Comments on: Pets are people

By: Susan Kuchinskas

Susan Kuchinskas — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:32:00 +0000

As we learn more about the human attachment system -- that is, the brain activity and neurochemicals involved in forming relationships including love and trust -- it seems that it's not so much that we are conferring personhood on animals. Rather, our bonds with animals are no different than our bonds with other humans. Bonds with both are likely the result of a release of oxytocin into the parts of the brain that handle social relationships.

Moreover, dogs -- and very likely, most other pet mammals -- may experience an almost identical oxytocin release in the social areas of their brains, which are not very different from ours.

See:

Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672376?dopt=Abstract

and

Dog's Gaze at Owner Increases Urinary Oxytocin During Social Interaction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19124024

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:45:46 +0000

My dog definitely knows what certain words mean, such as "bacon," "cheese," "out," "off," or, "find [insert family member name or pet name here]," and she'll communicate to me certain things, such as that she wants me to turn on the faucet for a drink, or she wants / needs to go out. It's not English or ASL, but it is conversational to some limited extent. I don't confuse her nor my cats as being human, but I provide for them what I believe I should as their adoptive parent. (Yes, I shoo bugs and spiders out of my home instead of crunching them, and don't eat flesh foods.) Some DO treat their animals way overboard, and to the disregard of other humans. I believe God wishes us to care for all, and wish none would ever be tortured, starved, or homeless. Interesting about the elephant video which I'm too squemish to watch.

By: nick gogerty

nick gogerty — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:22:26 +0000

the tendancy to anthropomorphize isn't just limited to animals. A surprising number of Roomba robotic vacum cleaners name them as well. We are social animals, to such a degree we extend the "society" to pretty much anything…

By: A Key

A Key — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:01:50 +0000

Female cats are preferred because they are friendlier and less predatorial not because of a concept that cats are female. I don't know why male dogs are preferred; perhaps, they are more protective. Also, marketing is changing to accommodate pet owners, including the sale of homes with pet showers, just as an example.

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:45:51 +0000

Steve, Geertz's comment is about how we define the person, not animals. And you are right, lots of other cultures endow animals with a variety of non-animal properties. What's maybe striking about our culture is that our animals are not endowed with our collective cultural meanings, but with highly individuated, individualizing ones. Other cultures make them Gods. We make them companions. But then that's us, isn't it? Thanks, Grant

By: steve

steve — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:25:22 +0000

Geertz can't possibly be right that only Westerners anthropomorphize animals. Didn't American Indians personify all kinds of supernatural animal creatures? Don't most cultures anthropomorphize things that are even less intelligent than pets, like the moon or the sun? This strikes me as an example of hypertrophic cultural relativism.

By: Steve Portigal

Steve Portigal — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:27:30 +0000

Sorry - Edison (that's what I thought, but I managed to find some story about Westinghouse) is the electrocuter (electrocutor?) - http://www.roadsideamerica.com/pet/topsy.html

By: Steve Portigal

Steve Portigal — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:20:05 +0000

In Errol Morris's excellent documentary "Mr. Death" he uses an archival scene of Westinghouse's electrocution of an elephant to great effect. The film deals with many issues, including "humane" capital punishment and Holocaust denial. The sight of the elephant dying is upsetting, and of course, our reaction is an element in the story that Morris has us go through in the watching of the film - the gasp over the death of an animal in contrast to the tolerance of human suffering is a contradiction of modern life, and Morris never tells us why he is showing it to us, but by the end of the film you begin to have some very small understanding of how the Holocaust could have happened.

(I'm only pointing to it, rather than fully explaining it because, well, it's been a few years since I've seen the film, and ya know....I just remember it was a powerful piece in a powerful doc)