when i was a kid, i spent several years of my life wanting nothing more than dog. then i spent a few more years wanting nothing more than a horse. my sister, shadi, and i were tireless advocates for our cause... we harassed our parents constantly, making all kinds of logical arguments, impassioned pleas, diatribes about what it is to be "american," and, perhaps most importantly, comparisons to other children with dogs of course, my parents never caved. they maintained that there was no need to have an animal, and that, if they got us one, we would get lazy and irresponsible and they would just end up having to take care of it. i think they were also, perhaps unconsciously, operating on the sensibilities of the culture they grew up in, which taught them that dogs are dirty. but that's another story. in any case, we weren't happy about their decision, and at the time, i felt quite oppressed and deprived.
in retrospect, i not only completely agree with them, i think i'm even more averse to domestic animals than they ever were. for one thing, they were absolutely right about kids getting lazy and not taking care of their pets--i can't even count how many kids i knew growing up who neglected their dogs. their parents would have to feed the animals, and no one would give them the exercise they needed. also, i've just concluded that having domesticated animals is, for the most part, quite ridiculous.
if you have a farm, and you need dogs to herd your sheep, then great--domesticate a dog. i think that has been a legitimate reason for a human to "own" a dog for centuries. but otherwise, i just can't understand why humans have tamed, bred, bought, and sold dogs and cats. to me, it seems not only cruel to them, but also wasteful for us as human beings.
living in new york, i constantly see people walking around with their dogs... dogs that live in tiny apartments, have nowhere to run around, and have to poop on the sidewalk and have their owners clean up after them or face a $300 fine. the very fact that they're living somewhere that requires their owners to clean up after them is, to me, testament to the fact that they're living somewhere that they shouldn't be living. dogs should be able to run free, and poop in a place where it doesn't matter and it all biodegrades. i suppose that having a dog in a large suburban backyard is less cruel, but still seems so unnatural.
the other day, i was listening to NPR (as usual), and i heard a discussion on brian lehrer about the recent pet food contamination that's been in the news. they had a few guests and callers who were outraged at the quality of pet food these days. one guest was expressing her indignation that pet foods today are made from "meat by-products," which are the dead or diseased parts of animals that we would never feed to humans. at that point, one of the guests, an experienced veterinarian, interjected, saying that dead and diseased animals are exactly what dogs and cats would feed on in the wild, and their digestive systems and immune systems are designed for that--we shouldn't even be trying to feed them food that's fit for humans.
another guest was talking about how she cooks especially for her dogs, and she can't believe that people feed their dogs regular pet food. at that point, the veterinarian also brought up another very good point: dogs will survive just fine on pet food, and perhaps the energy she spends cooking for her dogs could be spent preparing and delivering food to all the starving *human beings* in our society. of course, she was quite offended, and pointed out that there's more than enough of food in the world to feed all the human beings, but that that food is just poorly distributed. a fair point, of course, but maybe her time, energy, and money--and that of others who cook especially for their pets--could be spent distributing that food to humans who need it.
then a lady called in and started, "hi brian. i'm a cat therapist in new jersey." a cat therapist? i seriously busted out laughing. i thought doggy day care was bad. i thought pet resorts (that can run in the thousands of dollars) were really bad. but cat therapists? wow. just wow. what is wrong with people?
there was one guest on the show who was talking about how, in the past 10 years, there's been a noticeable trend towards americans conceiving of their pets not as "family pets," but as "members of the family." they think of their pets as their children, and treat them that way. i find this all really disturbing. in hearing this lady talk about this trend, i was reminded of a news piece i saw about the immediate aftermath of hurricane katrina. in the piece, there was an old woman who was rescued from her attic by a relief worker in a motorboat, but she absolutely refused to get into the boat until they agreed to allow her to bring her *15* cats onto the boat in cages. she finally sat on the boat, along with her several cages of cats. i couldn't help but wonder how many human beings could've been sitting where those cats were sitting.
for me, it just all keeps coming back to this simple fact: animals aren't humans. my faith teaches be to be kind and fair to animals, and i definitely think that lots of meat industries do disgusting and terrible things to animals that they shouldn't be doing. but my faith also teaches me that humans are unique among God's creation--we have the ability to know our Creator, and we are endowed with a rational faculty. to me, this makes sense. to me, humans are the priority. and when resources are scarce, we have to prioritize.
before we put cats in those seats on the rescue boat, we should make sure all the humans in new orleans have been rescued. before we make elaborate home-cooked meals for domesticated animals, we should make sure all humans have been fed. and before we spend our energy fighting for animal rights, we should make sure all humans have rights.
in this day and age, there are countless charities, countless causes, countless places to put our money. it's easy to get compassion fatigue--there's way too much in this world to be depressed about. it's easy to get overwhelmed--there's way too much to fix. and it's easy to get tired--there's way to much to put our energy into. that's why i think priorities are necessary.
i don't think it's fair to animals to make them our household possessions, our playthings, our replacements for human love and interaction. it's not natural or healthy for them. and it's not healthy for us as individuals--or as a human race.
i understand there are people who have sane and healthy relationships with their dogs and who give them plenty of space to run and play. but i still don't think maintaining animals as our domesticated pets is a good use of our time, money, and energy. i think we would all be better served if we spent our time and energy improving the plight of humanity. perhaps some day, when all humans have human rights, when all people have enough to eat, and when all societies enjoy social justice, we can cook for animals and give them psychotherapy. until then, there are people being tortured every day, there are people suffering from domestic and sexual violence every day, there are poeple starving every day... there is much to be done. and i just don't think making chicken parmesan for fido should be at the top of the to-do list.
Posted by naseem at April 9, 2007 02:29 PMOne thing is for sure: I love me a good Nas rant every now and then.
Okay, I agree with you. I would like to add that it's not so much an either/or thing (of course, because I know you didn't mean that), but I think it's just a question of focus: it's possible for a person to be focused on serving humanity and still provide a quality (but not luxurious/over-the-top) existence for their pet. It is possible to lead a very balanced life with a variety of elements, just as long as you keep your values at the base of every decision you make.
I was about to say that if people have their values/focus in check then the world wouldn't need cat therapists. But you know, people will always resist that because there are plenty of really good people out there who believe their animals have souls and spirits and need mental help and gourmet food like a human does. Their values actually include treating their cat/dog/bird like a human being and they might move "helping people" down on their list of goals below Fido. So maybe they are focused, I don't know.
Posted by: lacey at April 9, 2007 06:05 PMNas: Wow. Great blog. I haven't ever thought about pet ownership in the context you wrote about here. Very thought-provoking.
I grew up living in the country, and had a dog (Penny, and Irish Setter) who was an outside dog. She had acres and acres of land to run and play, and she was fed and cared for by my parents (mostly) and me. Sure, I played with her and loved her, but it wasn't all the time or even most of the time.
And since then, I've had several cats.
Your blog just made me think a lot about animal domestication. Thank you for that.
Crap... all this typing, and now I see that I'm late for my lizard's chiropractic appointment. See ya!
Posted by: Steve at April 9, 2007 11:14 PMThat's too bad...now I have to reconsider the pet ramp I was going to get you (http://www.discountramps.com/couch_pet_ramp.htm).
Pets definitely are a cultural and personal thing. On a different but possibly related topic, cats, dogs, and many other animals do have emotions; and often people who mistreat animals also mistreat people.
Posted by: Aaron at April 10, 2007 01:34 PMI grew up on a farm. I was surrounded by not just dogs and cats, but turtles, fish, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, ducks, you name it. Knowing and interacting with animals has contributed greatly to my compassion and to who I am. My salutatorian speech was about my dalmatian who died that same day. I love White Fang by Jack London.
All that being said: I agree with you. Do I have a dog now? No. A cat? No. Not even a goldfish? Sorry. Life is full of far too many things to spend time sustaining the life of a domestic animal. I understand the notion of pets. I know people will argue until they're blue in the face about the positive benefits of animal/human interaction. Heck, my parents have a dog, my sister and brother-in-law have two. I love interacting with them. But I also see how they intrude on the smooth functioning of my family members' lives.
I agree with the good aspects of domesticated animals. Consider the path society took through horses for travel and oxen for farming and cattle for meat and milk (indeed, recognize how much we still do that). Or look at the programs in hospitals that aid the healing of patients with room visits by cats and dogs. But why do it with animals instead of cheering the infirm with human interaction? Because people love the unconditional attention animals give, and project the idea of human love onto their behavior.
I agree with all your points, Nas, and I'll add one more to clarify: people don't realize how much having a pet controls their lives. I can't count the number of times I've seen people make enormous sacrifices in time and money just to care for their animals. Leaving work at lunch to feed the dog. Paying for doggie day care and the ensuing social interaction for their pets so that their normal human lifestyle, the 9-to-5 job, doesn't conflict with the animal's need for freedom and stimulation. Hauling their dogs with them everywhere they go in hairy and smelly cars, foisting them on others in public places. I know people who think twice about travel because they don't want to pay to board their dogs, or find someone to feed them.
Don't get me wrong. I adore, respect, and am kind to animals (that is, the ones I don't eat). But I've decided against owning a pet to avoid the unnecessary expense, stress, and hassle whose only reward is an approximation of the love I can share with my fellow humans.
Posted by: george at April 13, 2007 11:30 AMaaron, you are right that people who are mean to animals are often mean to humans. and those people have serious issues that need serious attention. i agree that it's very important to be kind and loving animals and, even more so, human beings. (and those pet ramps are freaking hilarious. i love that they cost $100 and they all say "HOT!" next to them).
and steve, i'm glad that this post made you think. the comments have actually got me thinking and i think they helped me sort out some of the issues here...
lace, i'm glad you like my rants. i like yours. :) i think the point you raise is the perpetual counter to this type of argument--namely, that it's not an either/or thing. unfortunately, i really really think it *is* an either/or thing. i think the premise that people like to operate on, and this was raised by one of the pet-obsessed guests on the radio show i was talking about, is that you can cook for your dog AND fight starvation/oppression/genocide. i truly don't think you can. this goes to my point about limited time and energy and resources, and the need to prioritize. i think that is one issue.
a separate issue is the one that i touched on and that george put his finger on exactly: animals are not humans and relationships with animals should not be used as surrogates for human relationships. when they are misused that way, you see people treating their animals like their children and letting their animals control their lives. this is unhealthy for the animals, and extremely unhealthy for us as humans.
yet another separate issue is this: fawning over your domesticated animal and advocating for animals' rights are also completely different things. even if it wasn't an either/or thing, i don't think that fawning over your pet amounts to advocating for animals' rights (which you could theoretically do in addition to advocating for humans' rights). advocating for animals' rights is a different thing, and i also think that most of the forms it takes are incompatible with advocating for humans' rights.
and truthfully, i don't understand most animals' rights advocates. the point you raised, lace, is quite possibly the heart of the animal rights' issue: some people believe that animals have souls. if that's the case, then their fundamental beliefs and mine are so different that we can't even have a real dialogue about this. of course, most people who say that animals have souls can't offer a logical explanation of thier belief system--when questioned, their logic usually breaks down when it comes to smaller animals, insects, bacteria, viruses, and other micro-organisms that our immune systems kill every day in an effort stay alive. mostly, it just seems like they invent their own arbitrary hierarchies where dogs, dolphins, and other cute animals are privileged and should be protected.
even if animals have souls and are thus entitled to the same rights as humans, i cannot understand the efforts of some animals' rights activists, like PETA, as they promote "animals' rights" at the expense of humans. for instance, these horrifying PETA adds sexualize, parade, and objectify women, supposedly in an effort to protect the rights of animals. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/28/those-maligned-peta-ads/
even if animals and humans both have souls, why would you promote the rights of animals at the expense of humans? it just seems so ridiculous and hypocritical. it seems even more ridiculous in the context of my belief system, which tells me that animals don't have souls.
i think i see cooking for your pets/taking them to therapy and putting women in cages to "advocate for animals' rights" as two different facets of a very strange and disturbing phenomenon that has afflicted our society, its relationship with animals, and its priorities in this modern world. and truly, i think that if we want to see humanity progress, this phenomenon needs to be addressed and remedied--very soon.
Posted by: nas at April 13, 2007 03:45 PMI hate PETA.
Posted by: Aaron at April 13, 2007 05:51 PMNot only does your post make it painfully obvious you've never had a pet (as you readily admit), but you commit one of the most annoying fallacies. It's the "how dare you spend your time on one injustice when there are more serious injustices out there!" fallacy. Are you now going to go after the anti-litter crowd cuz they should be fighting child porn instead? Or maybe to hit a bit closer to home, does it really make sense to spend time fostering a discrimination-free and racially sensitive atmosphere amongst relatively privileged law school students when CHILDREN ARE DYING IN AFRICA!! C'mon Naseem, where are your priorities?
Posted by: Jamie at April 15, 2007 02:57 PMhi jamie,
i'm not sure who you are or how you found my blog. i'm also not sure if your comment is meant to be playful or hurtful.
i hope it's the former, because if it's the latter, then it's yet another of the perpetual reminders that maybe i shouldn't have a blog... because i try to raise issues that i think are important in a constructive and respectful way and have discussions about them with my friends, but, inevitably, people (who are not forced to read my posts, but instead choose to come to my blog of their own volition) like to come along and say negative things to me or about me. and often, as with your comment, they're not just respectful disagreements with a point of view--they're personal attacks, and they're really uncalled for. it's really getting old and i don't know much more of it i'd like to endure.
in any case, your point about priorities is definitely a global one and can be applied to many different choices and activities. and of course people have different priorities. and yes, there are children starving in africa--i hope that a career in human rights will someday give me an opportunity to advocate on their behalf. i also hope that my efforts to help people at my school become more sensitive to and aware of diversity issues will someday lead to them help starving children in africa and also advocate for other important human rights causes.
my point was just that i think a broad differentiation can be made between energy spent on humans and energy spent on animals, and in my mind, it makes much more sense to spend energy on humans at this point in our history.
that's just my view on an issue. there's really no need to be rude about it. and if issues become so upsetting to you that you feel like attacking someone or saying negative things about them personally, maybe you should go elsewhere on the web, like political blogs that are meant for public consumption and heated debate, and be rude there. i'm sure it will be much more welcome and appreciated... because, truly, i'm just tired of it here.
Posted by: nas at April 15, 2007 05:05 PMNas...I am so glad to have graduated...people in the real world don't often attack each other because it seems fun and they are bored because their constitutional law exam isn't for another 6 weeks. I found that some law students, having just gained "intellectual prowess" and "confidence," can't wait to try their luck on other students. But unfortunately, although they won’t needlessly bother you again after graduation, they usually turn out to be the ones who give our profession a bad name.
I'm glad you made it to the 3rd round--congrats!
okay, technically our dog Siah belonged to my uncle, but she lived with us for 2 years, and I fed her and walked her and played with her and loved her. And although Nas was a toddler, she played with her and loved her, too. So Nas did have a pet, though she doesn't remember much of that, I'm sure. She was an outside dog and a terrific one. In fact, the reason I have never wanted another one (besides the life domination issues George mentioned) is that I've never met her intellectual and emotional equal in any other animal, before or since. Maybe everyone feels that way about their pet. But Nas, your points are all true, and I would add the further caveat of increased risk of various skin, blood and gut parasites in people who have close contact with animals (just from the medical perspective)
Posted by: atoosa at April 22, 2007 02:18 AMyes, cat therapists and dog bakeries and pet spas are ridiculous and they make me cringe.
but in happier news, i just wanted you to know i found a guy i knew casually at wes is a baha'i and he's involved in the middletown community, and hopefully i'll end up going to their feast on friday night and meeting other baha'is (all like 8 of them, lol), including two professors. i'm so excited and glad - we ran into each other at an interfaith banquet and my friend charlene introduced us because brett's also a baha'i, and so yeah, i'm happy :) hopefully even though there's only about a month of school left i can begin to get into being a part of the community in mtown and finally start making some more active progress on my spiritual development :)
just dropping in to share the good news - hope everything is well with you/greg :)
much love, maya
Posted by: maya at April 22, 2007 11:34 PMBut what about guide dogs? :-)
P.S. Could you please change the line spacing in your template? I have my fonts enlarged and for some reason all the text lines in your blog are overlapping each other.
Have a serviceful day!! Ooh, I just came up with that word... :-)
Posted by: Tom at April 24, 2007 01:53 AMActivists in Austria are trying to get a chimpanzee legally declared a person, so that he can acquire property: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OTLSUG0&show_article=1
Posted by: Aaron at May 5, 2007 04:32 PMI mentioned this post of yours on two photos that I just uploaded to flickr. Hope that's okay! :-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frackers23/516520375/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frackers23/516494794/
Posted by: Heather at May 27, 2007 04:31 PMi don't have much to say about domesticated animals except that i can see why people feel such affection for them, but it doesn't justify putting their lives above that of humans. as much as people who are mean to animals are likely to mean to people... i think just as many people who are loving to animals can be mean to other people.
but anyway, i'm really commenting because, i
just thought of another issue related to city dogs not having access to open, grassy areas where they can poop... it has to do with the health of large cities. now before i go any further, i should say, i love large cities and immediately start to feel suffocated when i even see pictures of medium sized cities. large cities stimulate me in a way that drives my spiritual and creative endeavors. whereas suburbs and small towns stimulate me to watch more decorating shows on cable.
that being said, when you mentioned dogs in new york, i immediately pictured dogs in chicago doing the same thing. and then i pictured this exhibit at the garfield park conservatory in chicago, which is an entire room designed to emulate the terrain of chicago pre-settlement. according to this landscape architect -- and one can belief her based on how humid summers are here -- chicago was once covered in moss and ferns and trickles of water ran through the green terrain. driving through the muggy streets this morning i found myself yearning for all the concrete around me to become green like that.
i don't have an argument here... just that i kind of wish chicago and other big cities were places where dogs could still run around and poop and what not. because, as much as cities are bringing together people from all over the world, i kind of wish i could experience that in a more natural environment.
Posted by: kari at June 1, 2007 06:14 PMI apologize, but this inspired me to write in broad brushstrokes about all sorts of related thougts regarding this subject.
I'm a vegan, but while I do love animals... My primary influence for choosing this lifestyle is for health reasons, and not ethical not killing animal reasons, but for the most part though I do not wish to kill another being with a heartbeat.
I found recently that I have the ability to contradict that principle if I feel threatened in some way by an animal. If I am threatened to some degree by one I will kill it if I deem that necessary. Recently I killed rats that were destroying my garden every night. I think Rats are cute too, but their death was the only way I could guarantee that all my work wouldn't be in vain. I placed my many hours of work, funds in preparing the garden, and my own personal comfort as a priority over the rat's life.
I do feel that a human should be prioritized over an animal. I feel that it is instinctual and part of our nature to act in this way, and that people who are placing animals above humans often are misplacing their normal healthy human affections onto animals. I know many people like this. Often they have antisocial behavior and don't generally get along with other people. Animals provide them with the physical connnection to other beings that they lack due to social awkwardness or even personality disorders. I do feel that there is nothing wrong with having animal companionship as long as there is a healthy understanding of that relationship.
Abdu'l-Baha encouraged parents to have pets so their children would learn compassion and kindness to animals. We live in a townhome, and it is much larger than a lot of apartments that people have dogs and cats in and I still feel uncomfortable having a dog in our place (even a small one) I'm sure we'll have one when we have kids at some point.
I do feel guilty for breaking one of my own principles(not killing) when I killed those rats... Or when in the past I've slipped into eating meat purly for my own convenience.. But I think often situations test us and we find where our true lines are, and I learned something about myself in the process. I am no different or better than a meat eater, I just have different lines at which I am willing to cross before I kill another animal. I don't judge people for making different decisions than my own.. Usually I only get irritated when people hurt me, themselves or other people.. not to say animal cruelty doesn't bother me. I don't support all of the things PETA does, but I do think some of what they do is good and feel there is a place for a lot of their work.
It is true what you mentioned as well. We draw the line somewhere. Our metabolism and immune system constantly kill parasites and all sorts of single and multicellular organisms. Just be existing, breathing, walking, sitting. our body is killing all sorts of mites, insects and other things constantly. Modern society and the luxuries we all partake of destroys all sorts of habitats and kills millions of animals.
On an individual level. Everyone makes a conscious decision about how much value they place on a lifeform lower than themselves. And everyone has their own heiarchy. For one person that heirchy could be intelligence or human like appearance. For another it is cutsy or cudldly-wuddly-ness.
even amongst humans... you have the castes, the social heirchys the facists who, value only their own "order" of humanity... All based on someone's definition of value. Based upon someone's definition of humanity that doesn't include the poor, the handicapped, the desparate, the uneducated.
In science fiction we fear contact with superior beings based on good reasoning.. ie that we don't encounter a much higher order of alien that treats us with the same neglect or dispassion that we treat to those lower lifeforms below us.
Like I said.. we all have that line... that heirarchy Mine is this. I will not try to harm anything unless it harms me in some way, or impedes on my goals in life, such as health, my mental well being, cleanliness, and eating food I raise myself I consider part of that.
Pests such as bugs and such imped upon that.. That is how I justify my earlier actions even though I don't like the fact that I did. If it is not difficult I will let a harmless bug outside before squashing it, but if I know the bug will overgrow my home like roaches, or eat my food like ants, mice and rats I will kill it.
Nas, you made a very good point about where the ethical line is... if it is based upon having an immortal soul.. where would that end.. would a yah, have an immortal soul but bee's not?
As a vegan I'm often examining that line. I don't care about bees or bugs as much as animals fish and birds. They aren't as closely related to me. This is my personal distinction. In fact many primates consist on bugs as well as vegetation. I imagine this is where some of our b vitamins could have originally come from in a natural human diet.
I feel that humans are unique in being able to know and worship God. No other species has yet come to the point where it can. Perhaps someday another primate will.
Perhaps someday we will have spiritual machines, but that is the criteria for a soul according to the Baha'i Faith. So we all are immortal in essence. Immortal... Our souls will continue on through all the worlds of God.. That makes us very special... but by some form of logic you could say that the very fact that an animal has such a brief existence, and that it doesn't necessarily receive either divine justice or mercy.. That it is our duty to make sure they have minimal suffering on this earth. I just want to offer tha opinion.
Humans have language and can speak out for ourselves and voice our opinions. Now, the faith teaches us in principal to stand up for animal's rights because while we have a voice, they do not. Abdu'l-Baha confirmed the that eating animals was somewhat contrary to the Baha'i principle of kindness to animals, and indicated it would be better to become a vegetarian, but not required, but that someday our conciousness would allow it as at a societal level and that most people would eat a plant based diet.
I feel that in the Baha'i model of progressive revelation this makes sense. Abdu'l-Baha introduced this principal as a best case scenario, but it is not on the plate of prioritized tasks that Baha'is need to focus the majority of their energy on.
Something tells me that in the scheme of things, that once we end cruelty to humans, cruelty to animals will go away as well. The two are intricately linked. This is how progressive revelation works though logically.
Moses brought the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill"
Jesus further indicated that we shouldn't even think of it, or hate at all for that matter.
Once we work out a just society for man where people make compassional decisions about all of their fellow men.
the next obvious step is to make sure the animals are taken care of. It's just a matter of prioritizing the work that needs to be done on this earth since our lives are so short and so much needs to be done.
Obviously though, if someone during Moses' time should decide not to hate, or even think about killing.. They are doing a great and noble thing, and no one should be critical of them jumping the gun..
In the same manner, should somone wish to be kind to animals we should't be critical of their love. Everyone's love is their own to give. God has unlimited rein over all things, but he has restricted interfering with the human heart. Perhaps, We humans should take note of that and respect that.
Posted by: mykgerard at June 5, 2007 03:16 AMI found my way here from andrew's journal.
This may not be directly relevant to your post, but I recently discovered that Abdu'l-Baha had a cat in the household. He also continued to care for both his donkeys, despite one being particularly stubborn and slow. There are at least a couple of funny stories He's told of His donkeys.
And that Ruhiyyih Khanum had a pet snake.
I found these little details out when I once thought along the similar veins as you did, about the unnecessary care of pets. Turns out that our Perfect Exemplar had them, and many people actually are happier with pets in their lives. Personally I think having a cat and several dogs in my life have helped me understand various spiritual verities, after all nature is the manifestation of God's will and we're told that every created thing is analogous to some spiritual attribute.