pets and people

[cellio]

Recently I've heard several people express puzzlement over people who would refuse to evacuate an unsafe situation without their pets. Here, let me try to shed some light on that.

This is a hot-button issue for many; if you keep reading you might be offended. Ok, you've been warned.

My cats have been members of my family for years. Each of them has intelligence, a clear personality, and a demonstrated capacity for affection and love. (No, it's not just that I'm the food-bringer, because sometimes my husband is the food-bringer and yet they mostly ignore him.) They are sentient creatures that have formed personal bonds with me, and vice-versa. Time together deepens that bond, and we've had a lot of time together.

They are every bit as much members of my family as a parent's kids are to his. I'm not saying that pets are surrogate kids; I'm saying that the relationship can be every bit as strong. I would no more willingly abandon my cats than a parent would willingly abandon his kids.

In addition to that bond, I have an obligation to my pets every bit as strong as a parent's obligation to a non-independent child. Pets are not toys that you toss aside when they become inconvenient. I've taken on an obligation for the length of each pet's life, a period of time that is, by the way, comparable to the one parents accept when they choose to raise children. (Except that the teenage kid can probably obey an order to "run out of here right now"; the cat can't.)

So here's the part that may offend some parents. If I'm in an emergency situation and I can choose between saving a random pet and saving a random baby, I will save the baby. However, between my pet and a random baby, I'm taking my pet. I'll do what I can to mitigate, including telling everyone I encounter on the way out "hey there's a baby in there", but I will fulfill my family obligations first. This is not heartlessness; rather it is the opposite, not abandoning those closest to me because they have become inconvenient.

On a practical rather than philosophical note: leaving a pet behind in that kind of situataion is a death sentence, while leaving a kid is increased risk. 'Cause they're going to go in after the kid, but too many people will refuse to do so for "only" a pet.

Comments

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

You're right, it's a hot button issue. And I mostly agree with you. My guys are as dear as my kids to me, but in a very different way. MY kitties enrich my life every single day and I have cried for them at their passing more than I cried for many people. I define my obligation to them in exactly the way you do.

But I'm not sure if I could choose between MY guys and some random baby. Babies are my professional life. I'd probably half-kill myself trying to save both.

[cellio]

I'd probably half-kill myself trying to save both.

True -- I would try to save everyone I could. I was postulating the scenario where that's just not possible.

I also desperately hope that this remains a gedanken experiment only!

[sekhmets-song.livejournal.com]

Not only am I not offended, I completely agree. More than with a child, I chose to bring my cats into my home, make them depend on me and my husband for everything. I limited their choices by taking them in and feel I owe it to them to do everything I can to make them safe and well.
I've heard the argument that cats don't feel any real affection for their owners and that it's just the food relationship. That's a crock. My husband does all of the food duties for our boys and the cats have no stronger bond to him than they do to me.
I watch my cats get upset when I am upset, try to cheer my husband up when he is sad, try to sooth me when I am sick. I have seen them cry when we leave (after doing their best to "fool" us into staying home) and show some level of resentment when return after a long absence (and then give into the temptation love all over us in joy that we have "finally" come home). The relationship and love between them and us is very real and very deep. I feel sorry for the people who don't understand this. They have missed out on something truly remarkable.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way about my pets. However, on some level I think we are flattering ourselves about the mutual bond. I think pets are basically parasites who we project a lot of emotions onto because we see how helpless they are without us. And they do have some kind of affection for us, but they are also very cunning beings who we pamper because they have been primed through evolution to push our buttons. Don't get me wrong: just thinking about us being gone and our pets fending for themselves makes me get teary. But beyond that, what we see in them is at least a little irrational. I think it's important to remember that sometimes. (Of course, what I see in my daughter is somewhat irrational in that same way.)

[cellio]

I think pets are basically parasites who we project a lot of emotions onto because we see how helpless they are without us.

To an extent, sure. But I have seen pets pine for their previous owners from the comfort of a nice home with a (new) loving family, too. I think they connect with people as individuals, not just as interchangable providers of services.

But yeah, owners and parents are both a little irrational about their specific charges.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

You don't think children are also "very cunning beings who we pamper because they have been primed through evolution to push our buttons"?

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

It's more like, we've been primed through evolution to have our buttons be pushable by our children.

But in all seriousness, I guess what I meant was not that pets were primed by natural evolution to do that but that they have been artificially selected to do that. I think there's something to realize about pets -- most have been bred (by people) to be cute and to look as though they are expressing human emotions. We generally don't feel the same way about all animals, not just because they aren't ours, but because they haven't all undergone that process. On some level domesticated dogs are just the dogs whose forebears stuck around the camp fire a little longer than the rest of the pack, then people turned them into toys. Whatever emotions we ascribe to pets are surely there in other animals too, but even aside from the bond we have with them, we ascribe more emotions to our pets, because we made them look and act in ways we found similar to human actions.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I suspect that's getting a little too abstract for living a good life. After all, once the pet exists and you're attached to it, the breeding history doesn't matter much compared to the grief you'll feel if you lose the pet.

Have you heard the theory that there's co-evolution between humans and dogs? It's not just that dogs who could get along with people did better, so did people who could get along with dogs.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I'm a father of three who has had many pets over the years, and I'm not offended, Monica. You've made your reasoning quite clear, and I don't have any problems with it.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

Agreed, whole-heartedly. And if I didn't have the means to take all of them, I would stay with them.

On a related note, I saw a story (I think on Oprah) about an anesthesiologist who stayed after his hospital had evacuated, and took in pets from people who didn't want to leave them. He promised them that he would not leave until those animals were safe, and he kept his word, even though it meant risking his own safety. In the end they were rescued (animals too) and he had in his charge 50 dogs, 18 cats, and two hamsters. I thought it was cool that someone had cared enough about their hamsters to seek him out. :)

[siderea]

There is a comment in a MZB novel, Hawkmistress!, to the effect of "You must always treat an animal right, because you will never be able to explain to them why you have done them wrong."

[cellio]

That resonates. (I haven't read the book.)

Really, you must always treat an animal -- or a person -- right because that's the right thing to do. But the second part still rings true -- while there may be cases where you have to do something wrong to a person, being able to later discuss it (and assess how wrong it really was after all) mitigates. You don't get that with animals.

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

I don't know...what you say makes sense...and knowing how I feel about my parents' cat (and I only lived with them for a couple of months once they had the cats), it makes sense.

But the problem comes when it seems that some people are putting their own lives at risk. I don't know.

Great post, I'm doing a lot of thinking about the issue and re-evaluating what I think.

[cellio]

But the problem comes when it seems that some people are putting their own lives at risk.

People put their lives at risk all the time -- for example, every time you get into a car. It's all a matter of balancing risk against benefit. For me, safety of the pets I'm responsible for is worth some risk.

Yes, if I were in a situation where I felt my own death was imminent and I couldn't rescue my pets, I'd run anyway, after making my best effort to get them out. Better not all of us die, after all. But if staying merely increases my risk some, and leaving would certainly kill the pet, I'll stay a little longer and keep trying to get the pet out with me.

Of course, we don't always have accurate impressions of risk, either.

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

And the impression of risk is probably a big part of it. Because hurricanes are completely outside of my experience, it's an unknown, and unknowns always seem riskier than something we've prepared for and evaluated the risk for.

So, from here it just seems crazy to stay, no matter what.

Of course, people from New Orleans would probably have a hard time comprehending how we recover from a foot of snow.

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

So here's the part that may offend some parents. If I'm in an emergency situation and I can choose between saving a random pet and saving a random baby, I will save the baby. However, between my pet and a random baby, I'm taking my pet. I'll do what I can to mitigate, including telling everyone I encounter on the way out "hey there's a baby in there", but I will fulfill my family obligations first. This is not heartlessness; rather it is the opposite, not abandoning those closest to me because they have become inconvenient.

This is where I have to part ways with you. No matter how strongly I feel the obligation I've taken on with a pet, the life of a human baby is more important than a pet.

After all, I could, in your hypothetical situation, rescue the baby, dump it on the first competent caretaker, and then go back for my pet, rather than rescuing my pet and assuming someone else will go back for the baby.

Pets before belongings, *of course*. Pets before people in a crisis, no. (Note: that doesn't mean choosing human disater relief organizations for donations over animal welfare organizations. It means that if there is a human being who I can prevent from coming to immediate tangible and substantial harm, that's a higher obligation than saving my pets. After all, one of the working definitions of "family" is based on how much DNA you share with someone...)

We all have different priorities, for various reasons, and mine seem clearly different from yours here. Not necessarily better, but distinctly different.

[cellio]

This is where I have to part ways with you.

I suspect most people part ways with me by that point.

After all, I could, in your hypothetical situation, rescue the baby, dump it on the first competent caretaker, and then go back for my pet, rather than rescuing my pet and assuming someone else will go back for the baby.

If there's time to go back, I'd rescue my pets and then go back for the baby. But if I have to choose one or the other, you and I would make different choices.

After all, one of the working definitions of "family" is based on how much DNA you share with someone.

That's a definition, sure, but I've always found the definitions based on relationship to be more convincing. By the definition you cited, for instance, an adopted child isn't family -- a position that I assume we both hold to be incorrect.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

*nod*

I'm not going to guess what I'd do between DJ and Zoe, versus a random baby. Just not going there in my brain.

But I'd wait for the next ride rather than leave them behind, were I on a roof. You're the first person to say what I've long thought, that I have an obligation to these animals. I've taken them in, I've promised I'll take care of them. They're my family.

I love kids. I'm a teacher, and a good one. But my dogs (and my partner) are my family.

[cellio]

(I take it DJ and Zoe are the dogs in your userpic?)

But my dogs (and my partner) are my family.

Yup. "Found family" is just as important as the biological sort.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's happy but gormless Zoe on the left, wily and devoted DJ on the right.