Now I have an academically sound excuse why I don't like pets.
Well, personally, I do love pets. We've had dogs ever since I was a toddler. Then, we had rabbits, the occasional goldfish and what-not.
But it's a different thing altogether when it comes to taking care of them. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't have the patience nor the time to look after a pet. Unfortunately, my siblings don't share my sentiments. My elder sister and my younger brother have been the major culprits why we keep having these. Right now, we have two dogs, Shobi and Kopiko, both sent to our doorsteps by my two conniving siblings who knew how to bring home a pet but are, nonetheless, perennial amnesiacs when it comes to taking care of one.So now, we have two pets who have been practically forgotten by their original owners.
I pity them actually, which is why I've resolved not to take in an animal unless I'm quite certain I can care for it.
But, I digress. Now what was the reason again?
Well, I just happened to read an article (I forgot the link. Poor me) which basically confirmed the otherwise benign assumption that domestication makes an animal lose its innate instincts and senses. This fact can be taken as common sense but this was the first article that said it and then reinforced it with some scientific evidence on the side. Simply put, if you keep feeding the dog, eventually, that dog's going to forget how to feed itself. That's the gist.
Now, we humans have a thing we call "self-actualization", being that the end goal of every person is to transform one's potential into reality. For an animal, a huge part of its potential lies in its instincts. Surely, every thing has the right to actualize itself but domestication hampers that deal. As observed, all of us take in animals as pets because of a curiously misplaced sense of altruism. But if that mere act means removing from that animal its instincts, then does it follow that we are active agents in limiting that animal's self-actualization? If that's the case, are we supposed to be in a moral conflict with ourselves by encouraging such a process among humans but discouraging it from the animals we so willfully domesticate and "humanize"?
Think about that for a second.
Well, personally, I do love pets. We've had dogs ever since I was a toddler. Then, we had rabbits, the occasional goldfish and what-not.
But it's a different thing altogether when it comes to taking care of them. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't have the patience nor the time to look after a pet. Unfortunately, my siblings don't share my sentiments. My elder sister and my younger brother have been the major culprits why we keep having these. Right now, we have two dogs, Shobi and Kopiko, both sent to our doorsteps by my two conniving siblings who knew how to bring home a pet but are, nonetheless, perennial amnesiacs when it comes to taking care of one.So now, we have two pets who have been practically forgotten by their original owners.
I pity them actually, which is why I've resolved not to take in an animal unless I'm quite certain I can care for it.
But, I digress. Now what was the reason again?
Well, I just happened to read an article (I forgot the link. Poor me) which basically confirmed the otherwise benign assumption that domestication makes an animal lose its innate instincts and senses. This fact can be taken as common sense but this was the first article that said it and then reinforced it with some scientific evidence on the side. Simply put, if you keep feeding the dog, eventually, that dog's going to forget how to feed itself. That's the gist.
Now, we humans have a thing we call "self-actualization", being that the end goal of every person is to transform one's potential into reality. For an animal, a huge part of its potential lies in its instincts. Surely, every thing has the right to actualize itself but domestication hampers that deal. As observed, all of us take in animals as pets because of a curiously misplaced sense of altruism. But if that mere act means removing from that animal its instincts, then does it follow that we are active agents in limiting that animal's self-actualization? If that's the case, are we supposed to be in a moral conflict with ourselves by encouraging such a process among humans but discouraging it from the animals we so willfully domesticate and "humanize"?
Think about that for a second.
No comments:
Post a Comment