IssueRaiser

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true? As someone who's lived in a household with dogs and a cat, I never saw it that way. After all, most pets do not provide any practical service to their owners. When I threw a stick over and over to have the puppy bring it back to me, I may have been the one running the show, supposedly the master, but I always thought of it as my service to her; sure, it was enjoyable to me to have something to do outside, and to watch her speed and grace, but humans get tired of repetition a lot faster than dogs (and teaching her to do more interesting things than catch would have been quite a lot of work). Inside the house, it might have been nice seeing the older dog around, and to initiate play when I felt like it, but on the many, many occasions she decided to plop a filthy chew toy next to me on the couch (in the hope that I'd throw it - any attempt to remove the toy from the couch counted as a throw, resulting in her fetching it back to the couch!), I'd hardly associate the resulting exasperation with the feeling of having a servant. And I didn't have many actual duties myself - I'm sure this was felt double by the ones who dealt with their food and daily exercise. But there's no need to be verbose. A pet is simply a lite version of a human child. Physically, the parent does everything for the child; the reward is emotional, and quite high to make up for the former...

Posted by comex on Jan 21, 2015, 8:24 AM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.8,000 issues0 comments

hackernews (Other)

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true?

comexJan 21, 2015, 8:24 AM

> Traditionally, we like to think of animals as serving humans, but in a case like this, isn't the opposite true? As someone who's lived in a household with dogs and a cat, I never saw it that way. After all, most pets do not provide any practical service to their owners. When I threw a stick over and over to have the puppy bring it back to me, I may have been the one running the show, supposedly the master, but I always thought of it as my service to her; sure, it was enjoyable to me to have something to do outside, and to watch her speed and grace, but humans get tired of repetition a lot faster than dogs (and teaching her to do more interesting things than catch would have been quite a lot of work). Inside the house, it might have been nice seeing the older dog around, and to initiate play when I felt like it, but on the many, many occasions she decided to plop a filthy chew toy next to me on the couch (in the hope that I'd throw it - any attempt to remove the toy from the couch counted as a throw, resulting in her fetching it back to the couch!), I'd hardly associate the resulting exasperation with the feeling of having a servant. And I didn't have many actual duties myself - I'm sure this was felt double by the ones who dealt with their food and daily exercise. But there's no need to be verbose. A pet is simply a lite version of a human child. Physically, the parent does everything for the child; the reward is emotional, and quite high to make up for the former...

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue