Because we perceive them similarly to babies and small children but there also aren't as many ideological justifications for treating them like shit like there are for humans, e.g. poor shaming, "overpopulation", racism, etc. There's also the idea that they're morally innocent, and maybe the fact that they're not perceived as competitors for resources whereas other people are to some under capitalism.
Edit: That being said, having empathy for animals is good and if you hate animals there actually is something wrong with you. The same's true for children and other people but these things aren't mutually exclusive.
Humans did the holocaust. Turkeys let you pet them if you give em corn and gobble back to you. That's why
Some animals. There's a term "bambi factor" for how much we empathize with certain species (like, most people empathize more with cats than fish)
People are genuinely ignorant about the care fish need. It's the same thing that happens with all small pets, they're almost disposable. Nobody tells you that they may be cheap to buy but they have needs you can't meet if you're an indifferent owner.
The pet store wouldn't get money from impulse buyers if they told you the care you need for an aquarium (don't you have to start a few weeks before you bring the fish to get the good bacteria?) or how actually big hamster cages are. Or that birds are such sensitive creatures.
I blame Nirvana
"But it's okay to eat fish
'Cause they don't have any feelings"
Well, even if you just eat plants. There's somewhere where you have to start being indifferent to the lives of other beings, even if that's confined to certain contexts. I mean, yeah, I don't enjoy causing fish pain or discomfort either. I don't even like killing bugs. Compassionate behavior should be encouraged, but by existing we necessarily cause suffering to other beings. In order to not go insane, we have to put up boundaries about what is acceptable or moral - so what are those boundaries and do they have any consistent foundations? capacity for continued suffering is, maybe, somewhere to start looking for consistent foundations.
"Don't cause needless suffering where you can help it" is a pretty solid baseline. People are talking about pets here -- there's a difference between catching and eating a fish vs keeping a fish in a cramped featureless tank where their only escape is an early death, stunted malnourished and miserable. Doing this to fish is not a necessary fact of our existence.
:( That's sad, and I'm sorry, I'm just talking about most people
Gonna black pill here for a second: humans mostly love domesticated animals, specifically breeds created to be domestic animals who lived along side of us. Part of this love stems from the fact we control the relationship, we have the power and these beings exist solely to fulfill our needs. We love them because we created them to serve our needs, the same way a feudal lord may feel “love” for his peasants.
Ever had a friend who got out of a really awful relationship and then decided to adopt a dog or cat and suddenly couldn’t shut up about how wonderful they were? Yeah they’re enjoying having a relationship where they’re the one in charge.
I say all this while I’m petting a heckin cute doggo who’d sitting at my feet.
What's the point of threads if not to bait people into making takes you don't like and then telling them what awful people they are?
Anyone who's kept a house cat knows this is a bad take. Cats are in charge of the relationship. When they don't want anything, they ignore you. When they want something done, they harass you until you do it. They do not respond to negative reinforcement. If you try to discipline a cat it will not improve its behavior, it will just stop trusting you. They don't fulfill any particularly important need. They just nap in your house and sometimes they might sit in your lap. And you have to wave a string around for them now and then. Anyone who buys a cat with notions of being in charge and exerting control is going to become very frustrated and will probably give the cat away very quickly.
Well they don't respond like dogs at all, so that is the experience for most people, but if you do get them as kittens you can usually, depending on the type of cat, get them to actually do stuff and be patient with you.
Gotta hold them a lot as kittens and touch them all over so they don't freak out and maul you when they slightly want to go somewhere else.
You can also give them treats for very specific things, and they will form habits. We got a 2 year old cat to sleep with us mostly every night, just by finding a treat it really likes and crinkling the package in bed, and feeding it there, a bunch of times, then spacing it out more and more, and now it's like once every 1-2 weeks.
Our other cat has some patience but is more of a grumpy one, but that might be due to the way it grew up. We had a landlord who charged a ton for cats, and literally right after we got it we lost a job, and had to hide that cat, including scaring it away from the window, and leaving it with relatives when the landlord did an inspection or showing, which that cat hated and was stressed out by.
Oh no, you must all think I hate cats or something. I have a cat! She's gentle and affectionate, and I adore her. I just don't feel I have much control over her. You're right about the process of "training" a cat. It's all about making them feel safe and comfortable with doing what you want them to do. Correcting bad behaviors might involve distracting or ignoring them. If you want a cat to behave well, you have to treat it with respect. I don't know where anyone could get the idea that people keep cats to engage in a domineering relationship.
Now dogs on the other hand... lots of people treat dogs that way.
I think because we see other humans more or less on equal footing with ourselves, with more (perceived) agency to change their situation/environment/etc than animals
Past a certain age, most children do have more agency than animals – I think that's around the age that it becomes harder for children to get permanently adopted. US-centrically at least, I think when the child has parents, others feel less like it's their place to step in, or prefer to admonish the parent for not being able to care for their child properly. It's obviously fucked. But that's my read on it.
with more (perceived) agency
I'm not saying I adhere to that view or that I endorse it, just explaining my take on why (american) society empathizes more with animals than humans.
It does depend on the situation though. Obviously a dog is going to do better in the woods. But leave a dog and a child unsupervised in a house for several days and the child will most likely (depending on their age) do better — they'll be able to feed themselves and keep a relatively sanitary environment, compared to the dog which will inevitably piss and shit all over and end up digging through the garbage for food. Hell, the kid might even be able to get out of the house or contact someone for help.
What I'm saying is that it depends on the situation — you can't make blanket statements like "all dogs actually have more agency than all children" because it isn't true. A 12-year-old kid left alone in a house for a weekend is going to do better than a dog left alone in a house for a weekend.
And again I don't endorse these views at all — I think children deserve more support than they're given, and at least as much support as any other vulnerable being. I'm just trying to answer your question as to why society empathizes more with animals than other humans (including children) — it's the perception of having more agency — and I don't understand why you're responding to me as if I hold these views personally. Do you think the average american has done any research into feral children?
You do generally develop things like fine motor skills and critical reasoning skills based on age (or at least corollated strongly enough with age that you can you it as a reasonable proxy).
A child who is old enough to have learned "grasp the door handle to exit the building" and "food is in the cabinet" and "I can push some buttons on the phone to summon help" and "i'm supposed to poop in the toilet" is going to have more agency over their surroundings than a dog that pretty much just knows "I should poop outside if I can" and "this smells like food" and "sometimes if I bark loud people will come" in the situation I described.
The perception absolutely is a bad heuristic, but isn't wrong across the board. That's important to acknowledge because it means people are more likely to actually believe it and more likely to disbelieve you if you say "oh but that's 100% wrong all the time". Especially because the cases where it isn't true are more complex. For example, animals in poor households are perceived to have less control over being subject to poverty than the people who live there, when, as we know, poor people (adults and children) also have virtually no control over their economic circumstances.
some estimates say 25 million farm animals are slaughtered per day
Yeah, the short answer to OP's question is: "We don't."
I don't wanna judge but wtf grandma.
Edit: the one who downvoted, what does it feel like to have small pp?
Imagine if the cat's name was just "eddie" but she wanted to fuck with you so she lied
being mommies and daddies of their pets (ask me about Oedipus)
is this some dogpill shit?
Wasn't the number that just came out something like 75% reduction total wildlife worldwide since the 1960s?
“Dehumanize” is a funny word because built into it is the assumption that being human is more important than being alive or conscious.
It is. Well, being sapient is, and humans are the only confirmed example of sapience (dolphins could be, but idk).
They can write people off as failing the criteria of the supposed meritocracy that class hierarchy is supposed to represent. Animals (at least domestic ones) are seen as helpless victims of circumstance, or victims of mishandling by inferior people (e.g., homeless people with dogs, "oh the poor dog, having to be out in the cold with some bum!")
yeah well, when trillions of human children are farmed for meat you might have a point
If humans empathize more animals they're very hypocritical at it. :vegan-edge:
I think you're conflating two groups. I'd argue empathy for animals correlates closely with empathy for other people.
People who say "those kids should get a job" and people who feel bad when animals suffer. In my experience, people who hate humans hate animals as much or more. Basically you're making someone up to get mad at.
I think to a degree, it's our power to help, and the expectations put upon us to help.
Like, you see a strat cat. If you toss it some chicken, you can tell yourself that you helped it. You put out food and a warm place to sleep, and you can tell yourself that you helped. You can take it home, keep it, and tell yourself that you helped. A cat is responsibility, but even if you're a perfect pet owner, it isn't gonna change your life all that much.
But with some starving kid, the second you think that you ought to help, you see all the obstacles and trouble you'll have helping the kid out. Because once you're taking care of a kid, that's like your whole life.
And I think that triggers some kinda switch in you. You start telling yourself that it ain't your problem, your responsibility. Because you just ain't strong enough to save them.
I think think this applies mostly to singular animals or people. Going by the animal kingdom as a whole we really ain't taking that good care of them. Mostly the ones we think are cute, and even that doesn't go that far if they're tasty or in the way of stuff we want.
and the expectations put upon us to help.
That, and animals being the first kind of interdependent relationship I was really exposed to outside of immediate family, is what gave me the ethical/moral logic that then went intersectional. We stole dogs from nature, distorted their bodies until we cripple the dog or make it unable to breathe, and humans have no problems throwing them away or condemning highly social and sensitive animals into prisons with open death penalties. Before I had Marx showing how that same kind of process was a universal and codifiable thing, that was the most readily available experience with the largest cultural footprint. I also hated bullies as a child for the same reason I hate the bourgeoisie now, using a position of strength only to oppress anyone weaker, and animals are the weakest living things in terms of power relationships. The people who abuse them are the most depraved kind of bully and lack the same social and state protection as the bourgeoisie, so they're easier to openly and viciously hate.
