Our animal instincts are totally off-kilter

Suzanne Harrington on anthrozoology — the relationship between humans and animals.

A recent Guardian article questioned the ethics of keeping pets. It was written for a British audience, who love their pets so much that 16% included them as household members in the 2011 census, and 12% said they love them more than they love their partner. Which would surely suggest getting a new partner, rather than worrying about the ethics of pet ownership.

I ask my dogs what they think, as they lie on their rugs, watching me write this. They are gnawing on dog chews and contentedly licking their bits, but they just shrug and stare meaningfully at the treat tin. One of them wags her tail, as if to encourage me to get up and open the tin. I obey automatically.

Anyway, there is a new word. Anthrozoology — the relationship between humans and animals. This relationship is speciesist, to say the least — people sign online petitions expressing outrage at dog-meat consumption in other countries, while clutching a bacon sandwich in their other hand.

We don’t examine this random sentimentality too much, but imagine explaining it to a Martian. It can be summed up by Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, the title of a book written by a scientist at the forefront of the anthrozoology movement. And, yes, the love/hate /eat thing is cultural. And, no, we are not culturally superior, just because we have dogs and horses as pets, rather than for dinner.

We spend a lot of money on our pets — Americans spent $66bn on them last year, yet factories rear their chickens so horribly they have to be doused in chlorine before they reach the American dinner plate. We buy hoodies for our dogs, yet buy our dogs from puppy farms, places of unspeakable cruelty. When it comes to anthrozoology, we humans are ever so slightly inconsistent. By which I mean insane.

We have even taken to calling ourselves the ‘parents’ of our pets. It’s difficult to know where to start with this one, other than to politely point out that human vaginas do not push out puppies, kittens, or any other baby mammals, except homosapiens. We are not our pets’ parents.

They are not four-legged satellites of our ego; they are not accessories, accoutrements, penis extensions, babies, hobbies, toys, decorations, statements, or symbols.

They are complex beings with needs — highly specific, yet straightforward — and if we humans cannot meet these specific, straightforward needs, for as long as the animal lives, then we need to stick with Tamagotchis. The only unethical aspect of keeping animals as domestic companions is putting the needs of the human first, instead of carrying the animal around in a handbag and dressed as as fairy. We should let it run around sniffing the bums of other dogs. Pets don’t want our sentimentality; they want their needs met. Nothing more, nothing less. Except cats. Cats want staff.