Pets - how important they are in your life?

[GlasgowBandit]

if i sold my dog jasper i would loose something from the heart of my daughter lily.i got jasper when he was 12 weeks old and lily was 10 months.they play together,sleep together and look after one another.its hard to imagine one without the other.
no money could take the place of their relationship.
FRAN

Lovely post! 

[kinboshi]

Survival of the species is not the role of the individual.  Survival of an individual's descendants is of far more importance. 

If an individual has descendants, it is important (to the individual) that they survive.

It is not important for any individual to have descendants in the first place.

Due to our intelligence, we can create different purposes for our lives - and I agree that they are not always concerned with perpetuating our bloodline.  However, this is deviating from why we were born - which is fundamentally as mechanisms to carry and replicate our genes.

Funnily enough, our altruism in form of the welfare state and the many looking after those who are less able to care for themselves is actually a huge threat to the ongoing survival of our species.  Nature of course, will always move towards a solution that brings about an equilibrium (disease, famine, etc.) - although this is never stable as nature abhors a status quo (or was it Status Quo?).

[RED-DOG]

Survival of the species is not the role of the individual.  Survival of an individual's descendants is of far more importance. 

If an individual has descendants, it is important (to the individual) that they survive.

It is not important for any individual to have descendants in the first place.

Due to our intelligence, we can create different purposes for our lives - and I agree that they are not always concerned with perpetuating our bloodline.  However, this is deviating from why we were born - which is fundamentally as mechanisms to carry and replicate our genes.

Funnily enough, our altruism in form of the welfare state and the many looking after those who are less able to care for themselves is actually a huge threat to the ongoing survival of our species.  Nature of course, will always move towards a solution that brings about an equilibrium (disease, famine, etc.) - although this is never stable as nature abhors a status quo (or was it Status Quo?).

Precisely.

[AndrewT]

Funnily enough, our altruism in form of the welfare state and the many looking after those who are less able to care for themselves is actually a huge threat to the ongoing survival of our species.

We're not going to die out because we feed the poor now, instead of allowing them to starve. But certainly evolutionary pressures are much changed now from what they were in the past, to the point that you could argue that human evolution as we know it will 'stop'.

Nature of course, will always move towards a solution that brings about an equilibrium (disease, famine, etc.) - although this is never stable as nature abhors a status quo (or was it Status Quo?).

The first part is kind of correct - things tend to find their own level in relation to each other when it comes to populations of different species which eat each other, for instance. This is because any imbalance will provide an opportunity for some creature to evolve to exploit the imbalance. Once they've done that, the imbalance isn't there any more. The status quo doesn't tend to last simply because there are so many millions of different factors, all non-linearly related to each other, that they are in a constant state of flux, so there really isn't a status quo at a deep level. At some point, something will 'flip' and instigate a big change.

[thetank]

I think this thread is more about how important people think money is, rather than how important people think pets are.

Some darn good posts though.

[tantrum]

I think this thread is more about how important people think money is, rather than how important people think pets are.

Some darn good posts though.

Yes but how on earth we went from pets to the kids? >:?

The question is simple - 1 million for your pet without the option of having another pet? how kids come into this discussion is mind blowing.  

[Colchester Kev]

For a million, not only could you have my dog, but i would personally deliver it to Korea for you at no extra charge !!!

[Swordpoker]

If you discovered Tantrum was allergic to cats, what would you do?

Hi Tantrum, I've brought you a cat. Would you like to go out with me? One sneeze for yes, two sneezes if you want to go straight to the bedroom.

[totalise]

If you discovered Tantrum was allergic to cats, what would you do?

Hi Tantrum, I've brought you a cat. Would you like to go out with me? One sneeze for yes, two sneezes if you want to go straight to the bedroom.

what does 3 sneezes mean?

[thetank]

It means she'll probably pester you the next day with phonecalls etc. Bit too keen.

Best to leave well alone (or go to her place and leave a fake number.)

[tikay]

I would not Angell for any sum, but then I don't have a wish or need for a million quid, my life is just fine as is, & 1, 2, 5 or 10 mill would not improve that.

It is odd to compare, as some have, pets with kids, but for those of us who, for various reasons have never had kids, & for whom it's now too late, our pets are our kids.

[kinboshi]

Funnily enough, our altruism in form of the welfare state and the many looking after those who are less able to care for themselves is actually a huge threat to the ongoing survival of our species.

We're not going to die out because we feed the poor now, instead of allowing them to starve. But certainly evolutionary pressures are much changed now from what they were in the past, to the point that you could argue that human evolution as we know it will 'stop'.

Currently, we're OK - but if we extend life expectancy through scientific advances (reducing infant deaths and prolonging the average lifespan to say 150 years - for argument's sake), the natural resources required and actual space for these people to live will become very scarce.

'Civilisation' has/will certainly affect the course of human evolution.  We're still physiologically very similar to men who lived in caves, but the factors that were key to their survival are not so important to most of us in the 21st century.

Nature of course, will always move towards a solution that brings about an equilibrium (disease, famine, etc.) - although this is never stable as nature abhors a status quo (or was it Status Quo?).

The first part is kind of correct - things tend to find their own level in relation to each other when it comes to populations of different species which eat each other, for instance. This is because any imbalance will provide an opportunity for some creature to evolve to exploit the imbalance. Once they've done that, the imbalance isn't there any more. The status quo doesn't tend to last simply because there are so many millions of different factors, all non-linearly related to each other, that they are in a constant state of flux, so there really isn't a status quo at a deep level. At some point, something will 'flip' and instigate a big change.

There are examples of where an equilibrium is created in a confined and separated eco-system for many years and generations of the species within that.  This status quo is stable whilst outside influences don't come into play, but as soon as something happens to unbalance it (weather change, introduction of a predator or other species competing for the same resources, etc.), the survival of the species within this system can come under threat.  The dodo was a species that could only really live where it did (in the absence of predators), and as soon as something happened to that 'status quo', their extinction was pretty much ensured.  The same is seen in many cases of island gigantism - and it's exactly because of the status quo on these islands that these species can develop but are then susceptible to a change which can drive them to extinction.


Oh, and if I had a cat - it would be yours for a fiver. 

[tantrum]

If you discovered Tantrum was allergic to cats, what would you do?

Hi Tantrum, I've brought you a cat. Would you like to go out with me? One sneeze for yes, two sneezes if you want to go straight to the bedroom.

Sorry Sword, but I already have a cat.

[bolt pp]

I would not Angell for any sum, but then I don't have a wish or need for a million quid, my life is just fine as is, & 1, 2, 5 or 10 mill would not improve that.

It is odd to compare, as some have, pets with kids, but for those of us who, for various reasons have never had kids, & for whom it's now too late, our pets are our kids.

i'm not embarrassed to admit that the aforementioned sums of money would improve my life immeasurably, i'm just that fickle

[tikay]

If you discovered Tantrum was allergic to cats, what would you do?

Hi Tantrum, I've brought you a cat. Would you like to go out with me? One sneeze for yes, two sneezes if you want to go straight to the bedroom.

Sorry Sword, but I already have a cat.

Every day, in every way, we become more compatible.

It was meant to be.