A recent Time Magazine article is creating a lot of buzz.
Woke bioethicist and philosopher Jessica Pierce has recently published a piece in TIME title, “The Case Against Pets.”
Pierce’s claim is that pet ownership doesn’t benefit the animal.
Pierce argues that many pet owners, despite their best intentions, may inadvertently harm their pets while attempting to ensure their happiness. She suggests that treating pets as possessions or commodities can negatively impact their well-being. According to Pierce, the confinement, isolation, and stress experienced by pets in such conditions can lead to adverse health outcomes and shorter life expectancies.
Oh, and there is more, guess what? Pets are bad because they may be negatively impacting the climate:
There are the climate impacts of pet keeping. A 2017 study, for example, estimated that the meat-heavy diet of dogs and cats in the U.S. is roughly equivalent, in terms of carbon emissions, to nearly 14 millions cars on the road. Like industrialized animal agriculture, industrialized pet keeping occurs at a scale that is ecologically unsustainable.
So what is the solution?
According to Pierce bonds would be mutual and chosen by both parties—more like friendships rather than ownership. Animals wouldn’t be kept in captivity just to stay close to humans. Having fewer pets would improve the lives of those already in captivity and focus on their well-being.
She believes we should think about whether loving animals means moving away from keeping them as pets. Insisting that, we form different kinds of friendships with animals that don’t treat them as property, don’t involve keeping them captive, and don’t cause them suffering.
So far, in 2024, the Washington Post has told us that houseplants can harm the environment, and Time magazine has said that pets are bad.
I’m coming to the conclusion that people like Pierce are just miserable, and they want others to be just as miserable as them so they don’t think anything is wrong.