Pets & DINKs
Historical Pets:
Dogs and cats have been a companion to humans for thousands of years. They have comforted humans, helped to protect them, helped them hunt and much more. They are probably held at the highest value in terms of all animal life, and we can see a rapid change in how we see pets and their rapid adaptation of purpose in this day and age. We see the practical uses of having a dog lowering as new and changing reasons to keep a dog rise. The largest possible benefits to having a pet would be protection, helping to build responsibility and emotional comfort. The ways that people dramaticize these core benefits comes as a direct result of the rise in leisurely reason to have a pet in the first place. If you live in the country for example, a pet can prevent wild animals from coming near your property, they can give duties to people who don't have the proper expression of responsibility such as children and they can be loving and comforting you when you are lonely. Keep in mind that these large benefits somewhat apply to regularly sized domestic dogs, with sizes or pet species outside this range losing their practicality. A cat for example does not provide protection but still provides the other two benefits, a fish only provides the benefits of responsibility, etc.. Pets can add a great benefit to your life, but I see issues in a complete adoration of the idea of having one while ignoring the big picture. I conclude that children make a much better investment compared to pets, but I am not limiting it that not having pets means you need to have kids. I am very critical of the cultural idea that having kids are bad, but the main idea of this is that pets are over-idolized in our time and that there is more that should be considered if one thinks this way.
Substitution:
One could argue that these core benefits of having a pet begin to be problematic when the nature of what the benefit is acts as a subtitute to the alternative of getting these benefits directly through other humans, as intended. While this does not really apply to the security benefits of having a pet that can protect you, the other two benefits are commonly seen in today's time, in a culture that rejects building a family and the responsibilities that come with that. We have been collectively trying to extend the phase of our lives where it is socially acceptable to act on any immature impulses we have and that doing anything but this is equated to 'not living'. By saying 'not living', it is mean't that our exact way of wanting to live life in the parts we can control is not being fulfilled, we are wanting to culturally reject the basic concept of adulthood and the struggle of humanity. Settling down is the same as the end of your life, people see long term commitment as something revolting and will gladly spend their 20s and even early 30s mindlessly roaming around, sad at the passing of time.
In terms of responsibility and what that means by having a pet, people stay in this neverending state of living on their own terms with little responsibility and feel justified doing so because of something like a pet. We want to naturally find unnatural substitutes for the real thing. We get pets and take care of them, feeling a sense of fulfillment for accomplishing a task that children are usually doing (getting a pet to build their responsibilities). With family, the responsibilities that come with a pet make much more sense to specifically allocate these tasks for children, to push and prepare them for bigger responsibilities such as having their own family, maintaining a job, maintaining things in general. People do not want to have kids, not only because it confronts them personally and builds them as a person, but also because it is so much easier be living their 'fullest' life. People prefer pets over children or another bigger responsibility because it is easy, it substitutes a real human child for a dog or a cat. We nurture domesticated animals and treat them like they are human, love them as we would love a family member. I am not against pets in general, I can greatly understand why someone would want one and I could easily see myself having one one day, but in times where we run away from responsibility, I am pushing back with how many young adults have embraced the core characteristics of a 'crazy cat lady', choosing to substitute building a family and the responsibility that comes with that with things like pets and only pets. You can also apply this to a whole range of other things, substitution of the real thing.
A sort of archetype of the modern couple in their 20s or 30s can be dubbed with the term DINKs -> Dual Income, No Kids. The idea is that you go on living your whole live with another person, never having children and endlessly using your excess money on yourself, a lifestyle that has never been generally acceptable in human history and that will never actually help human civilization. This is a lifestyle that is entirely focused on the individual and pays no attention to the grand scheme of things and the continuation of human life. In this lifestyle where the only thing to look forward to is fulfilling your own desires, the end result at the end of the life is elderly people who have no family to rely on. It makes me so sad to see so many people limit the course of their life, deny the way humans have been living forever because they feel a false and inaccurate moral obligation to not have children. They would rather have something that stays in the same intelligence level of a toddler forever, a simplified being. We are already ending up with a society that is struggling to account for the intensively growing senior population that reflects the much higher birth rates of the previous generations. Pets make perfect sense in the context for young children or old people, but do not in the context of a relatively young couple that would rather treat a cat like a little baby over having a little baby (when they can).
With the part about the love and happiness that a pet can bring, I can greatly appreciate this reason for having a pet. Again, having a pet itself is not problematic, but when you doing substitutions for how you would treat a human, treating it as if it were a human, then issues arise. I see commercials for so many strange services that people can provide for their pets, people wasting so much money on specified meal plans for their pets because they wanted a specific (in)breed of animal, people investing money in allergy medication for their pet, clothes for pets, grooming services for pets, it is all so strange. I remember hearing a story about a guy who had a dog for many many years, eventually the dog got cancer and the vet gave him the option of spending thousands of dollars in fees to treat this cancer, he wasted all that money but it all didn't matter as the dog would die the next year. When my childhood cat began to have a large bump on the side of his head, he slowly began to get sicker and sicker, he had a large tumor in his head. We understood that it did not make sense to waste all the money to possibly fix this problem, when the cat was likely to die from it anyways. We ended up taking it to the vet and had him put down, for the low low price of $700, he was brought into a room and had chemicals injected into his neck. Why build such a strong, human-like connection to a pet then watch it die in front of you? I am not saying you can't love a pet, but when you bring pets out of their place, problems again come. Pets are animals, the relationship between a pet and its owner is a very simple one, you provide food, water and shelter and they provide you any of the benefits mentioned before. People idolize cats as the best thing of all time, but fail to realize that if you died in your home, and your cat was hungry, he would simply start eating you, like it was nothing. A pet is a luxury, creating more tiny human beings are a necessity.
I find it hard to believe that the average dog would successfully defend a home invader. With the normal sized dogs I have seen at multiple households in my life, entering as if I was a stranger to the dog, the most it would do it bark and maybe even bite. If it is a pitbull or something then i would obviously be wrong, but then comes the whole other problem of what it would do to you or a baby if let loose. At most, if you live in the country, a dog would be helpful at detering coyotes or other animals from your prized property, and if you don't, then it would possibly deter home invaders as they would rather not break into a home with a loud barking dog that attracts attention and would have the possibility of biting them (even though it might not). I've seen an easier way to prevent robberies by placing a sign at your front door that says 'BEWARE OF DOG'. This idea of protection only really applies to dogs, leaving every single other type of pet out of this benefit.
Costs:
The same people that are buying allergy medication and clothes for their silly little dog are puzzled as to why they don't have any money. Pets such as dogs or cats are a very expensive investment in the long run, food, toys, vetinary precautions and other things quickly add up over time. I found a website that claimed that having a dog can cost about $3000 a year in Canada, with this only rising as people want to treat their pet more and more like a human, turning away from the natural path of having children. I understand that having children is far more expensive than having a pet, but at least that life will lead to something, you are not just throwing thousands of dollars every year towards something that will tragically die after 15 years. Your little baby will grow up, will provide many more benefits than a pet and will last much much longer. As stated earlier, having children is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Having pets is a luxury, it is not a necessity. If you follow basic rules of frugality and give up luxuries that humans have never had until a century ago, maybe you will find joy in the simpler ways of living, and see more free money to be used for more sensible things. Does a cat or dog require the same standards of living as a human? If you do want a pet, maybe consider the free adoption of a pet without a home, waiting at the pound all day, rather than a specified breed; this will save money and seems like a more kind option in terms of caring about the well being of pets in general. Save your money, seek companionship in a real human person, find responsibility outside the caretaking of pets.
Pet Rate:
Dogs:
A dog is the ideal pet, it somewhat provides all the benefits and are very loyal to their owners. They are great for helping someone get more exercise as dogs should be walked regularily. If you get to caught up in the substitution and treating it like a human, you will get a pet that could chew things up in your house, eats your food and is disrespectful. Dogs can also be very expensive though as mentioned previously. If you are not willing to discipline a dog by any means necessary, then you might be sacrificing many of the benefits of having a dog. My ideal idea of owning dogs are the ones that my childhood friend had at his house, they would spend daylight hours outside running around, at night if outside, keep coyotes away, would stay in the basement entrance of the house to not make the living areas of the house messy. It was a bitch and her two daughters and the mom lived to be 17 years old. I would probably get a dog if I was an old man.
Cats:
A cat is another ideal pet, they are very lovable (even if they don't love you back), are inexpensive compared to dogs and require not much of your time. Cats that are let outdoors to do their business are especially great and they do a good job of catching critters and other things. The pros and cons of a cat and dog are perfectly parallel with a cat being the cutest but not usually affectionate while a dog is the opposite of this. It is so easy to get many cats and treat them like little children which is where we see the substitution issue easily come in. I could very easily see myself having a cat in the future. My ideal cat is the one I mentioned before, he went outside and I swear I never saw any of his poo for the years we had him, he was a nice cat and would let you pick him up and do stuff (the best kind of cat) without hissing.
Fish:
The main thing with fish is how cheap they are in the long run (fish food, water) with most of the expenses being the fishtank system and the fish themselves. They provide a very aesthetically pleasing look to a place and are very easy to take care of. You buy fishes and other little sea creatures and build your own little world inside your home, you see how they interact. A fishtank is like a fireplace, something you can just stare at for a long time. I can also easily see myself getting a fishtank one day.
Birds:
They seem sort of like fishes in the cost breakdown but it looks kind of cruel limiting a bird of the air to a little cage like that. Also my grandparents have a cockatiel and that thing was annoying, screaming all day, though the ones that do mimick seem fun. Don't see myself getting one.
Personal Experience:
When I was young, we were given little pets as gifts, but failed to realize how much we should be paying attention to them. We practically neglected them at times, it wasn't good. When you are a little kid and you want a pet, you can fail to meet the required responsibility for that pet if no one is pushing you to do that. I was glued to a computer screen for so many years. I was probably the most irresponsible and immature kid I know of now and as I grew up, I began to see that having a pet is not as simple as having something cute around the house. Its so easy to romanticize things and simplify them as a great thing, you can do this with children just as much as with pets, actually having them though is a very different thing. It is easier to neglect a small pet in a cage rather than an actual human. I don't mean to sound arrogant or critical, I just have a big problem with how little people want to have kids, how much people want to have pets and idolize them as if they were kids. All this DINK stuff is very problematic and seems nihilistic and hedonistic. The way people think of adulthood reminds me of the mindset I had when I was young like this. Again, it makes sense to have pets and have them as some sort of hobby, but a dog or cat you come home to every night should not be anything more than what it should be, a pet.
Creation Date: February 13th, 2025 - We're dinks! Brouhg... --- broh... too much subtitution why do they hab thre dogs please help them before it is too la-
Historical Pets:
Dogs and cats have been a companion to humans for thousands of years. They have comforted humans, helped to protect them, helped them hunt and much more. They are probably held at the highest value in terms of all animal life, and we can see a rapid change in how we see pets and their rapid adaptation of purpose in this day and age. We see the practical uses of having a dog lowering as new and changing reasons to keep a dog rise. The largest possible benefits to having a pet would be protection, helping to build responsibility and emotional comfort. The ways that people dramaticize these core benefits comes as a direct result of the rise in leisurely reason to have a pet in the first place. If you live in the country for example, a pet can prevent wild animals from coming near your property, they can give duties to people who don't have the proper expression of responsibility such as children and they can be loving and comforting you when you are lonely. Keep in mind that these large benefits somewhat apply to regularly sized domestic dogs, with sizes or pet species outside this range losing their practicality. A cat for example does not provide protection but still provides the other two benefits, a fish only provides the benefits of responsibility, etc.. Pets can add a great benefit to your life, but I see issues in a complete adoration of the idea of having one while ignoring the big picture. I conclude that children make a much better investment compared to pets, but I am not limiting it that not having pets means you need to have kids. I am very critical of the cultural idea that having kids are bad, but the main idea of this is that pets are over-idolized in our time and that there is more that should be considered if one thinks this way.
Substitution:
One could argue that these core benefits of having a pet begin to be problematic when the nature of what the benefit is acts as a subtitute to the alternative of getting these benefits directly through other humans, as intended. While this does not really apply to the security benefits of having a pet that can protect you, the other two benefits are commonly seen in today's time, in a culture that rejects building a family and the responsibilities that come with that. We have been collectively trying to extend the phase of our lives where it is socially acceptable to act on any immature impulses we have and that doing anything but this is equated to 'not living'. By saying 'not living', it is mean't that our exact way of wanting to live life in the parts we can control is not being fulfilled, we are wanting to culturally reject the basic concept of adulthood and the struggle of humanity. Settling down is the same as the end of your life, people see long term commitment as something revolting and will gladly spend their 20s and even early 30s mindlessly roaming around, sad at the passing of time.
In terms of responsibility and what that means by having a pet, people stay in this neverending state of living on their own terms with little responsibility and feel justified doing so because of something like a pet. We want to naturally find unnatural substitutes for the real thing. We get pets and take care of them, feeling a sense of fulfillment for accomplishing a task that children are usually doing (getting a pet to build their responsibilities). With family, the responsibilities that come with a pet make much more sense to specifically allocate these tasks for children, to push and prepare them for bigger responsibilities such as having their own family, maintaining a job, maintaining things in general. People do not want to have kids, not only because it confronts them personally and builds them as a person, but also because it is so much easier be living their 'fullest' life. People prefer pets over children or another bigger responsibility because it is easy, it substitutes a real human child for a dog or a cat. We nurture domesticated animals and treat them like they are human, love them as we would love a family member. I am not against pets in general, I can greatly understand why someone would want one and I could easily see myself having one one day, but in times where we run away from responsibility, I am pushing back with how many young adults have embraced the core characteristics of a 'crazy cat lady', choosing to substitute building a family and the responsibility that comes with that with things like pets and only pets. You can also apply this to a whole range of other things, substitution of the real thing.
A sort of archetype of the modern couple in their 20s or 30s can be dubbed with the term DINKs -> Dual Income, No Kids. The idea is that you go on living your whole live with another person, never having children and endlessly using your excess money on yourself, a lifestyle that has never been generally acceptable in human history and that will never actually help human civilization. This is a lifestyle that is entirely focused on the individual and pays no attention to the grand scheme of things and the continuation of human life. In this lifestyle where the only thing to look forward to is fulfilling your own desires, the end result at the end of the life is elderly people who have no family to rely on. It makes me so sad to see so many people limit the course of their life, deny the way humans have been living forever because they feel a false and inaccurate moral obligation to not have children. They would rather have something that stays in the same intelligence level of a toddler forever, a simplified being. We are already ending up with a society that is struggling to account for the intensively growing senior population that reflects the much higher birth rates of the previous generations. Pets make perfect sense in the context for young children or old people, but do not in the context of a relatively young couple that would rather treat a cat like a little baby over having a little baby (when they can).
With the part about the love and happiness that a pet can bring, I can greatly appreciate this reason for having a pet. Again, having a pet itself is not problematic, but when you doing substitutions for how you would treat a human, treating it as if it were a human, then issues arise. I see commercials for so many strange services that people can provide for their pets, people wasting so much money on specified meal plans for their pets because they wanted a specific (in)breed of animal, people investing money in allergy medication for their pet, clothes for pets, grooming services for pets, it is all so strange. I remember hearing a story about a guy who had a dog for many many years, eventually the dog got cancer and the vet gave him the option of spending thousands of dollars in fees to treat this cancer, he wasted all that money but it all didn't matter as the dog would die the next year. When my childhood cat began to have a large bump on the side of his head, he slowly began to get sicker and sicker, he had a large tumor in his head. We understood that it did not make sense to waste all the money to possibly fix this problem, when the cat was likely to die from it anyways. We ended up taking it to the vet and had him put down, for the low low price of $700, he was brought into a room and had chemicals injected into his neck. Why build such a strong, human-like connection to a pet then watch it die in front of you? I am not saying you can't love a pet, but when you bring pets out of their place, problems again come. Pets are animals, the relationship between a pet and its owner is a very simple one, you provide food, water and shelter and they provide you any of the benefits mentioned before. People idolize cats as the best thing of all time, but fail to realize that if you died in your home, and your cat was hungry, he would simply start eating you, like it was nothing. A pet is a luxury, creating more tiny human beings are a necessity.
I find it hard to believe that the average dog would successfully defend a home invader. With the normal sized dogs I have seen at multiple households in my life, entering as if I was a stranger to the dog, the most it would do it bark and maybe even bite. If it is a pitbull or something then i would obviously be wrong, but then comes the whole other problem of what it would do to you or a baby if let loose. At most, if you live in the country, a dog would be helpful at detering coyotes or other animals from your prized property, and if you don't, then it would possibly deter home invaders as they would rather not break into a home with a loud barking dog that attracts attention and would have the possibility of biting them (even though it might not). I've seen an easier way to prevent robberies by placing a sign at your front door that says 'BEWARE OF DOG'. This idea of protection only really applies to dogs, leaving every single other type of pet out of this benefit.
Costs:
The same people that are buying allergy medication and clothes for their silly little dog are puzzled as to why they don't have any money. Pets such as dogs or cats are a very expensive investment in the long run, food, toys, vetinary precautions and other things quickly add up over time. I found a website that claimed that having a dog can cost about $3000 a year in Canada, with this only rising as people want to treat their pet more and more like a human, turning away from the natural path of having children. I understand that having children is far more expensive than having a pet, but at least that life will lead to something, you are not just throwing thousands of dollars every year towards something that will tragically die after 15 years. Your little baby will grow up, will provide many more benefits than a pet and will last much much longer. As stated earlier, having children is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Having pets is a luxury, it is not a necessity. If you follow basic rules of frugality and give up luxuries that humans have never had until a century ago, maybe you will find joy in the simpler ways of living, and see more free money to be used for more sensible things. Does a cat or dog require the same standards of living as a human? If you do want a pet, maybe consider the free adoption of a pet without a home, waiting at the pound all day, rather than a specified breed; this will save money and seems like a more kind option in terms of caring about the well being of pets in general. Save your money, seek companionship in a real human person, find responsibility outside the caretaking of pets.
Pet Rate:
Dogs:
A dog is the ideal pet, it somewhat provides all the benefits and are very loyal to their owners. They are great for helping someone get more exercise as dogs should be walked regularily. If you get to caught up in the substitution and treating it like a human, you will get a pet that could chew things up in your house, eats your food and is disrespectful. Dogs can also be very expensive though as mentioned previously. If you are not willing to discipline a dog by any means necessary, then you might be sacrificing many of the benefits of having a dog. My ideal idea of owning dogs are the ones that my childhood friend had at his house, they would spend daylight hours outside running around, at night if outside, keep coyotes away, would stay in the basement entrance of the house to not make the living areas of the house messy. It was a bitch and her two daughters and the mom lived to be 17 years old. I would probably get a dog if I was an old man.
Cats:
A cat is another ideal pet, they are very lovable (even if they don't love you back), are inexpensive compared to dogs and require not much of your time. Cats that are let outdoors to do their business are especially great and they do a good job of catching critters and other things. The pros and cons of a cat and dog are perfectly parallel with a cat being the cutest but not usually affectionate while a dog is the opposite of this. It is so easy to get many cats and treat them like little children which is where we see the substitution issue easily come in. I could very easily see myself having a cat in the future. My ideal cat is the one I mentioned before, he went outside and I swear I never saw any of his poo for the years we had him, he was a nice cat and would let you pick him up and do stuff (the best kind of cat) without hissing.
Fish:
The main thing with fish is how cheap they are in the long run (fish food, water) with most of the expenses being the fishtank system and the fish themselves. They provide a very aesthetically pleasing look to a place and are very easy to take care of. You buy fishes and other little sea creatures and build your own little world inside your home, you see how they interact. A fishtank is like a fireplace, something you can just stare at for a long time. I can also easily see myself getting a fishtank one day.
Birds:
They seem sort of like fishes in the cost breakdown but it looks kind of cruel limiting a bird of the air to a little cage like that. Also my grandparents have a cockatiel and that thing was annoying, screaming all day, though the ones that do mimick seem fun. Don't see myself getting one.
Personal Experience:
When I was young, we were given little pets as gifts, but failed to realize how much we should be paying attention to them. We practically neglected them at times, it wasn't good. When you are a little kid and you want a pet, you can fail to meet the required responsibility for that pet if no one is pushing you to do that. I was glued to a computer screen for so many years. I was probably the most irresponsible and immature kid I know of now and as I grew up, I began to see that having a pet is not as simple as having something cute around the house. Its so easy to romanticize things and simplify them as a great thing, you can do this with children just as much as with pets, actually having them though is a very different thing. It is easier to neglect a small pet in a cage rather than an actual human. I don't mean to sound arrogant or critical, I just have a big problem with how little people want to have kids, how much people want to have pets and idolize them as if they were kids. All this DINK stuff is very problematic and seems nihilistic and hedonistic. The way people think of adulthood reminds me of the mindset I had when I was young like this. Again, it makes sense to have pets and have them as some sort of hobby, but a dog or cat you come home to every night should not be anything more than what it should be, a pet.
Creation Date: February 13th, 2025 - We're dinks! Brouhg... --- broh... too much subtitution why do they hab thre dogs please help them before it is too la-