[pachyderm]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...mals-keep-pets

[Vibe]

Simply put, pets are a luxury which wild animals can't afford. It's a creature from a different species which is kept for the sole purpose of providing comfort, affection, and companionship. When you have to worry about starving to death and there is no true certainty in your life, then pet keeping doesn't really make much sense. This is especially true when there are young of your own species to care for.

Alternatively, there are wild animals who will 'raise livestock.' In this instance they care for another creature, but they get something tangible from it. Oftentimes these are looked at as symbiotic relationships. The best example I can think of is of ants raising aphids; where the aphids excrete honeydew which the ants eat. Thus the ants protect the aphids and keep them relatively contained. It's a far simpler form of animal husbandry, yet, has quite a few similarities.

We think that mutual relationships like these may have been how the concepts of 'pets' arose in the first place. Cats and dogs provided some use to people, thus were kept around and domesticated. After we no longer required them for their original purposes, we continued to keep them around because we grew to enjoy their company. It took quite a bit of time for this relationship to come about though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the same process was occurring in other animals and we just didn't recognize it. As the article states, whenever the more substantial concerns of everyday living aren't an issue (such as when wild animals are kept in captivity), pet keeping is seen far more often. Thus I wouldn't see it as an unnatural urge in most mammals - just an impractical one.

[seeker1950]

I love reading and watching programs about how we evolved into keeping pets. Thanks, Araya, for your insightful reply.

[Vibe]

You're quite welcome! I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. They mean a lot.

The first thing I thought of was the ant/aphid thing.

But truly as PETS? Im not sure that many mammals would have the intelligence to be able to make that particular distinction, as to what is a "pet". Though an animal can certainly enjoy the company of another - look at monkeys, who are given cubs or kittens or puppies or dogs to live with. Or even heck, a stable where a goat is kept with the horses to keep them company. In a way, that is a "pet" of sorts, but the horses probably dont think "hey i have a pet". they just think "hey, thats my buddy". YOu know what, maybe if more people thought of their pets as their buddies instead, or companions, animal rights would get farther than it does.

I hesitate with the usage of pet often, because i think it implies too much ownership over an "object". I think its better to think of pets as animal companions, or even children(which some people think is whacky lol) or members of the family. It moreso values the incredible relationship we can grow to have with our animals.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Rainbowzz

I hesitate with the usage of pet often...

Yeah. They are independent creatures, with personalities and minds of their own, fellow beings accompanying us on our journeys.