10 ms·

The child-like role of dogs in Western societies

77 points by IndrekR 1y ago

donnachangstein 1y ago
[flagged]
- Hrun0 1y ago
  > Don't think scare quotes are appropriate here. Pits are problem dogs; they are the violent schizophrenics of the dog world. I don't think so.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  No breed of dog is a "violent schizophrenic." Poorly-raised dogs of any breed are dangerous. The problem is bad humans, not bad dogs.
- xattt 1y ago
  It’s hard to engage in rational good-faith discussion about problem dog breeds because most folks have already made up their mind, and there’s no changing it. The chances of someone surrendering their dog to which they are bonded after reading a comment is unlikely. The chances of someone with the opposite opinion adopting a pitbull are similar.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  There are over 200 breeds of dog, it doesn't really track that only 2-3 breeds would be significantly more violent than the others. We don't have enough data to be conclusive one way or the other, but if you look at the occurrence of strays and breed ownership by socioeconomic status, pit bull breeds are also very high on these lists. This tracks with human data to some extent: people from lower socioeconomic groups are more often perpetrators and victims of violence. Looking at breed specific violence and coming to a conclusion about temperament is very similar to looking at race specific graduation rates and coming to a conclusion about intelligence.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
    While I don’t think the dogs are at fault, I’m not sure your argument follows. Why can’t we breed aggression in only a small number of breeds? We don’t breed short legs into all the breeds.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      asked in another way: where are all the aggressive offshoot breeds from pitbulls? there are a wide variety of short-legged dog breeds; corgis, dachsunds, basset hounds, scotties, bulldogs... there's an enormous variety there... yet we're to expect that aggressive dogs are limited to a very specific appearance (seriously, an order of magnitude higher than almost all other breeds)? the data absolutely stinks there are multiple other factors (social, socioeconomic) that are a better predictor of behaviors that can also be applied to humans
  - D13Fd 1y ago
    > There are over 200 breeds of dog, it doesn't really track that only 2-3 breeds would be significantly more violent than the others. Why not? There are breeds that are taller or shorter, high-energy or low-energy, great hunters or awful hunters, and so on. And it’s not a mystery why some breeds got this way: they were specifically bred for it.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      > There are breeds that are taller or shorter, high-energy or low-energy, great hunters or awful hunters, and so on there are dozens of breeds in each of these categories — we don't have a single breed of dog that's 5x faster than all the others
  - recursivedoubts 1y ago
    There are relatively few fatal dog maulings, but when there is one it's usually a pit or a rot: https://www.statista.com/chart/15446/breeds-of-dog-involved-in-fatal-attacks-on-humans-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15446/breeds-of-dog-involved-... I think you should have to be able to deadlift 350 lbs to own either.
- m_v_c 1y ago
  You writing "one of these land sharks" here shows nothing but your ignorance, to both pit bulls and sharks, as both of these animals don't have any kind of natural aggression towards humans. Sure, both are powerful and CAN hurt you (perhaps more than other animals), but are certainly not short-wired to bite you. But especially in the case of domesticated dogs, the problem are NOT the pits themselves, but the conditions in which they were raised.
- recursivedoubts 1y ago
  Anyone owning a pit who isn't both strong & physically large is putting other people and animals at risk. I have met many, many sweet pits, but all dogs can lose it and if a pit goes many of the pit owners I've seen couldn't do a damned thing about it: they are incredibly powerful animals. To be honest I think that's what attracts many inappropriate owners to them. Two pit stories: I saw a fat guy walking a relatively small pit and took my dogs off to the side, about 20 feet away to let them pass. The pit pulled out of his (inappropriately fastened) muzzle backwards (they are smart dogs) and took a dead no-bark run at my terrier. I had my 35 lb terrier in the air and kicked that dog as hard as I could in the side to get the situation under control. Our neighbor had a BIG pit named Thor (big guy, he could control the dog, but kept him leashed out front.). Thor got off leash once and came over and messed w/our goats. We had one goat (the smallest) who we kept horns on and Thor found out the hard way that that goat wasn't going down w/o a fight. Thor survived but didn't mess w/the goats any more after that. Again, I like most of the pits I've met, but I see a lot of irresponsible owners.
- ivraatiems 1y ago
  The person you replied to: "I'm trying to help animals in need!" You: "How dare you do this well intentioned, possibly dangerous thing?! Also, let me insult the animals you love!" What is even a little bit constructive about your post? If you want the parent to change why would you write like this?
- dang 1y ago
  Whoa, please don't get aggressive on HN. Regardless of how much of a problem certain dogs are or you feel they are, it is not ok to post like that. Edit Unfortunately, your account has been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. (We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225114.)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - donnachangstein 1y ago
    FWIW I wrote that post with no aggression intended. I suspect you may be overanalyzing things. Have a Coke and a smile, Dan. Unfortunately, if my manner of speaking directly is breaking the site guidelines, then I'm afraid my values are incompatible with posting here. I hope you didn't expend too much energy digging through my post history looking for transgressions. Though I do think it's funny the post that got me yelled at was the post insulting pit bulls. Remember to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many of my posts were highly upvoted. I bid you good day.
    - dang 1y ago
      I believe you about your intent, but intent doesn't communicate itself—particularly not in tiny textblobs where tone of voice, body language, and so on, aren't available. Intent has to be supplied along with your message in a way that people can perceive, and the burden is on you (i.e. the commenter) to disambiguate it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... People's posts often generate effects that they didn't have in mind when they were posting. For the health of an internet forum, effects (which are observable) matter more than intent (which is not). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The language you used in the last sentence of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225270 was so garish, violent, and personal that it counts as aggressive, whether you were feeling aggressive or not when you posted it. That was way beyond just "speaking directly". It's common (in fact we all do it) to underestimate the provocation level in one's own posts and overestimate it in others'. That leads to quite a skew in perception. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%2210x%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (Btw, I apologize for linking so much to lists of my own past comments. It's annoying and embarrassing. But it's the only efficient way I know of to provide additional explanation, and additional explanation is often necessary.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dtagames 1y ago
This a terrific deep-dive into pet parenting and its rewards, motivations, and risks for both the human and the dog. As a lifelong rescuer of pit bulls and other "problem" dogs, I can see how that role I've picked for myself aligns and contrasts with how others view human-dog relationships.
renewiltord 1y ago
A recent car crash in San Francisco killed a man and his dog and many people on Reddit reacted with a comment like “Nooo! Not the dog!” I thought that was ridiculous because these are just animals. It sucks when they die but it’s not the end of the world. Another car nearby killed a little child and her father and that one was much more horrific to me. But now it makes sense: to these people the two incidents were equivalent. I suppose that is normal, what with all the stories of animals caring for the young of other animals. Neotenic characteristics seem to have cross-species impact. Very cool. Thank you for sharing this.
- bitwize 1y ago
  When tragedy befalls an animal, we tend to be more upset about it because animals are innocent. They're not aware like we are and can't make better choices when we can, so when they get caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's somehow sadder to a stranger than if it were an adult human. You see this in cinema. We're relieved that the cat survives in Alien, even though we just watched several humans die horribly. And we kind of feel like John Wick's Roaring Rampage of Revenge is justified after the Russian mafia kills his dog.
  - whycome 1y ago
    > When tragedy befalls an animal, we tend to be more upset about it because animals are innocent. This never gets reconciled with the reality of factory farms and mass meat production. It’s certainly a type of cognitive dissonance. In a hundred years we might look back on the now with horror (more generalized anyway).
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      Because most people don't keep cows, pigs, and chickens as pets. People who grow up even on small, non-factory farms see these animals as products for sale or economic assets, not companions. And even the dogs and cats are likely to be utilized for work as much as companionship.
    - umeshunni 1y ago
absurdo 1y ago
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.
- creata 1y ago
  Can you elaborate on how it "infantilizes the adult"?
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    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.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >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).
- nkrisc 1y ago
  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.
bloomingeek 1y ago
My spin, dogs, as an example pet, are a good way to practice empathy. It doesn't always translate, but if you can be loving and empathetic to a dog, you can surely began to be that way to humans. we have a good relationship with the children we raised, along with their children. Our dog, however, is always with us and it just feels good to watch after her. We don't consider her a child, just a very good, non-verbal friend.
- netdevphoenix 1y ago
  I would not necessarily call that friendship as your dog depends on you for its survival and is at your mercy. You are the one who defines the terms of the relationship. A friendship involves two individuals who are equally empowered to develop the friendship. A dog-human bond not so much. My two cents
  - stormfather 1y ago
    Idk, my dad was my best friend growing up and I never fed him.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      yeah but your dad wouldn't die as a result
      - stormfather 1y ago
        No, I (the child) am the dog that would die if it weren't fed in this situation. Sorry that was confusing.
    - munificent 1y ago
      Your dad may have been your best friend, but that doesn't mean you were your dad's best friend. The parent-child relationship is asymmetric in ways that are often not as visible to the child as they are a parent. There's a reason why for generations, parents have been responding to their childrens' arguments with "when you're a parent, you'll understand".
donnachangstein 1y ago
People bringing their pet dogs into grocery stores is an especially egregious societal ill. It's a major problem in places like Seattle where dogs outnumber children. I once watched a woman hold her little dog over the glass at the pizza bar in Whole Foods. Was waiting for the dog to drop a free sausage link onto the pizza below. Placing dogs into shopping carts is another one. Dogs rub their dirty buttholes on the same surfaces where you later place your fruits and vegetables.
- MisterTea 1y ago
  I too dislike extreme dog people - the kind of people who treat them as a human equal. I grew up with dogs and cats, nowadays just two cats, after they go, no more pets for me. I deeply love my animals and they make great companions. But make no mistake, they're still animals and are not predictable. I would never bring a dog with me outside to do anything other than go for a walk, always on a leash. They really dont belong in public spaces. I've seen and heard too many stories of dogs suddenly not being the perfect precious animal their owner claims and it bites or attacks another animal or person. Then when they do the owners insist the victim must have done something wrong and take zero responsibility.
  - munificent 1y ago
    > the kind of people who treat them as a human equal. No, they treat them as better than people. Because in their value system, animals are moral objects but not moral subjects. By that, I mean that actions done to animals can have moral weight. If you take a sick kitten and nurse it back to health, you are a good person. If you kick a puppy, you are a bad person. But the animal itself (according to this culture) carries no moral responsibility. If a dog bites someone, it's not an evil dog. It's not the dog's fault. It was just raised poorly, or traumatized as a puppy, or the owner should have kept it leashed better, etc. Thus animals are always morally pure, but people can be bad people. I kind of get where the value system is coming from: animals really are on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to power and agency, so it does make sense to think of them as mostly receivers of moral actions. But some people take that really far.
eagerpace 1y ago
Dating later in life with children and this is something I don’t need research to tell me. If you’re in your 30s-40s without kids and a dog, we’re of totally different mindsets.
- tacocataco 1y ago
  > If you’re in your 30s-40s without kids and a dog, we’re of totally different mindsets. I'm broke. As much as it pains me to be without a pet, I dont want to take on additional responsibilities if I am incapable of sufficiently giving the care these living beings need and deserve. I've considered fostering, as they pay for many things the animals need. Perhaps in the future.
- eagerpace 1y ago
  Getting upvoted first then downvoted on this proves the point.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
From a biological perspective dogs are parasites. They are hijacking our biological maternal instincts and replacing children. They drain resources and get free care while offering no benefit other than satisfying maternal urges which were designed to work on human babies. Puppies are 100 percent part of the reason for the westernized world’s population problem.
- Arainach 1y ago
  >Puppies are 100 percent part of the reason for the westernized world’s population problem. I know dozens of couples who were pairs of high earners but one quit their job to stay at home with their child because it was cheaper than paying for child care, but sure, tell yourself it's the dogs.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Don’t be biased because you love dogs. Face the truth. The economy IS a factor. But sinking resources into a dog that offers no evolutionary or biological benefit IS ALSO a factor. There is no other way to look at this. You are committing an act of irrationality if you refuse to see dogs from a biological perspective. Porn sits in the same area. Hijacking biological instincts to prevent reproduction. We are looking at multiple causal sources that prevent us from having more children. In the same way men use porn to assuage our sexual urges, many women use dogs to help assuage their maternal instincts. Don’t let your emotions cloud your logic. This article did not deserve to get flagged simply for offering their own perspective.
    - Arainach 1y ago
      Dogs have nothing to do with it. People are choosing not to have kids, especially in America, because they can barely pay for rent, food, and (if they're fortunate) healthcare for themselves. Going out to eat is a luxury that even software engineers earning 6 figures are having to reevaluate with prices to say nothing of other entertainment. Third places and opportunities to meet people are greatly reduced because everything's taken over by venture capital chains and so expensive, and even if you meet someone the odds of the two of you making enough money to afford to raise a child is low. If you have that money, you're probably educated enough to see that life for your child will be significantly worse than life for you right now - the rise of authoritarianism, climate change, the active ongoing destruction of American economic power and soft political power, the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, disinformation causing massive chunks of the country to oppose science, education, and other things, discrimination based on gender and race....we're in for some very hard times and it takes a certain mindset to decide that you want to subject a child you love to all of it. It's not the dogs.
jmyeet 1y ago
I'm really starting to believe that capitalism as a Great Filter is the solution to the Fremi Paradox. Declining birth rates are clearly a response to the deterioating economic conditions of most people. Stagnant real wages, skyrocketing costs, ever-more inaccessible housing and so on. Housing debt, student debt, medical debt. The cost of childcare can reach $3000/month per child. If you want your child to have the best opportunities, it may well cost $1 million or more between all those costs to raise a child. At a time when people can barely provide for themselves. Of course pets are surrogate children for some people. And even that's being ruined by capitalism as private equity moves into the vet space to squeeze every last dollar from people. Another aspect to this is social control. One reason Western societies have been relatively stable is the method of control is treats, basically. Social media, pets, smartphones, etc all mollify the masses. In more totalitarian societies, the threat of violence is a more typical method of control. Think of something like the Stasi in East Germany. The profit motive is destroying the treats. If you're on the verge of homelessness and can barely feed yourself, skyrocketing costs of pet ownership are a real issue. We're rapidly approaching a point where people think they'll never be able to retire and really have nothing to live for. Rather than the ultra-wealthy being slightly less wealthy so the rest of society, which is necessary for their wealth to exist, can have something good in their lives, we're instead becoming increasingly oppressive. Over-policing, militarizing police, crushing protests (as per this last weekend in LA), etc. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. And to think, all a lot of people need to be happy is a roof over their head, not having to have 3 jobs and being able to have a dog.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Your newsletter. I needs it.
tsoukase 1y ago
I had a dog for decades (not the same). The trend of dog craziness of some people in the last 5-10 years belongs to a specific psychiatric situation (depression, personality disorder, OCD?). On the other side many, mostly childless, women feel some kind of loneliness and adopt a dog. The dynamics of pet love has many paths.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >On the other side many, mostly childless, women feel some kind of loneliness and adopt a dog. Back in "the day" these people would get into crappy marriages and pop out a few kids before ultimately getting divorced or just be single moms. While it's nice that they're not doing that I think the more interesting angle is the picture of how the economic reality has changed over the generations.
guntars 1y ago
I can now see why the story was flagged. Based on the discussion, this is not a good look for the HN community.
munificent 1y ago
I live in Seattle where the local highly progressive animal-centric culture is probably the vanguard of what this article is talking about. I think about it all the time. I believe there are a few things leading many people to choose pets instead of children to fulfill their desire to nurture: 1. The trauma theory of psychology. Pop psychology today seems to assume that babies are born perfectly mentally healthy, except for any genetic mental illnesses they inherited from their parents. Then at some point, if they're unlucky, they experience some sort of trauma, often at the hands of their parents. That trauma inflicts a mental illness on them. They can treat it with therapy and/or meds, but the assumption is that the illness is irrevocable. (Don't believe me? The next time you're talking to a friend and they bring up therapy or mental health medication, ask them when they think they'll be cured and can stop.) The implication here is that as a parent, you've got basically nowhere to go but down with regards to your kid's mental health. If you are yourself perfectly mentally healthy and pass on no predispositions to your kid, and you parent them flawlessly 24/7 for eighteen years and dodge every possible trauma, then congrats you didn't fuck them up. Anything less than that and you're a bad parent. Which leads to... 2. Impossible parenting standards. Media is constantly filled with all of the various ways a parent can do a bad job. Start the car moving down the driveway before they have their seatbelt on? Bad parent. Let them walk to the park on their own and risk being abducted? Bad parent. Give them access to junk food? Bad parent. Don't put them in enough extracurricular activities to pad their college application letter a decade from now? Bad parent. Too many extracurricular activities so they don't have enough free time in which to learn initiative? Bad parent. It is unending and demoralizing the ways in which parents are made to constantly feel they are inadequate. When I was a kid, if another kid fell playing and broke their arm, it was just "OK, kids get hurt." Today, it's "Why did you let them do that?" Parents have never spent more time with their children than they do today, but our culture still tells us it's not enough. Or, if it does, they tell us it's too much. Mix that with the previous point, and having a kid with any mental health challenges is not just a tragedy but your fault as a parent. 3. Long-term pessimism. I know many people who truly do believe the world is fucked because of climate change and politics. Not only do they not believe any potential children of theirs would be raised in a world worse than they one they grew up in, they don't even have faith that world will be functionally habitable at all. Best case, they believe their children may thrive only because they happen to be born into privilege while other children in poorer locations will suffer catastrophically from climate change. So the best outcome they can imagine is a profound failing of moral justice. Meanwhile, consider pets: 1. Rescued from trauma. Most pet owners get their pets from shelters. The animal may actually have had trauma before being adopted, but the owner wasn't morally responsible. Instead, they are the rescuer that saved the animal from further trauma. If the animal bounces back and has great behavior, then it's a testament to the amazing resilence of animals and the benefits of compassionate ownership. If the animal always has behavioral issues, well it's not their fault they were traumatized and what a good owner they have to take care of them in spite of those challenges. 2. High but meetable standards Standards for pet ownership are certainly high here too. Long gone are the days of putting the dog in a doghouse in the backyard and giving them a scoop out of the giant cheap bag of Alpo every day. Pets are expected to be fed healthy food, kept inside and safe, given good vet care, and lots of interaction and enrichment. Those standards are high but attainable. You can just do those things and feel like a good pet owner. And the pet will certainly make you feel like a good pet owner. Their expectations are low and it's easy to exceed them. 3. Shorter life span If you believe the world is doomed, then a living being that will never outlive you and have to figure out how to make its without your support is a blessing. You don't have to feel guilty about the fact that in a thousand tiny ways, you contributed to climate change that will end up harming a loved one decades from now.
esseph 1y ago
I am so tired of seeing the most interesting or actually life impacting subjects getting flagged. You know what we all need? Another article about LLMs.
- johnea 1y ago
  I agree. I think we need an "unflag" link, to allow "do not flag" opinions to also be expressed.
johnea 1y ago
The most amazing thing to me, is how human pet "parents" ignore the fact that the dog has an actual parent, and the puppy is stolen off of it's actual mother's suckling tit, and handed to a human while it's still an infant, so that it bonds with the human, not it's actual mother. As in many things, most people are willing to ignore any aspect that is not what's in their face, and appealing to them. There are many other aspects to the thoughtless use of other animals to assuage a human's mental illness. One of the main ones is projection: the animal can't speak, or otherwise precisely express themselves. Into this silence, the human is able to inject whatever narrative they desire. This leads to people claiming that the animal is much more responsive to their needs, and provides greater solace than another human. This solace is purely in the mind of the beholder. No one knows what the dog is thinking, therefore it's thinking exactly what we want it to think. Another aspect of the entire pet issue, that I haven't seen otherwise mentioned in the comments, is the disruption to the public peace caused by many dogs. I have seen a couple of comments about dog shit, which is a major problem, but noise is also a significant issue. Both of these are primarily the fault of negligent owners, which are the overwhelming majority of modern US pet owners.
- ivraatiems 1y ago
  I think a lot of people, myself included, are acutely aware of this... which is why I adopted an adult rescue, not a puppy. Not everyone does it that way.
  - johnea 1y ago
    Every dog was a kidnapped puppy at some point. The problem isn't so much having to deal with the dogs that have already been manufactuered, they should be supported as well as possible, the problem is stopping the ongoing manufacture of new animals as products.
    - ivraatiems 1y ago
      What does your ideal world look like? Dogs and humans have no relationship? Humans stop interacting with the animals we have domesticated and return them all to the wild? I don't think there's a large constituency in this thread who's in support of "manufacture" of dogs in the sense of things like puppy mills. But that isn't what we're talking about with shelter dogs. Nor are dogs simply going to cease existing if we decide as a society that we don't want to continue our relationship with them.
yoyohello13 1y ago
It's kind of weird how politically charged dog ownership has become seemingly out of nowhere. I love dogs, I had dogs as a kid, I have a dog now. I don't, nor have I ever thought my dog is a replacement for children. My dog doesn't hold me back from forming human relationships. Yet there is this weird online value judgement (never actually seen it IRL) that owning a dog is somehow a betrayal of the human race.
- paxys 1y ago
  Not really weird. In the USA pretty much anything that is split along the lines of urban/rural, liberal/conservative, coastal/inland etc. is immediately political.
  - yoyohello13 1y ago
    Yeah I guess you're right. I live in the country and almost everybody has a dog. I never thought something as benign as pet ownership would get absorbed into the internet discourse but here we are.
    - ultimafan 1y ago
      I don't think the kind of dog ownership you're talking about is the same as the one in the article. It's about dogs as a replacement for children which anecdotally I have definitely seen happening. I've met more than one married couple who are proud about not wanting kids but own a dog and treat it to an absurd degree like one would treat a toddler including but not limited to talking to / about it like one would to their child (imagine the kind of coworker who loves to talk your ear off to you about every single little detail of their child's life, complete with photos, but with a dog), cooking for and feeding it like a child (not just putting a dog bowl out on the floor), hiring babysitters when they go out, taking it to daycare centers for dogs, planning activities for/around it, doting on it like a child (dressing it up, carting it around in a baby stroller on walks) etc. etc. It's a world of a difference from simply owning and taking care of a dog. It's a perpetual simulation of human childcare projected onto a dog that never "grows up" and without all the struggles and ugly situations that might happen with a real toddler ie tantrums.
therealdkz 1y ago
[dead]
os2warpman 1y ago
It has been tens of thousands of years and mankind’s greatest achievement is still the domestication of the dog. It is no surprise that people are fans of them, for a variety of reasons.

77 points by IndrekR 1y ago

donnachangstein 1y ago

[flagged]

Hrun0 1y ago
> Don't think scare quotes are appropriate here. Pits are problem dogs; they are the violent schizophrenics of the dog world. I don't think so.
psunavy03 1y ago
No breed of dog is a "violent schizophrenic." Poorly-raised dogs of any breed are dangerous. The problem is bad humans, not bad dogs.
xattt 1y ago
It’s hard to engage in rational good-faith discussion about problem dog breeds because most folks have already made up their mind, and there’s no changing it. The chances of someone surrendering their dog to which they are bonded after reading a comment is unlikely. The chances of someone with the opposite opinion adopting a pitbull are similar.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
There are over 200 breeds of dog, it doesn't really track that only 2-3 breeds would be significantly more violent than the others. We don't have enough data to be conclusive one way or the other, but if you look at the occurrence of strays and breed ownership by socioeconomic status, pit bull breeds are also very high on these lists. This tracks with human data to some extent: people from lower socioeconomic groups are more often perpetrators and victims of violence. Looking at breed specific violence and coming to a conclusion about temperament is very similar to looking at race specific graduation rates and coming to a conclusion about intelligence.
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
  While I don’t think the dogs are at fault, I’m not sure your argument follows. Why can’t we breed aggression in only a small number of breeds? We don’t breed short legs into all the breeds.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    asked in another way: where are all the aggressive offshoot breeds from pitbulls? there are a wide variety of short-legged dog breeds; corgis, dachsunds, basset hounds, scotties, bulldogs... there's an enormous variety there... yet we're to expect that aggressive dogs are limited to a very specific appearance (seriously, an order of magnitude higher than almost all other breeds)? the data absolutely stinks there are multiple other factors (social, socioeconomic) that are a better predictor of behaviors that can also be applied to humans
- D13Fd 1y ago
  > There are over 200 breeds of dog, it doesn't really track that only 2-3 breeds would be significantly more violent than the others. Why not? There are breeds that are taller or shorter, high-energy or low-energy, great hunters or awful hunters, and so on. And it’s not a mystery why some breeds got this way: they were specifically bred for it.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    > There are breeds that are taller or shorter, high-energy or low-energy, great hunters or awful hunters, and so on there are dozens of breeds in each of these categories — we don't have a single breed of dog that's 5x faster than all the others
- recursivedoubts 1y ago
  There are relatively few fatal dog maulings, but when there is one it's usually a pit or a rot: https://www.statista.com/chart/15446/breeds-of-dog-involved-in-fatal-attacks-on-humans-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15446/breeds-of-dog-involved-... I think you should have to be able to deadlift 350 lbs to own either.
m_v_c 1y ago
You writing "one of these land sharks" here shows nothing but your ignorance, to both pit bulls and sharks, as both of these animals don't have any kind of natural aggression towards humans. Sure, both are powerful and CAN hurt you (perhaps more than other animals), but are certainly not short-wired to bite you. But especially in the case of domesticated dogs, the problem are NOT the pits themselves, but the conditions in which they were raised.
recursivedoubts 1y ago
Anyone owning a pit who isn't both strong & physically large is putting other people and animals at risk. I have met many, many sweet pits, but all dogs can lose it and if a pit goes many of the pit owners I've seen couldn't do a damned thing about it: they are incredibly powerful animals. To be honest I think that's what attracts many inappropriate owners to them. Two pit stories: I saw a fat guy walking a relatively small pit and took my dogs off to the side, about 20 feet away to let them pass. The pit pulled out of his (inappropriately fastened) muzzle backwards (they are smart dogs) and took a dead no-bark run at my terrier. I had my 35 lb terrier in the air and kicked that dog as hard as I could in the side to get the situation under control. Our neighbor had a BIG pit named Thor (big guy, he could control the dog, but kept him leashed out front.). Thor got off leash once and came over and messed w/our goats. We had one goat (the smallest) who we kept horns on and Thor found out the hard way that that goat wasn't going down w/o a fight. Thor survived but didn't mess w/the goats any more after that. Again, I like most of the pits I've met, but I see a lot of irresponsible owners.
ivraatiems 1y ago
The person you replied to: "I'm trying to help animals in need!" You: "How dare you do this well intentioned, possibly dangerous thing?! Also, let me insult the animals you love!" What is even a little bit constructive about your post? If you want the parent to change why would you write like this?
dang 1y ago
Whoa, please don't get aggressive on HN. Regardless of how much of a problem certain dogs are or you feel they are, it is not ok to post like that. Edit Unfortunately, your account has been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. (We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225114.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- donnachangstein 1y ago
  FWIW I wrote that post with no aggression intended. I suspect you may be overanalyzing things. Have a Coke and a smile, Dan. Unfortunately, if my manner of speaking directly is breaking the site guidelines, then I'm afraid my values are incompatible with posting here. I hope you didn't expend too much energy digging through my post history looking for transgressions. Though I do think it's funny the post that got me yelled at was the post insulting pit bulls. Remember to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many of my posts were highly upvoted. I bid you good day.
  - dang 1y ago
    I believe you about your intent, but intent doesn't communicate itself—particularly not in tiny textblobs where tone of voice, body language, and so on, aren't available. Intent has to be supplied along with your message in a way that people can perceive, and the burden is on you (i.e. the commenter) to disambiguate it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... People's posts often generate effects that they didn't have in mind when they were posting. For the health of an internet forum, effects (which are observable) matter more than intent (which is not). https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=intent%20effects%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The language you used in the last sentence of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44225270 was so garish, violent, and personal that it counts as aggressive, whether you were feeling aggressive or not when you posted it. That was way beyond just "speaking directly". It's common (in fact we all do it) to underestimate the provocation level in one's own posts and overestimate it in others'. That leads to quite a skew in perception. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%2210x%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... (Btw, I apologize for linking so much to lists of my own past comments. It's annoying and embarrassing. But it's the only efficient way I know of to provide additional explanation, and additional explanation is often necessary.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dtagames 1y ago

This a terrific deep-dive into pet parenting and its rewards, motivations, and risks for both the human and the dog. As a lifelong rescuer of pit bulls and other "problem" dogs, I can see how that role I've picked for myself aligns and contrasts with how others view human-dog relationships.

renewiltord 1y ago

A recent car crash in San Francisco killed a man and his dog and many people on Reddit reacted with a comment like “Nooo! Not the dog!” I thought that was ridiculous because these are just animals. It sucks when they die but it’s not the end of the world. Another car nearby killed a little child and her father and that one was much more horrific to me. But now it makes sense: to these people the two incidents were equivalent. I suppose that is normal, what with all the stories of animals caring for the young of other animals. Neotenic characteristics seem to have cross-species impact. Very cool. Thank you for sharing this.

bitwize 1y ago
When tragedy befalls an animal, we tend to be more upset about it because animals are innocent. They're not aware like we are and can't make better choices when we can, so when they get caught at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's somehow sadder to a stranger than if it were an adult human. You see this in cinema. We're relieved that the cat survives in Alien, even though we just watched several humans die horribly. And we kind of feel like John Wick's Roaring Rampage of Revenge is justified after the Russian mafia kills his dog.
- whycome 1y ago
  > When tragedy befalls an animal, we tend to be more upset about it because animals are innocent. This never gets reconciled with the reality of factory farms and mass meat production. It’s certainly a type of cognitive dissonance. In a hundred years we might look back on the now with horror (more generalized anyway).
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Because most people don't keep cows, pigs, and chickens as pets. People who grow up even on small, non-factory farms see these animals as products for sale or economic assets, not companions. And even the dogs and cats are likely to be utilized for work as much as companionship.
  - umeshunni 1y ago

absurdo 1y ago

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.

creata 1y ago
Can you elaborate on how it "infantilizes the adult"?
- nkrisc 1y ago
  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.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >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).
nkrisc 1y ago
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.

bloomingeek 1y ago

My spin, dogs, as an example pet, are a good way to practice empathy. It doesn't always translate, but if you can be loving and empathetic to a dog, you can surely began to be that way to humans. we have a good relationship with the children we raised, along with their children. Our dog, however, is always with us and it just feels good to watch after her. We don't consider her a child, just a very good, non-verbal friend.

netdevphoenix 1y ago
I would not necessarily call that friendship as your dog depends on you for its survival and is at your mercy. You are the one who defines the terms of the relationship. A friendship involves two individuals who are equally empowered to develop the friendship. A dog-human bond not so much. My two cents
- stormfather 1y ago
  Idk, my dad was my best friend growing up and I never fed him.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    yeah but your dad wouldn't die as a result
    - stormfather 1y ago
      No, I (the child) am the dog that would die if it weren't fed in this situation. Sorry that was confusing.
  - munificent 1y ago
    Your dad may have been your best friend, but that doesn't mean you were your dad's best friend. The parent-child relationship is asymmetric in ways that are often not as visible to the child as they are a parent. There's a reason why for generations, parents have been responding to their childrens' arguments with "when you're a parent, you'll understand".

donnachangstein 1y ago

People bringing their pet dogs into grocery stores is an especially egregious societal ill. It's a major problem in places like Seattle where dogs outnumber children. I once watched a woman hold her little dog over the glass at the pizza bar in Whole Foods. Was waiting for the dog to drop a free sausage link onto the pizza below. Placing dogs into shopping carts is another one. Dogs rub their dirty buttholes on the same surfaces where you later place your fruits and vegetables.

MisterTea 1y ago
I too dislike extreme dog people - the kind of people who treat them as a human equal. I grew up with dogs and cats, nowadays just two cats, after they go, no more pets for me. I deeply love my animals and they make great companions. But make no mistake, they're still animals and are not predictable. I would never bring a dog with me outside to do anything other than go for a walk, always on a leash. They really dont belong in public spaces. I've seen and heard too many stories of dogs suddenly not being the perfect precious animal their owner claims and it bites or attacks another animal or person. Then when they do the owners insist the victim must have done something wrong and take zero responsibility.
- munificent 1y ago
  > the kind of people who treat them as a human equal. No, they treat them as better than people. Because in their value system, animals are moral objects but not moral subjects. By that, I mean that actions done to animals can have moral weight. If you take a sick kitten and nurse it back to health, you are a good person. If you kick a puppy, you are a bad person. But the animal itself (according to this culture) carries no moral responsibility. If a dog bites someone, it's not an evil dog. It's not the dog's fault. It was just raised poorly, or traumatized as a puppy, or the owner should have kept it leashed better, etc. Thus animals are always morally pure, but people can be bad people. I kind of get where the value system is coming from: animals really are on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to power and agency, so it does make sense to think of them as mostly receivers of moral actions. But some people take that really far.

eagerpace 1y ago

Dating later in life with children and this is something I don’t need research to tell me. If you’re in your 30s-40s without kids and a dog, we’re of totally different mindsets.

tacocataco 1y ago
> If you’re in your 30s-40s without kids and a dog, we’re of totally different mindsets. I'm broke. As much as it pains me to be without a pet, I dont want to take on additional responsibilities if I am incapable of sufficiently giving the care these living beings need and deserve. I've considered fostering, as they pay for many things the animals need. Perhaps in the future.
eagerpace 1y ago
Getting upvoted first then downvoted on this proves the point.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

From a biological perspective dogs are parasites. They are hijacking our biological maternal instincts and replacing children. They drain resources and get free care while offering no benefit other than satisfying maternal urges which were designed to work on human babies. Puppies are 100 percent part of the reason for the westernized world’s population problem.

Arainach 1y ago
>Puppies are 100 percent part of the reason for the westernized world’s population problem. I know dozens of couples who were pairs of high earners but one quit their job to stay at home with their child because it was cheaper than paying for child care, but sure, tell yourself it's the dogs.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Don’t be biased because you love dogs. Face the truth. The economy IS a factor. But sinking resources into a dog that offers no evolutionary or biological benefit IS ALSO a factor. There is no other way to look at this. You are committing an act of irrationality if you refuse to see dogs from a biological perspective. Porn sits in the same area. Hijacking biological instincts to prevent reproduction. We are looking at multiple causal sources that prevent us from having more children. In the same way men use porn to assuage our sexual urges, many women use dogs to help assuage their maternal instincts. Don’t let your emotions cloud your logic. This article did not deserve to get flagged simply for offering their own perspective.
  - Arainach 1y ago
    Dogs have nothing to do with it. People are choosing not to have kids, especially in America, because they can barely pay for rent, food, and (if they're fortunate) healthcare for themselves. Going out to eat is a luxury that even software engineers earning 6 figures are having to reevaluate with prices to say nothing of other entertainment. Third places and opportunities to meet people are greatly reduced because everything's taken over by venture capital chains and so expensive, and even if you meet someone the odds of the two of you making enough money to afford to raise a child is low. If you have that money, you're probably educated enough to see that life for your child will be significantly worse than life for you right now - the rise of authoritarianism, climate change, the active ongoing destruction of American economic power and soft political power, the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, disinformation causing massive chunks of the country to oppose science, education, and other things, discrimination based on gender and race....we're in for some very hard times and it takes a certain mindset to decide that you want to subject a child you love to all of it. It's not the dogs.

jmyeet 1y ago

I'm really starting to believe that capitalism as a Great Filter is the solution to the Fremi Paradox. Declining birth rates are clearly a response to the deterioating economic conditions of most people. Stagnant real wages, skyrocketing costs, ever-more inaccessible housing and so on. Housing debt, student debt, medical debt. The cost of childcare can reach $3000/month per child. If you want your child to have the best opportunities, it may well cost $1 million or more between all those costs to raise a child. At a time when people can barely provide for themselves. Of course pets are surrogate children for some people. And even that's being ruined by capitalism as private equity moves into the vet space to squeeze every last dollar from people. Another aspect to this is social control. One reason Western societies have been relatively stable is the method of control is treats, basically. Social media, pets, smartphones, etc all mollify the masses. In more totalitarian societies, the threat of violence is a more typical method of control. Think of something like the Stasi in East Germany. The profit motive is destroying the treats. If you're on the verge of homelessness and can barely feed yourself, skyrocketing costs of pet ownership are a real issue. We're rapidly approaching a point where people think they'll never be able to retire and really have nothing to live for. Rather than the ultra-wealthy being slightly less wealthy so the rest of society, which is necessary for their wealth to exist, can have something good in their lives, we're instead becoming increasingly oppressive. Over-policing, militarizing police, crushing protests (as per this last weekend in LA), etc. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. And to think, all a lot of people need to be happy is a roof over their head, not having to have 3 jobs and being able to have a dog.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
IAmBroom 1y ago
Your newsletter. I needs it.

tsoukase 1y ago

I had a dog for decades (not the same). The trend of dog craziness of some people in the last 5-10 years belongs to a specific psychiatric situation (depression, personality disorder, OCD?). On the other side many, mostly childless, women feel some kind of loneliness and adopt a dog. The dynamics of pet love has many paths.

potato3732842 1y ago
>On the other side many, mostly childless, women feel some kind of loneliness and adopt a dog. Back in "the day" these people would get into crappy marriages and pop out a few kids before ultimately getting divorced or just be single moms. While it's nice that they're not doing that I think the more interesting angle is the picture of how the economic reality has changed over the generations.

guntars 1y ago

I can now see why the story was flagged. Based on the discussion, this is not a good look for the HN community.

munificent 1y ago

I live in Seattle where the local highly progressive animal-centric culture is probably the vanguard of what this article is talking about. I think about it all the time. I believe there are a few things leading many people to choose pets instead of children to fulfill their desire to nurture: 1. The trauma theory of psychology. Pop psychology today seems to assume that babies are born perfectly mentally healthy, except for any genetic mental illnesses they inherited from their parents. Then at some point, if they're unlucky, they experience some sort of trauma, often at the hands of their parents. That trauma inflicts a mental illness on them. They can treat it with therapy and/or meds, but the assumption is that the illness is irrevocable. (Don't believe me? The next time you're talking to a friend and they bring up therapy or mental health medication, ask them when they think they'll be cured and can stop.) The implication here is that as a parent, you've got basically nowhere to go but down with regards to your kid's mental health. If you are yourself perfectly mentally healthy and pass on no predispositions to your kid, and you parent them flawlessly 24/7 for eighteen years and dodge every possible trauma, then congrats you didn't fuck them up. Anything less than that and you're a bad parent. Which leads to... 2. Impossible parenting standards. Media is constantly filled with all of the various ways a parent can do a bad job. Start the car moving down the driveway before they have their seatbelt on? Bad parent. Let them walk to the park on their own and risk being abducted? Bad parent. Give them access to junk food? Bad parent. Don't put them in enough extracurricular activities to pad their college application letter a decade from now? Bad parent. Too many extracurricular activities so they don't have enough free time in which to learn initiative? Bad parent. It is unending and demoralizing the ways in which parents are made to constantly feel they are inadequate. When I was a kid, if another kid fell playing and broke their arm, it was just "OK, kids get hurt." Today, it's "Why did you let them do that?" Parents have never spent more time with their children than they do today, but our culture still tells us it's not enough. Or, if it does, they tell us it's too much. Mix that with the previous point, and having a kid with any mental health challenges is not just a tragedy but your fault as a parent. 3. Long-term pessimism. I know many people who truly do believe the world is fucked because of climate change and politics. Not only do they not believe any potential children of theirs would be raised in a world worse than they one they grew up in, they don't even have faith that world will be functionally habitable at all. Best case, they believe their children may thrive only because they happen to be born into privilege while other children in poorer locations will suffer catastrophically from climate change. So the best outcome they can imagine is a profound failing of moral justice. Meanwhile, consider pets: 1. Rescued from trauma. Most pet owners get their pets from shelters. The animal may actually have had trauma before being adopted, but the owner wasn't morally responsible. Instead, they are the rescuer that saved the animal from further trauma. If the animal bounces back and has great behavior, then it's a testament to the amazing resilence of animals and the benefits of compassionate ownership. If the animal always has behavioral issues, well it's not their fault they were traumatized and what a good owner they have to take care of them in spite of those challenges. 2. High but meetable standards Standards for pet ownership are certainly high here too. Long gone are the days of putting the dog in a doghouse in the backyard and giving them a scoop out of the giant cheap bag of Alpo every day. Pets are expected to be fed healthy food, kept inside and safe, given good vet care, and lots of interaction and enrichment. Those standards are high but attainable. You can just do those things and feel like a good pet owner. And the pet will certainly make you feel like a good pet owner. Their expectations are low and it's easy to exceed them. 3. Shorter life span If you believe the world is doomed, then a living being that will never outlive you and have to figure out how to make its without your support is a blessing. You don't have to feel guilty about the fact that in a thousand tiny ways, you contributed to climate change that will end up harming a loved one decades from now.

esseph 1y ago

I am so tired of seeing the most interesting or actually life impacting subjects getting flagged. You know what we all need? Another article about LLMs.

johnea 1y ago
I agree. I think we need an "unflag" link, to allow "do not flag" opinions to also be expressed.

johnea 1y ago

The most amazing thing to me, is how human pet "parents" ignore the fact that the dog has an actual parent, and the puppy is stolen off of it's actual mother's suckling tit, and handed to a human while it's still an infant, so that it bonds with the human, not it's actual mother. As in many things, most people are willing to ignore any aspect that is not what's in their face, and appealing to them. There are many other aspects to the thoughtless use of other animals to assuage a human's mental illness. One of the main ones is projection: the animal can't speak, or otherwise precisely express themselves. Into this silence, the human is able to inject whatever narrative they desire. This leads to people claiming that the animal is much more responsive to their needs, and provides greater solace than another human. This solace is purely in the mind of the beholder. No one knows what the dog is thinking, therefore it's thinking exactly what we want it to think. Another aspect of the entire pet issue, that I haven't seen otherwise mentioned in the comments, is the disruption to the public peace caused by many dogs. I have seen a couple of comments about dog shit, which is a major problem, but noise is also a significant issue. Both of these are primarily the fault of negligent owners, which are the overwhelming majority of modern US pet owners.

ivraatiems 1y ago
I think a lot of people, myself included, are acutely aware of this... which is why I adopted an adult rescue, not a puppy. Not everyone does it that way.
- johnea 1y ago
  Every dog was a kidnapped puppy at some point. The problem isn't so much having to deal with the dogs that have already been manufactuered, they should be supported as well as possible, the problem is stopping the ongoing manufacture of new animals as products.
  - ivraatiems 1y ago
    What does your ideal world look like? Dogs and humans have no relationship? Humans stop interacting with the animals we have domesticated and return them all to the wild? I don't think there's a large constituency in this thread who's in support of "manufacture" of dogs in the sense of things like puppy mills. But that isn't what we're talking about with shelter dogs. Nor are dogs simply going to cease existing if we decide as a society that we don't want to continue our relationship with them.

yoyohello13 1y ago

It's kind of weird how politically charged dog ownership has become seemingly out of nowhere. I love dogs, I had dogs as a kid, I have a dog now. I don't, nor have I ever thought my dog is a replacement for children. My dog doesn't hold me back from forming human relationships. Yet there is this weird online value judgement (never actually seen it IRL) that owning a dog is somehow a betrayal of the human race.

paxys 1y ago
Not really weird. In the USA pretty much anything that is split along the lines of urban/rural, liberal/conservative, coastal/inland etc. is immediately political.
- yoyohello13 1y ago
  Yeah I guess you're right. I live in the country and almost everybody has a dog. I never thought something as benign as pet ownership would get absorbed into the internet discourse but here we are.
  - ultimafan 1y ago
    I don't think the kind of dog ownership you're talking about is the same as the one in the article. It's about dogs as a replacement for children which anecdotally I have definitely seen happening. I've met more than one married couple who are proud about not wanting kids but own a dog and treat it to an absurd degree like one would treat a toddler including but not limited to talking to / about it like one would to their child (imagine the kind of coworker who loves to talk your ear off to you about every single little detail of their child's life, complete with photos, but with a dog), cooking for and feeding it like a child (not just putting a dog bowl out on the floor), hiring babysitters when they go out, taking it to daycare centers for dogs, planning activities for/around it, doting on it like a child (dressing it up, carting it around in a baby stroller on walks) etc. etc. It's a world of a difference from simply owning and taking care of a dog. It's a perpetual simulation of human childcare projected onto a dog that never "grows up" and without all the struggles and ugly situations that might happen with a real toddler ie tantrums.

therealdkz 1y ago

[dead]

os2warpman 1y ago

It has been tens of thousands of years and mankind’s greatest achievement is still the domestication of the dog. It is no surprise that people are fans of them, for a variety of reasons.