Introduction
Pets are an essential part of many people’s lives, which is unsurprising given their fantastic ability to be companions and even friends. Previously, animals were valued for their more practical qualities, but now, emotional support is coming to the fore rather than helping to hunt or catch criminals. People willingly adopt several dogs and cats at once and often pay as much attention to them as they would to their children or elderly parents.
The increasing popularity of pets as favorite companions emphasizes animals’ vital role in many families’ lives. This phenomenon is widely criticized, but the number of animals in families continues to grow, as does the industry of caring for them. This trend reflects the global desire of society for transhumanism and attention to animals, but also hides the adverse effects that can neutralize all positive aspirations.
Animal Welfare
First, it is necessary to note the dangerous trend of pet personification. Personification attributes human qualities and properties to various animate and inanimate objects. Many people treat pets like children, recognizing in them all the traits and qualities that human beings possess.
The pet care industry is responding to these demands by producing a massive volume of ‘anthropomorphic’ pet products, such as strollers or clothing. At the heart of this modern trend is probably the growing social exclusion that people often experience in the 21st century. In this case, animals replace the necessary social interaction without introducing the negative aspects typical of human interpersonal communication.
However, to maintain a normal state of mind and personal development, a person needs to go through certain stages of socialization and not hide from them behind caring for a dog or cat. The article “The Dog Delusion” argues for bringing the focus back to caring for other human beings. It says: “Doesn’t it make more evolutionary sense to want to care for the young of your species over another species?”. These arguments certainly conflict with reasons favoring freedom of choice, but they have a logical core worth considering.
In addition to a particularly negative impact on society and people’s lives, excessive fixation on welfare provision can harm animals. The desire for the most humane attitude has resulted in the “no-kill” movement, in which many shelters in the country are involved. Animals in these shelters cannot be killed due to overcrowding or simply at the whim of the workers, which is undoubtedly positive.
However, excesses often occur, and animals are denied even necessary euthanasia. Severely ill pets remain in appalling conditions of overcrowding, suffering from symptoms of the disease until someone takes them home. In the article “The Cruelty of Kindness,” Sabine Heinlein gives frightening facts about the lives of animals in US shelters. The provided statistics are disappointing: “Veterinarian Gary Patronek and sociologist Arnold Arluke, <…>, estimate a minimum of 5100 such cases affecting perhaps a quarter of a million animals annually”.
There are reasonable doubts about the humanity of the “no-kill” movement since it is challenging to control the initiative’s implementation on the ground. In pursuit of money, careless cattery owners turn the lives of their wards into absolute hell. Thus, a good initiative changes and turns into a complete disaster.
One of the main counterarguments of animal lovers and advocates is the need to reconsider the cruel attitude of man toward other species of living organisms. Indeed, having sufficient resources and opportunities, a person cannot thoughtlessly destroy animals because of unjustified arguments. In addition, one cannot be thoughtless about murders, as this is a complex act from a moral point of view.
When deciding to kill, it is necessary to weigh all the available data and assess the consequences of the action. Humanity has come a long way from the mass killing of all homeless animals to modern private and public shelters where pets can find their own home and loving owners. It should also be noted that people have generally become more positive about pets and are more willing to accept them in the family. This is a positive change, as being with animals helps reduce stress and is also beneficial for young children, as it teaches them responsibility. With the rational use of the current animal care system, there is a real opportunity to reduce the suffering of sentient beings while making families across the country happy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that, for all its shortcomings, the modern breeding industry, shelters, and pet product manufacturing are effective and undoubtedly beneficial. It considers most of the ethical nuances of the issue and, in general, is a relatively effective mediator of interaction between people and their future and current pets. However, like any system, it must be regularly reviewed and monitored at all stages. Excesses in one direction or the other do not benefit the owners or the animals for whose welfare the system was developed.