Essays, Analyses and Meditations

Back to my essays | Back to the Philosophy pages | Author

The Society of Pets

  • Having "pets" means taming and domesticating animals so that they will need to be assisted throughout the rest of their lives because they would not survive in the unnatural environment where we are forcing them to live.
  • "Pets" then become dependent on their owner's willingness to feed them and treat them decently.
  • I am generally opposed to pets because we force them to live a life that goes counter to their nature and presumably causes them a "psychological" trauma that i do not wish someone would do to me. I'd rather die than being kept as a pet for my entire life.
  • However, i wonder if it is only animals that we keep as pets. Aren't children "trained" (just like we trains pets) when they are given a strict schedule of activities (that mostly go counter to the human nature)? Don't we force humans throughout their lives to live in an unnatural way? We don't walk: we drive cars. We eat supermarket food, not vegetables. We watch television not starry skies. We read books instead of following animal tracks in the forest. We are limited at what age we can have sex and with whom. That we destroy our environment might be in our genes (we are not the only animal to do it) but that we destroy our environment to build factories, roads and shopping malls is beginning to look unnatural.
  • In fact, most of us did not choose this artificial world of factories, roads and shopping malls: we were thrown into it and told that these are the rules; which is precisely what pet owners do to their pets.
  • The rules were made by some other humans whom too were thrown into it.
  • Humans treat younger generations of humans like pets who need to be tamed, domesticated, and then assisted throughout their lives because they would not survive in the unnatural environment where we force them to live.