> “This analysis does not mean that dog and cat ownership should be curtailed for environmental reasons, but neither should we view it as an unalloyed good”
Why only look at carbon though? We could tax non-pet owners as they have statistically higher cortisol levels and high-blood pressure vs. pet owners. Non-dog owners are also more likely to get insufficient exercise. Children of non-pet households are more likely to have asthma and allergies.
On the flip side, pet owners are more likely to get parasites, cat-scratch disease, or toxo.
That's a false equivalence. If bad health is a concern you handle that through a direct "tax" (e.g. increased health insurance premiums based on general lifestyle/health assessments), not through such indirect measures as a non-pet tax. On the other hand the cost of pets (carbon footprint, other environmental damage) is directly related to the pets or their food, thus taxes would be directly levied on those aspects.
Cats also kill billions of birds every year, way more than any number of windmills or skyscrapers ever did. And they don’t do it for food, either. It’s just because cats are jerks.
I only noticed them when I lived in apartments. Now that I live in a neighborhood I don't see them unless it's in a house. I live in Florida so things might be different here.
I think cats should lose their special pet status if they aren't kept indoors or restricted to an owner's yard. There were a couple of "outdoor cats" in my neighborhood a few years ago, and they'll kill birds in my yard, attack my dogs, leave dead animals on my porch, etc. There was nothing I could do about it though, because cats are considered pets whether or not they actually have an owner. Animal control said all you can do is try to humanely catch them, then take them to a shelter, you can't leave out poison like you can with mice and rats.
The meat industry is operated by legally responsible humans. Pets on the other hand are not legal entities, it seems logical that the liability would fall to the owner.
You didn't ask that question. You asked whether consumers (not the meat industry) should be be held liable.
But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar of criminal animal cruelty then I don't see why they shouldn't be held liable.
My initial comment was whether existing animal cruelty statutes should be extended to cover pet owners instead of only direct actions by people, assuming they don't already do so.
No, you asked whether it should be held liable. I answered that it should be held liable, conditional on the legal process determining so. We can't just decide that they should be held liable by mob vote, that's not how justice works. Hence my answer: If A then B.
I made no statement wrt. my personal opinion whether A is true or not.
But even rolling with the argument for a moment that the meat industry meets the bar and manages to evade the law anyway. That is no justification for letting pets do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, so for the purpose of this conversation that would seem like an unnecessary deflection of responsibility by pet owners and the better answer is to improve both.
They're an environmental disaster here in Australia because our native wildlife didn't really evolve with that sort of predator. I believe NZ has it even worse as they had basically no land-based predators other than humans, and so have many birds that nest on land or spend significant amounts of time on land.
Not sure why you are being downvoted so heavily. Cats are killers by design, google “cat fairy terns” to read about a single cat decimating an entire colony of birds and forcing them onto a new migratory path. It’s not spoken of as much in the states because people love their cats here, but many of them are little furry murder machines that kill for fun.
I'm being downvoted because people who live with cats are controlled by brain parasites communicated from the cats. That's why cat owners don't seem to realize that they are living with the most disagreeable domestic animal.
If indeed is not do for food then I should think something should be done perhaps, although is not clear what to do. Other people know better and wrote some comments. Another comment says "cat owners should certainly be fined for allowing their cats outdoors on continents where cats are non-native"; perhaps in such continents, force to go inside if they killed too many birds (and if you don't want inside of your home, then it will be the cats jail, I suppose; or else, in the other continent, perhaps). Although, actually I don't really know, especially, since I have not observed it by myself and I have not counted.
I wouldnt assume that "quality protein" has any correlation with being healthy.
>Owners can also feed their pets lower-quality proteins, as dogs and cats can happily chow on meat byproducts, such as marrow, kidneys and spleen, left from processing meat for humans.
Us humans don't choose what parts of animals we eat based on any kind of health-centric metric. It just based on what parts we deem distasteful to eat. So the bits that are deemed undesirable/low quality are not necessarily any worse for the consumer. Some amount of organ meat may even be beneficial to health. Arguably meat eating humans would do well to include some amount of kidney, liver, marrow etc in place of some of the muscle tissue that we tend to eat a lot of.
I think you’re totally right in your assumption re: quality == healthy. However, I really doubt the vague assertion of this article that implies there’s a large population of pets being fed ‘high quality’ food.
There are many problems with modern industrial agriculture and mass produced food, but efficiency is not one of them. There is very little waste in these operations and those kidneys, livers, and marrow bones are already being put to good use, whether its for human consumption or animal.
I won’t pretend to know what proportion of pets are fed standard, ‘low quality’ food (ie. food made from corn, grain, and what most would consider as low quality meats and byproducts) but if I had to guess I would wager its >90%.
> There are many problems with modern industrial agriculture and mass produced food, but efficiency is not one of them. There is very little waste in these operations and those kidneys, livers, and marrow bones are already being put to good use, whether its for human consumption or animal.
Maybe modern industrial agriculture is efficient, but modern food consumption isn't. Over a third of all available food is wasted in the USA. How much of that food waste would be OK to be re-processed as pet food?
I think this is a great point. I don’t know how the logistics of such a re-processing would work, but food waste is certainly a major problem.
I don’t mean to sound like an apologist (or even a fan) of industrial agriculture, but I think its important to acknowledge the reality that while its an imperfect system, it is also a modern marvel that enables us as a society to feed an enormous amount of people at extraordinarily low costs to the consumer.
> I wouldnt assume that "quality protein" has any correlation with being healthy.
I don't see why not, with a correct definition of "quality". See below.
> Arguably meat eating humans would do well to include some amount of kidney, liver, marrow etc in place of some of the muscle tissue that we tend to eat a lot of.
Sure, if those items are all processed with the same level of care and attention to detail, cleanliness, etc. But because they are treated as "by products", they're not.
Maybe this should be called "lower-grade". A ribeye-steak is very high-grade protein, but it doesn't mean it's healthy (neither for humans nor pets btw).
For the record, I don't think that everyone is feeding steaks to their pets. This was just an example. But the article does point out the worrying trend of pet owners giving them high-end foods.
As far as I can tell, what the article means by "lower quality" is "processed as by-products instead of as primary food". Which means they're going to be less healthy because they're not processed with the same level of care and attention to cleanliness and other important factors. That's the issue I have. (Well, that and the issue of what the animals that will supply the products are fed on--see below.)
> A ribeye-steak is very high-grade protein, but it doesn't mean it's healthy
I don't think a ribeye steak from a grass fed, free range, antibiotic-free animal is particularly unhealthy. But it's probably not easy to find such in many grocery stores, at least in the US.
> I don't think a ribeye steak from a grass fed, free range, antibiotic-free animal is particularly unhealthy.
It's unhealthy as in "not bringing enough diversity in nutrients". Kidney, liver meat are much richer sources of nutrients. Nothing wrong with indulging with a nice steak once a week, as long as you're having lots of plants/seeds/fruits-based meals as well.
Same goes for pets, but since you can't feed almonds to your cat, it's better off eating a mix of muscle, liver, bone marrow, etc.
I wouldn't worry too much about the cleanliness of pet food - it's been thoroughly cooked and processed to guarantee a long shelf life.
I feel these kind of articles are, if not "dumb", then just pointless. You know what else is a big driver of carbon emissions: humans. We would certainly have a lot lower carbon emissions if half of us voluntarily committed suicide, but that doesn't seem like a realistic proposal.
Also, the lack of analysis in this article doesn't help. There is nothing in this article, for example, that says how much of the meat protein that goes into pet food would essentially be waste from meat production intended for humans.
Pets have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?
Where do you want to live? Soviet Russia? Pets provide companionship to millions of people - I'd bet you many of them consider that to be a basic need.
Basic needs as defined by most western governments, e.g. for the purpose of calculating welfare, does not cover expenses for pets. They do not enjoy tax benefits like dependents do either.
Of course people who enjoy something are more likely to define whatever they enjoy as basic need, that doesn't mean we let everyone use the definition that suits them.
<kids> have real costs associated with them (as this article highlights) and to my knowledge they're not considered basic needs by any stretch. So why should you be exempt from paying those costs, externalties included?
I'll assume that's supposed to be a question how pets are different from kids when it comes to government-set incentives about having more or fewer of them (if it is it would have been more direct to just ask that).
First of all, arguments that we ought to have fewer kids are being made when it comes to environmental footprint. But even ignoring that the the birth rate is already below replacement rate. So unlike pets the government does not exactly have to go out of its way to incentivize people to have fewer of them. Then there's the issue that for society to continue to work we have to keep up the inter-generational contract, so at a larger scale having children is a basic need for society while pets are not.
And last but not least this conversation is not about forbidding pets or children but factoring in externalties so people can make better resource tradeoffs, perhaps they could still have a kid or a pet but decide it's too costly to have both or abstain from some other luxuries to afford either. In that regard children and pets are similar.
The only thing they could say is that pet food should only contain non-choice cuts of meat and not require people raise animals for them. That people should not impose their own insecurities and brand-image consciousness on their pets.
So, do you think a policy like the OCP in the PRC is the way countries should go? How would you run it to ensure it's not an unforgiving cruel singly numbers oriented goal which will run roughshod over actual people?
I also think that human population is too much (the other species isn't so quite), and do not have any children myself, and would suggest to others. But, it is to be voluntary. I am not try to force anyone please! This is like VHEMT, however, I am not suggesting that human should be extinct; merely, less population by voluntary. I also think that, since not everyone is going to listen/agree anyways, it isn't going to be extinction especially since currently human population is a lot. Therefore, the method to do is good but not their intended end goal which is human extinction, and also will not be the result of their method anyways, due to what I explained, so it works. Extinction of non-human species is a bad thing to do, but also human because human is also one of the species.
People who opt out of having children -- the most meaningful decision in most people's lives -- because they are worried about carbon emissions should rethink the methods they use to make decisions.
No one knows the "effect" of having a child because no one knows what that child is going to do in their life.
It's satanic to think that you can summarize a human being in terms of tons of carbon emitted in their lifetime. If human lives have intrinsic value then you can't do that. If you don't think that human lives have intrinsic value then who cares if the world ends?
No one suggested that. We know that each person added will contribute emissions (on average). There's nothing emotional about that unfortunate fact, and that should contribute to our decisions to have 0-5 or more kids...
The hacks have to make a living not talking seriously about corporate corruption, grotesque inequality, real drivers of and solutions to net negative GHGs, the criminal injustice system, or the classist, celebrity-obsessed, inverted totalitarian apartheid.
Meanwhile, the economy is "better than ever" and "everything's fine," if you're rich and self-interested to defend the status quo.
Interesting assertion, less shallow than the article's premise, is that Guns, Germs, and Steel (and other research) asserts pet ownership significantly increases human immune response. Does that mean more humans consuming more cattle, or less illness-driven carbon emissions? It's super complicated to assess all the alternatives, I guess.
I honestly cannot believe some of the things I read here.
In a recent post, airlines are burning thousands of gallons of fuels flying empty planes in order to keep their “slots” and how organizations literally destroy goods to keep their “use it or lose it” budgets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511488
Then there’s other news about how tons of food is just thrown away every day, or how presidential candidates are blowing millions of dollars on political ads just for the heck of it.
Some people actually defend that kind of blatant waste, in the name of Mammon, but you want to tax pets?
It’s bizarre how a small part of the population is so out of touch and so anti-human.
In any case, why is it about taxing pets and not just taxing pet food?
If we stop making humans, wouldn't it automatically reduce the demand for pets? Think about it. That infact may just be the truly viewed as an unalloyed good.
People living are a driver of carbon emissions. Should we defenestrate ourselves to commercial non-journalism and feel guilty and insecure about not immediately committing suicide?
69 comments
[ 7.3 ms ] story [ 2566 ms ] threadMoney well spent.
On the flip side, pet owners are more likely to get parasites, cat-scratch disease, or toxo.
Taxes for everyone!
Walking 10 minutes down any quiet street usually results in me seeing at least a cat or two. Cats are very common if you're looking for them.
Unfortunately as long as people feel entitled to let their cats outside, I'm not sure how we ever solve it.
It's really kind of sad we are so casually sponsoring such destruction, for so little purpose. The grandparent speaks truly.
(I realize the effects of cats upon other animals, but your logic..)
But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar of criminal animal cruelty then I don't see why they shouldn't be held liable.
My initial comment was whether existing animal cruelty statutes should be extended to cover pet owners instead of only direct actions by people, assuming they don't already do so.
I made no statement wrt. my personal opinion whether A is true or not.
But even rolling with the argument for a moment that the meat industry meets the bar and manages to evade the law anyway. That is no justification for letting pets do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, so for the purpose of this conversation that would seem like an unnecessary deflection of responsibility by pet owners and the better answer is to improve both.
Huh? Why should I risk my pet's health?
>Owners can also feed their pets lower-quality proteins, as dogs and cats can happily chow on meat byproducts, such as marrow, kidneys and spleen, left from processing meat for humans.
Us humans don't choose what parts of animals we eat based on any kind of health-centric metric. It just based on what parts we deem distasteful to eat. So the bits that are deemed undesirable/low quality are not necessarily any worse for the consumer. Some amount of organ meat may even be beneficial to health. Arguably meat eating humans would do well to include some amount of kidney, liver, marrow etc in place of some of the muscle tissue that we tend to eat a lot of.
There are many problems with modern industrial agriculture and mass produced food, but efficiency is not one of them. There is very little waste in these operations and those kidneys, livers, and marrow bones are already being put to good use, whether its for human consumption or animal.
I won’t pretend to know what proportion of pets are fed standard, ‘low quality’ food (ie. food made from corn, grain, and what most would consider as low quality meats and byproducts) but if I had to guess I would wager its >90%.
Maybe modern industrial agriculture is efficient, but modern food consumption isn't. Over a third of all available food is wasted in the USA. How much of that food waste would be OK to be re-processed as pet food?
I don’t mean to sound like an apologist (or even a fan) of industrial agriculture, but I think its important to acknowledge the reality that while its an imperfect system, it is also a modern marvel that enables us as a society to feed an enormous amount of people at extraordinarily low costs to the consumer.
I don't see why not, with a correct definition of "quality". See below.
> Arguably meat eating humans would do well to include some amount of kidney, liver, marrow etc in place of some of the muscle tissue that we tend to eat a lot of.
Sure, if those items are all processed with the same level of care and attention to detail, cleanliness, etc. But because they are treated as "by products", they're not.
For the record, I don't think that everyone is feeding steaks to their pets. This was just an example. But the article does point out the worrying trend of pet owners giving them high-end foods.
As far as I can tell, what the article means by "lower quality" is "processed as by-products instead of as primary food". Which means they're going to be less healthy because they're not processed with the same level of care and attention to cleanliness and other important factors. That's the issue I have. (Well, that and the issue of what the animals that will supply the products are fed on--see below.)
> A ribeye-steak is very high-grade protein, but it doesn't mean it's healthy
I don't think a ribeye steak from a grass fed, free range, antibiotic-free animal is particularly unhealthy. But it's probably not easy to find such in many grocery stores, at least in the US.
It's unhealthy as in "not bringing enough diversity in nutrients". Kidney, liver meat are much richer sources of nutrients. Nothing wrong with indulging with a nice steak once a week, as long as you're having lots of plants/seeds/fruits-based meals as well.
Same goes for pets, but since you can't feed almonds to your cat, it's better off eating a mix of muscle, liver, bone marrow, etc.
I wouldn't worry too much about the cleanliness of pet food - it's been thoroughly cooked and processed to guarantee a long shelf life.
Also, the lack of analysis in this article doesn't help. There is nothing in this article, for example, that says how much of the meat protein that goes into pet food would essentially be waste from meat production intended for humans.
As for suicide, that probably has a lower utilitarian balance than producing fewer pets.
If everyone could just leave this shitshow on their own terms, whenever they wanted to, how would the people who want to tax pets get their money?
And the majority of pets worldwide are not “produced”, they’re adopted from the pool of animals who already exist.
If I’m poor does this mean I shouldn’t be able to get help from a pet because people want it to be taxed?
I’m getting pretty tired of all these empty and worthless sensationalist articles.
Of course people who enjoy something are more likely to define whatever they enjoy as basic need, that doesn't mean we let everyone use the definition that suits them.
First of all, arguments that we ought to have fewer kids are being made when it comes to environmental footprint. But even ignoring that the the birth rate is already below replacement rate. So unlike pets the government does not exactly have to go out of its way to incentivize people to have fewer of them. Then there's the issue that for society to continue to work we have to keep up the inter-generational contract, so at a larger scale having children is a basic need for society while pets are not.
And last but not least this conversation is not about forbidding pets or children but factoring in externalties so people can make better resource tradeoffs, perhaps they could still have a kid or a pet but decide it's too costly to have both or abstain from some other luxuries to afford either. In that regard children and pets are similar.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's satanic to think that you can summarize a human being in terms of tons of carbon emitted in their lifetime. If human lives have intrinsic value then you can't do that. If you don't think that human lives have intrinsic value then who cares if the world ends?
My dog is 1/5 the size and 1/6 the lifespan of another human.
Not to mention it doesn't commute or take vacations by airplane.
Meanwhile, the economy is "better than ever" and "everything's fine," if you're rich and self-interested to defend the status quo.
In a recent post, airlines are burning thousands of gallons of fuels flying empty planes in order to keep their “slots” and how organizations literally destroy goods to keep their “use it or lose it” budgets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511488
Then there’s other news about how tons of food is just thrown away every day, or how presidential candidates are blowing millions of dollars on political ads just for the heck of it.
Some people actually defend that kind of blatant waste, in the name of Mammon, but you want to tax pets?
It’s bizarre how a small part of the population is so out of touch and so anti-human.
In any case, why is it about taxing pets and not just taxing pet food?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/4/16094674/cats-dogs-meat-di...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/environmentalists-save-world-...
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-cats-and-...
The best generic metric for how much CO2 you produce is simply the amount you spend, which is highly correlated with how much you earn.
Fixing that is hard...