granted to parents.

Leaving work early to deal with kid(/dog) stuff, public spaces tolerating the presence of your loud, annoying, not-that-clean kid(/dog), an expectation of urban spaces providing places for your kid(/dog) to go to the bathroom. Etc.

That's an interesting perspective. As an adult who has both human children and many pets, I disagree that your premise that pets are only valuable for children. We come from cave people who live in big family groups. Modern humans are more isolated and live in relatively small houses, without their extended families. I think it's only natural for us to want to care for animals. And just because a dog isn't as smart, and can't talk doesn't mean it can't be a real friend.

> I disagree that your premise that pets are only valuable for children.

Where did you get this premise from?

> I do not think it’s healthy for adults to do this because it infantilizes the adult. ... I think pets are wonderful for children because it helps them to develop a connection with living beings that aren’t humans

This quote heavily implies pets are bad for adults. Maybe it wasn't your intent.

Not who you were responding to, but in your original statement you wrote "I do not think it’s healthy for adults to do this [sic] I think pets are wonderful for children"

By explicitly calling out that "[they] are wonderful for children" you are implicitly calling into question their value for adults. Whether that was your intention or not, it's certainly how I read your statement.

>I disagree that your premise that pets are only valuable for children.

On r/poveryfinance and similar subreddits, one can always find someone complaining that they're about to become homeless because they can't afford rent, begging others to please tell them what line item can be cut from their budget to make it work, the conceit being that they consider every item essential. Mixed in among the electrical and water and costs of commuting to work will be $100/month for dog food or cat litter or whatever.

Not only is there no value there, there is, quite often, anti-value. And this is just the quantifiable stuff, these people follow their dogs around picking up their feces with their hands.

Yes, rent itself is generally cheaper in the absence of pets.

Almost anything, humane, to lower the earth's population, is fine by me. Do some people go a little overboard? Certainly. Are they having fun and not hurting anyone else at the same time? Excellent!

I think the only entity sabotaging the environment is we humans. Nature deals with what it's given by adapting. I do think the baby carriages are hilarious, unless it's a geriatric pet.

Most of the time a dog is in a stroller it’s because the dog is old or injured. I don’t think many people do it just to make the dog seem more like a child.

Not in my observations. Where I am, people put their little dogs in strollers, dress them up with hair clips, etc and stroll them around while they're shopping at Macy's etc.

This is predominantly what I have also seen.

You should see east Asia. There are more dog strollers than baby strollers.

I have the same thought; it messes with peoples value systems and just isn't healthy for a lot of people. I wouldn't say it ruins lives but people will do nothing but work and tend to their 3 dogs, which inhibits personal development or meaningful progress in life.

Plus nobody enforces a lot of health and safety laws anymore, it's not uncommon to see dogs in grocery stores for example, despite it being illegal and gross.

Personal development and progress of ... what?

What are people not building too that you think they should? What have you built that's so great?

> people will do nothing but work and tend to their 3 dogs, which inhibits personal development or meaningful progress in life.

If that connection with their dogs is what brings them personal fulfillment, why is that not meaningful? And can they not personally develop within that chosen life path?

Dunno, if the alternative is actively destructive behaviour, it might be good for society for people to find meaning in pets. It's also good for those individuals and animals in question as well. I'm not sure we're missing out on many Requiems, Anna Kareninas, and Space Odysseys because of it.

> personal development or meaningful progress in life

What exactly are people not achieving when they have a dog?

I bought my first home in my twenties, have a very high paying job, I have good friends, I play music sometimes, I grow my own food, I can cook better than most restaurants, I am happy most of the time, I am reasonably physically fit and can climb a mountain (literally).

What meaningful progress is my dog holding me back from?

Every person who has a dog/cat isn't stiffed, just that they progress less on average.

What I've seen is they aren't getting into real relationships or developing hobbies, and are instead becoming attached to their pets. I know it's dismal but the loneliness associated with being single is supposed to motivate you into improving yourself and finding a partner. By spending money and a few hours a day with your pet, you're not doing other (potentially more real) things.

This has really not been my experience at all. If anything, having a dog is an excuse to get out of the house. Hell, my best friend found his wife because they both loved dogs.

I'm happy to hear you like your dog, but if you spent any time caring for your dog then that's time you can't spend doing other things. It's less of a subjective qualitative analysis and more of a quantitative one

I guess I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. I'm mean, time I spend on HN is time I can't spend doing other things as well. Or commuting, or watching movies, or playing piano, literally anything we do in life that isn't directly related to survival.

In fact, things like taking my dog for a walk is a pure positive. I get exercise and sometimes my family comes along for the walk too. That's a boost to my family's health and relationships enabled by the context of caring for the dog. So trying to portray dog ownership as a pure energy drain is just not true.

I don’t agree. Most people spend their free time doing objectively useless/harmful things like watching TV and playing video games while being 30+ BMI and no friends.

Some objective things having a dog has forced me to do:

* I go outside more often * I meet more people outside and many have become friends * I have a schedule every day

Bro are you aware that dogs are absolute chick magnets? If you don't have a partner, get a cute-looking dog* and walk it twice a day at parks or other places there are people, and the ladies will just walk up to you. The exercise from all the walking will make you more attractive to potential mates too. With a bit of personality and humor, anyone can convert that high-quality potential-partner funnel into a good relationship.

* I mean take good care of the dog obviously. It's not just a tool to improve your love life. But like if you genuinely think dog ownership is holding people back from romance, you really don't know how things work.

As the article says, for some people it serves as a substitute for having kids/a family. Life is about more than your personal well being. Maybe you disagree; there are certainly a lot of moral frameworks under which that's not a true statement, and unless there's a higher power to appeal to nobody can tell you that your chosen philosophy is wrong. But all of us will someday grow old and die, and dogs aren't going be our legacy, nor will they be taking care of us in our old age. Just something to consider...

Regardless of dog ownership, it sounds a bit ego-centric to think that life is solely about leaving a legacy and assuming your kids are there solely to care for their parents in old age.

I agree. I'm certainly not suggesting those are the only reasons to have kids, just two that I felt might resonate well with the the previous poster given the materialistic thrust of his comment.

> people will do nothing but work and tend to their 3 dogs, which inhibits personal development or meaningful progress in life.

GP was referring to this group of people whose lives consist of only work and their pets. Clearly you do not fall into this group. In fact, given your lifestyle (a healthy, balanced one), I'd say a pet has great potential to further enhance personal development.

Dogs shouldnt be in grocery stores, bars or restaurants.

Have you seen the other people in there? How are the dogs worse?

I wonder what you think people who dont have children and opt for pets thought about or went through prior to making that decision? I personally dont care for children and cannot think of a universe in which I would want to be a parent - why would I want the stress and strain of coddling a child for two decades?

I am sympathetic to this view even if I think it understates the value pets may bring. I do agree that people, as they tend to do, push the limits on what is socially acceptable to some silly degree, but, I also accept, that as long they don't hurt anyone in the process, it might be ok.

The issue is.. pets are still pets. And to your point, unbehaved dog can be dangerous to its immediate surrounding. I won't go into details, but our dog is very protective of our kid, so there are places I will not take it ( or at least not without precautions ).. and this is what I see less and less: responsible behavior.

But I will say this, dog was a great training for a kid, when it came for us, because we saw some very similar issues repeat themselves.

The issue is what it has always been: people.

I avoided going into all the myriad of things that pets are good for because it’s not the point. I grew up with a small backyard graveyard of all the pets I’ve had over the years, some given some adopted some stray, so I’m very far from anti-pet.

What I’m really poking at here in the joke behind the rant sort of way is a suspicion, a conspiracy by nature to suppress our reproduction capabilities by slowly not only making us infertile in greater numbers, but steering us towards adopting pets instead of humans as a prank, to make us see the animals we are in an animal kingdom.

Interesting, I will admit that I missed that interpretation, but the coffee still didn't kick in yet. In that sense, it would be an interesting expansion on the jokes of Carlin ( how would planet deal with such unhealthy surface nuissance? ). I did internally chuckle so thank you for this morning smile.

Can you elaborate on how it "infantilizes the adult"?

That confused me a bit too, but what I suspect is that owning a pet is kind of like having a permanent baby, but without many of the real challenges a human child presents.

Your dog can be cute and child-like and playful for its entire life, but is also far more self-sufficient than a human child is in the first year or two of its life.

It’s kind of like you get to be a make-believe parent without any of the difficult parts.

>That confused me a bit too, but what I suspect is that owning a pet is kind of like having a permanent baby,

No, he's saying that having a puppy is something a child does, something that's normal for children. If you're doing things that only children should be doing, you are infantilizing yourself (changing your brain in ways that prevents you from growing up properly).

>If this is some cosmic-scale humor by nature

I would not blame nature for this. I'm not particularly conspiracy-minded (humans are generally too stupid for supervillain-style conspiracies), but people did this. The only question at all is whether they did it deliberately, or if it was accidental.

>then I’m afraid the joke is on us.

It's definitely on us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com