Oh man, my head hurts... [..] |
That may be a sign that you are confronting information, both logical and emotional, that you haven't processed in full yet. I believe the ideal thing to do in this situation is take it all in, research / discuss certain points, and not rush to judgment. Your initial emotional response might not be the wisest.
[...] you know that a person has no life when he comes up with some mindless [...] |
You are free to make whatever judgments you care to make, but it is factually inaccurate to say that this thread is mindless. It makes an unpopular argument and attempts to defend it through reason: psychological and economic theories that I believe are valid.
[...] rambling paranoid nonsense like the one posted here. |
Any paranoia and most flaws of clarity in my original post come from my decision to express it as a self-parody. The points it presents, while you may strongly disagree with them, are not nonsense.
[...] Those are some examples off the top of head in which pets help the economy. [...] |
Everything in the universe must be divided into two categories: economic actors and natural resources. The former, the only known example being human beings, own themselves on the basis of their capacity to reason. The latter, once utilized by an economic actor, become their property.
Yes, there are many examples of ways in which animals are a part of the economy - so are plants, minerals, and even empty space. I've brought up plenty of uses of animals that I said were rational, other examples could include canaries in coal mines, pigs that help mushroom farmers pick their crop, etc. In every single example you can come up with, the animals are natural resources put to a specific use by human beings, just like raw elements like metals can be used to make robots and other technical innovations that can do the same job better and more efficiently.
[...] Another way pets can help the economy is by helping their owners with their unconditional love. [...] |
You have as much right to say pet ownership is beneficial as I do to say that it is harmful, but your subjective opinion backed by nothing except an appeal to emotion. I try to base my arguments on economic facts.
Interaction with pets is a learned behavior - playing with wild animals in nature is a very bad idea. Human beings have to tame animals and become conditioned to the idea that they are tame. Not all human cultures keep pets, and some that don't find the idea very repugnant. The same companionship that you get from animals could come from other things that you neglect in their favor: children / human playmates, constructive hobbies, and technological advances. Those alternatives encourage demographic and economic growth, while emotional attachment to pets discourages it.
When I have a bad day and am tired of dealing with humans, I just kick back, turn on the tube and hang with my kitties. |
That is your subjective value that I do not share and am hereby criticizing. I understand the emotions you experience, and I've always loved animals myself, but I now believe that it is a moral flaw that human beings should strive to overcome. The emotions you feel toward your felines were intended by nature to go toward human beings: younger siblings, children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and so on.
Substituting animals results in smaller families and weaker family connections, which has many negative effects that I've already mentioned, and some that I didn't - like government growth. The fewer children you have, the more likely you are to be a socialist, trying to project your neglected parental instinct onto other people. Small families also make socialism appear more desirable economically, out of fear over who will take care of you when you're old. Your cats can't grow up, get jobs, buy large houses, and compete over who grandpa / grandpa is going to stay with, as in some large human families. That isn't to say that you should count on your children, but it does provide a "safety net" for many.
[...] Anyone that would choose a robot over a pet has got to have something wrong with him. |
The appeal of robotic pets cannot be judged at this time. I don't see why it would be impossible for them to reach a level where most people would be utterly incapable of telling robotic pets from live ones (without, um, opening them up, of course). This doesn't address the substantial psychological issues that I've mentioned, but at least robotic pets are cheaper to maintain - they don't eat, poop, get sick, or die. Or give government thugs the excuse to
invade / steal your property or even
throw you in prison!