The recent popularity of designer dogs, cats, mini pigs and other pets may lead one to believe that pet ownership is nothing more than a fad. Indeed, there is an opinion that pets are a Western fad, a relic of working animals preserved in the memory of the past.
In the UK, almost half of homes have pets; a lot of time and money are spent on them, but they themselves do not contribute to the acquisition of material wealth. However, during the 2008 financial crisis, spending on pets remained at almost the same level as before, which suggests that for most owners, pets are not a luxury, but an integral part of life and family.
However, some people keep pets, while others have no interest in them at all. Why is this happening? It is very likely that our desire for the company of pets actually has something to do with our history of cooperation, which began tens of thousands of years ago and played an important role in our evolution. If this is the case, then perhaps genetics can help explain why love for animals is something that some people simply don't have.
Health issue
Recently, many studies have been conducted on the impact of dogs on health, including scientists who have found that dogs reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, help cope with loneliness, and alleviate symptoms of depression.
As John Bradshaw writes in his new book, The Animals Among Us, there are two problems with this statement. First, there is a similar amount of research that shows that pets have no effect on people's health, or even some negative impact. Secondly, pet owners live no longer than those who never even thought about having a pet. And even if these health benefits were real, they would only apply to today's stressed, depressed, and sedentary city dwellers, not our hunter-gatherer ancestors, so it's not the reason why we started keeping pets. animals.
The desire to adopt a pet is so widespread that one might think of it as a universal trait of human nature, but not all societies have a tradition of keeping animals. Even in the West, there are many people who have no particular affinity for animals, whether domestic or wild.
The tradition of pet ownership often runs in families, and it has been assumed that children raised in a home with pets are also likely to have pets, but recent research has shown that this phenomenon is genetic in nature. Some people, regardless of their upbringing, may be predisposed to seek out the company of animals, while others may be predisposed to avoid them.
Thus, unique genes that contribute to the desire to keep pets may be present in some people, but they are not universal, suggesting that in the past some societies or individuals, but not all, flourished because of an instinctive rapport with animals.
Pet DNA
The DNA of today's domestic animals shows that each species diverged from its wild ancestor between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, during the late Paleolithic or Neolithic period. That's when people started raising livestock. And at least some of them were considered specifically as domestic animals, kept near human habitations, which prevented them from interbreeding with wild animals, and the special social status granted to some animals prevented their extermination as food. Once isolated, the new semi-domesticated animals were able to become the animals we know today.
The same genes that today predispose some people to adopt dogs or cats may have spread among early agriculturalists. Societies that included people with empathy for animals would thrive among those that had to continue to rely on hunting for meat. Why hasn't this spread to everyone? Probably because, at some point in history, alternative strategies also proved viable.
There's one final twist to the story: recent research has shown that affection for pets goes hand in hand with concern for nature. In this way, pets can help us reconnect with the natural world from which we have become alienated.
People are characterized by altruism, i.e. free help to other people, but some give free help not to people, but to animals, even homeless animals. The question arises: why do they do this? The staff of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University thought about this question. The results of their research were published in the journals Questions of Psychology and Society and Animals.
It must be said that in the world psychological literature there is very little research on the topic of helping homeless animals. Perhaps this is a consequence of the fact that all such studies were carried out in the USA and Western Europe, where charity is very developed. We can say that helping someone has become the norm of life there, a good tradition. And in these countries, apparently, they do not notice the difference between helping homeless people and helping homeless animals. It is not surprising that in all such works the question of the reasons for altruistic help to animals was not clearly posed, and therefore no clear answer was found. In Russia the situation is different. On the one hand, charity here is not yet very developed; in the corresponding international rankings, our country is in the second hundred. On the other hand, people who help animals (they are called animal activists) are quite active, they even hold rallies in defense of animals. Therefore, it can be assumed that animal protection is a special type of charity, different from helping people.
Psychologists have put forward two initial hypotheses about why people engage in animal protection. One hypothesis was that animal activists (the vast majority of them women) have problems communicating with people, which they compensate for by helping animals. That is, these people do not have a family and/or children or a job. It may also be that there is a family and work, but the animal rights activist is not satisfied with his family or work. Another hypothesis was that animal rights activists are more sensitive to the plight of others, including animals, than the average person. When an animal rights activist sees a stray dog, she cannot pass by, unlike ordinary people who are not captivated by this picture. The desire to engage in animal protection can be driven by both hypotheses, since they are not mutually exclusive.
The studies involved two groups of subjects (all women). One group consisted of animal rights activists who were found on the Cat and Dog website. The other group represented ordinary people and consisted of students, acquaintances and friends of the experimenters. The only difference between the groups was that representatives of the second group were not found on the animal rights website. The groups were matched by mean age. The studies were conducted via the Internet and were anonymous.
To test the first hypothesis, all subjects were asked whether they had a family, children, or work. If there was family and work, then satisfaction with them was assessed using special questionnaires. To test the second hypothesis, it was proposed to rate on a five-point scale a number of statements about attitudes towards homeless animals, as well as attitudes towards beggars and homeless people.
The first hypothesis was not confirmed. It turned out that animal rights activists have a family, children, and work to the same extent as other people, and they are also satisfied with their family and work. It turned out that homeless animals evoke stronger feelings in animal rights activists than in other people, but, to the complete surprise of the researchers, it turned out that animal activists are less willing to care for homeless people than other subjects! For example, animal rights activists are less likely to be willing to give alms and they are less likely to want to help a homeless person. The second hypothesis, therefore, was also not supported, because it assumed that animal rights activists should care more about both animals and people.
It turns out that there are people who are ordinary in all respects, but who, to some extent, love animals more than people! Among the statements that had to be evaluated was this: “I love animals more than people.” The most common answer to it (sampling mode) among animal rights activists was “absolutely true,” and among other people - “no, that’s not true.”
The question immediately arises of where animal activists come from. After all, no religion, no ethical teaching in the world believes that animals should be loved more than people. In addition, people raise animals to eat them. Those animals that are considered domesticated and not eaten in some countries may be eaten in others. Thus, the desire to engage in animal protection cannot be explained by the fact that some special attitude towards certain species of animals has become entrenched in society. Since the desire to engage in animal protection is difficult to derive from social norms, it is possible that some innate mechanism underlies the activity of animal rights activists.
It can be assumed that when the first animals were domesticated, and these were dogs, then in some tribes such animals were treated better, and in others worse. In those tribes where they were treated better, the survival rate of dogs was higher, and this in turn contributed to the survival of people. The love for animals in these groups was fixed at the genetic level, and then spread to the entire human population. This explanation has, however, one drawback. It is quite difficult to imagine a situation where animals are treated better, but people are not. At least in the modern world, the humanization of attitudes towards animals seems to be connected with the humanization of attitudes towards people. But then a stronger love for both animals and people should have been genetically transmitted. This would be consistent with the second original hypothesis of the study. But this hypothesis was not confirmed. It turns out that in order to develop only love for animals without increasing love for people, some event had to happen in which animals played a very important role in people's lives.
For example, it is known that when our ancestors came to Europe from Africa 45,000 years ago, Europe was inhabited by Neanderthals, who, however, died out soon after. Why did this happen? Until recently, it was assumed that Neanderthals lost because they were inferior in mental abilities. However, recently a lot of evidence has accumulated that Neanderthals were no more stupid than the ancestors of modern people. American researcher Pat Shipman put forward an interesting hypothesis that wolves, which they domesticated and turned into dogs, provided an advantage to people, and wrote an entire book on this topic. Hunting is much more effective with dogs and that is why people won.
However, Shipman's hypothesis has a weak point - if Neanderthals were no more stupid than humans, why didn't they also domesticate wolves? One might think that people were able to domesticate wolves because among them, due to a random mutation, the ancestors of modern animal rights activists appeared. They protected and saved future dogs when they came to the camps of ancient hunters, just as fiercely as their descendants protect and save animals today. Indeed, hunting is not an easy task, and here the game comes on its own, but the ancient animal rights activists did not allow animals to be killed, which led to the gradual transformation of wolves into dogs. But the Neanderthals did not have such a mutation, so they were unable to domesticate wolves and then disappeared. It turns out that humanity is very indebted to animal rights activists. Of course, to test this or other hypotheses about the emergence of a desire to help animals for free, new research is needed.
- Copy
- Warm feelings
- Loyalty
- The cure for loneliness
- Totems and talismans
- Repeating the path of humanity
- Maternal instinct
Their popularity is off the charts - animals today are even more famous online than world stars and politicians. Hundreds of websites are dedicated to them, and the most unusual pets become famous and earn millions of dollars for their owners. Animals accompany us everywhere and become members of our family.
Why do we love animals? Why do furry and feathered pets take up so much space in our lives that we are willing to spend a lot of time and money on them? These questions can be answered by doctors, sociologists and psychologists.
Copy
Imitating our behavior subconsciously makes us trust the creature and desire to be its friend. Thus, psychologists say that the best way to gain a person’s trust is to copy his gestures.
In the same way, animals “earn” our trust - when they find themselves in a human environment, they adopt our habits, manners and even character. It’s not for nothing that they say that dogs always look like their owners. There are animals that have brought copying to perfection. For example, parrots repeating words after us.
But animals also have natural habits that we tend to humanize. Look how tenderly a mother monkey hugs her baby or how solemnly elephants gather around the body of a dead relative, sadly waving their ears and lowering their heads...
Please note that animals in the circus are also primarily taught to imitate humans. Dogs push cats in strollers, bears ride bicycles, and horses dance with trainers. And even cartoon animals speak human language, wear clothes, live in houses and experience only experiences that are characteristic of us.
Opposites Attract
When choosing a pet, a person often looks for an animal that has opposite qualities in appearance or character. Sometimes the owner subconsciously finds an animal with properties that he himself lacks. An impulsive and emotional person can choose a cold-blooded python, while a withdrawn and unsociable person can make friends with a cheerful, loving poodle.
Psychologists also believe that lonely people choose an animal in which they see the qualities of their potential partner - tenderness, devotion, strength or beauty.
Warm feelings
Animals help people replenish the emotions they lack when communicating with people. The harsh world, where man is a wolf to man, tires you with the need to always be on guard and protect your emotions from the invasion of aggressive individuals. Animals are more trusting, open and friendly than we are - that's why people love animals.
Such emotional attachment is more typical of city residents - they usually get animals simply so that they bring positivity to their owners and love them unselfishly. Village residents treat pets with a considerable amount of pragmatism - a chicken must lay eggs, a cat must catch mice, and a dog must guard the yard.
However, this does not mean that the owner of a rural farmstead does not have any feelings for his animals. He can love his chain dog and affectionately pat the resigned cow on the side.
There are many stories of soldiers dying of hunger but unable to slaughter their favorite horse, or members of polar expeditions sharing the last fish with sled dogs. Thus, they proved that stern men also have a feeling of love and care for those who know how to worship us so sincerely.
Loyalty
The greatest dream of every person is to be loved simply for being who he is. But this happens so rarely... People are loved for their beauty, wealth, connections, status, and so on. And each of us knows that, if he finds himself in trouble, he can lose friends, family, or a loved one.
But animals love us just like that - they don’t care how much money the owner has, how handsome, smart and noble he is. Dogs even love owners who beat them; stray dogs faithfully look into the eyes of their homeless owner. They forgive all mistakes, never reproach anyone for anything, and don’t demand anything.
The pet is always happy to see its owner, and if necessary, it will give its life for him.
Animals can be trusted; they will not turn away if you get sick or lose property. That is why they evoke in us a feeling of love and gratitude - in a world where there is so much betrayal, they remain reliable pillars of loyalty and devotion.
The cure for loneliness
Not all people have a family - sadly, but loneliness lives in many apartments and houses. So they get a pet so that they have someone to return to, so that someone is waiting for them. For such lonely people, an animal replaces family and children, helping to fulfill one of the most important needs - to care for and patronize someone weak and defenseless.
The more a person suffers from loneliness, the greater the chance that he will bring home an ordinary mongrel ragamuffin after finding him on the street.
Totems and talismans
A long time ago, people worshiped animals, seeing them as the embodiment of divine powers. There were totems of the clan, whose representatives could not be killed, because the patron could be offended and bring down punishment on the tribe.
Today, echoes of a reverent attitude towards representatives of the fauna can be found in animal mascots and signs about pets. Three-colored cats bring good luck, and black cats ward off evil spirits - many still believe in this. People still tend to endow animals with magical qualities, which is why they try to settle them in their homes. After all, everyone is pleased when a piece of a miracle lives nearby.
Repeating the path of humanity
There is a theory according to which every person repeats in his life the path of development of civilization. That’s why, as children, we so want to have a dog or a cat, because domesticating animals is one of the early stages in the development of people.
Maternal instinct
One of the most stable images enshrined in our memory is the image of a child, who is the same in the collective consciousness of all generations of people. According to one version, we are so moved by animals because many of them have the proportions of children. Which animals give us the most warm feelings? Bear cubs, raccoons, cats, koalas... It is their shapes that are closest to the structure of a child’s body: a large head, small paws.
When we look at such an animal, the parental instinct immediately awakens in us - we want to feed the cutie, warm it, and pet it. By the way, activation of the maternal instinct increases efficiency and attentiveness. Therefore, we can say that animals inspire us to feats of work and life.
Sense of self-worth and ambition
In their devoted and blind love, animals are defenseless before us; they are completely dependent on our will and decisions. They are children who never grow up.
By the way, psychologists have noticed that children who grew up next to pets are much more curious, friendly and open to everything new. In addition, they rarely turn out to be selfish. A small child communicates with an animal on an equal basis, while an adult for him is a higher and more complex being.
Animals are capable of experiencing most of the feelings characteristic of humans - love, jealousy, resentment. Therefore, they are for us something like truncated copies of a person.
There are owners for whom the awareness of power over the animal makes them more significant in their own eyes. The life of a dog depends on the owner: on whether he feeds it and takes it to the veterinarian in case of illness.
Moreover, the pet can be taught to carry out commands - then broad prospects generally open up for satisfying the unrealized ambitions of the great commander.
The doctor who is always with you
Doctors and psychologists have long discovered a relationship between the presence of a pet in the house and the health of its owners. Where animals live, the energy is more comfortable. They help normalize blood pressure, lift mood and literally heal their owners.
Cats are the most successful in this matter - they themselves climb onto the sore spot and warm it, tuning the owner’s energy field with their purring.
People who have mute pets at home are less susceptible to stress, more cheerful, optimistic, healthy and athletic. We can say that animals bring harmony, joy and a positive outlook on life into our lives. And how can you not love them after that?
P.S. About that how to choose a pet, advice from a psychologist.
From time immemorial, people have hunted animals, eaten their meat and dressed in their skins. Now the situation has practically not changed. But there are also cannibalistic animals that prefer to eat exclusively people - it is unknown what caused this - either a peculiarity of digestion, or simply a feeling of revenge that has arisen inside them since ancient times. Beware and fear these carnivores that consume people as food. You cannot run away or hide from them; they are much fiercer and smarter than their relatives, who do not consider people edible.
The first to open our list are the Nyombe Lions. This story dates back to 1932, when in Tanzania, near the city of Nyombe, a pack of man-eating lions began to methodically exterminate the human race. More than one and a half thousand people were destroyed by these monsters> during the period of their rule in those lands. And only the arrival of hunters, who exterminated about 15 of these cruel animals, pacified them and forced them to leave this place. But the local residents knew that in fact it was not the hunters who helped them get rid of the nightmare. The lions appeared precisely when the local shaman was thrown from his post. After that, he became angry and sent a curse on people in the form of bloodthirsty creatures. And only when he was returned to his place of “work” did the animals leave.
For many years, a real cannibal monster lived in the swamps of Alabama and Florida - a crocodile named Two-Fingered Tom. It was called two-fingered because it had only two claws on one paw - it was from them that the animal that left characteristic marks was calculated. Not only did Tom attack animals, but he also fell in love with the taste of human flesh, especially women. Many legends are associated with this representative of the fauna; for a long time all residents of the surrounding areas in which he lived were afraid of him. And not only the bullets did not kill this enchanted crocodile, who was considered the messenger of hell - even the explosives, which destroyed all life in the swamps where he lived, left the monster unharmed.
Large and toothy, they threaten representatives of the human race in all corners of the planet. In Japan, for example, at one time they were very afraid of a bear named Kesagake. This is a huge male who lived and ruled in a Japanese village with a population of only a couple of people. When the bear was wounded, he became brutal and began his revenge on the human race. First he killed a woman and child from the same house. Then, he distracted the hunters and broke into another house, in which he tore apart a woman and two children. In two days, six people were killed by the cannibal. And only one hunter was able to kill a three-meter beast, weighing about 380 kilograms. And the inhabitants of the damned village left it forever. If you would like to communicate more closely with a representative of this species, you can take a look at our article - you will find out where this can be done.
Many horror stories have been written about killer sharks and many films have been made. Once upon a time, at the beginning of the 20th century, people did not yet know how dangerous these sea predators were for them. But one day, off the coast of New Jersey, a shark attacked a man who was swimming. This was seen by several people who rushed to help the wounded victim. But when the man was brought ashore, doctors could no longer help him. Within a few weeks after the event, several more people were killed by monsters, including careless children. When fishermen managed to catch a white shark, inside of which they found human remains, representatives of this species were dubbed cannibals. This series of attacks has been called one of the most brutal in the country's history.
In the mid-18th century in France, in the province of Givodan, lived the most cruel and mysterious monster of all known to mankind. That’s what they called him - the Zhivodansky Beast. No one knows exactly what species he belonged to; Blog Rybalych believes that it was simply a huge wolf. The monster's first victim was a little girl. Then he fell silent for some time. But then he took on people with even greater cruelty. About 210 people were in its paws and teeth, 112 of them died, and the rest were left maimed. It was rumored that in fact it was a werewolf who was sent to earth to punish people for their sinfulness. It is believed that the monster was killed by hunter Jean Chastel with silver bullets.
At the end of the 19th century, a killer tigress appeared in Nepal, which for a long time kept in fear all the inhabitants inhabiting the territory near the Himalayas. Somehow she was unsuccessfully wounded by hunters, breaking two of her fangs. The tigress could no longer hunt animals, but people became a tasty prey for her - either because of their ease of access, or simply as those who ruined her appearance. More than two hundred people were destroyed by this striped fury. Then an army was sent to fight it. The soldiers also could not cope with the monster, but managed to drive it into Indian territory. There the tigress had completely lost her fear - she hunted even during the day, leaving entire villages empty. But the monster was destroyed by a brave hunter who found him in his bloody footprints. Surely, according to the customs of that time, he was immediately declared a saint. And this is not surprising - the Shampavat tigress killed 436 people.
Leopards destroyed people 3 million years ago. The bones on which scientists found the teeth marks of this animal were precisely of this age. Despite the fact that these are meat-eating animals, few of them eat people. One of the exceptions was the leopard from India, nicknamed Panarsky (the inhabitants of the province of Panar suffered the most from its fangs. More than half a thousand people were killed by this monster. It is believed that what made it so cruel was the wound that the animal received from some careless hunter. It fell this beast was killed by the bullets of a famous hunter, who, by the way, also killed the Shampavat tigress.
Not only in the past were there animals that were dangerous to people. We already wrote once about what we should be afraid of today and now:
It may seem that the desire to own designer dogs, unique breeds of cats, miniature pigs or other pets is just a fad that spreads according to Western fashion trends.
In the UK, every tenth animal in local homes is a dog. Pets require care and certain investments, which does not contribute to increasing the material well-being of the owner. However, as statistics have shown, during the 2008 crisis, spending on pets remained unchanged. People continued to provide for their pets, perhaps in some way infringing on their material interests. This suggests that for most, pets are not a luxury, but an integral part of the family.
Centuries-old communication
Humans' desire for the company of animals goes back centuries and has played an important role in our evolution.
In recent years, much attention has been paid to the benefits of pets. It is believed that a cat or dog in the house helps its owners in several ways. This includes reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, combating loneliness, and alleviating symptoms of depression and even dementia. However, there are also opponents of these beliefs, who insist that animals can cause, albeit minor, harm to human health, and that their life expectancy is much shorter than that of humans. The most reasonable arguments are about the root cause of communication with animals. Taking care of one's own health, fighting depression, stress and loneliness could not have been the reasons for the domestication of animals many centuries ago.
Doesn't apply to everyone
However, the desire to bring any animal into the house is not a universal feature of human nature. Not everyone is so kind to our smaller brothers that they are ready to accept them into their family. Even in the West, many people have no love for animals, whether they are pets or not. So what does this attitude depend on? 
One could attribute love for our smaller brothers to those who in childhood brought homeless children home. This could also be passed on to their children. People have pets because they had a pet in their house when they were children. However, research shows that attitudes towards animals also have a genetic basis. Some are predisposed to the company of animals, others are not. And this does not depend on their upbringing.
Not all people have genes that push a person to communicate with pets and care for them. In the distant past, such genes helped societies and individuals prosper. This caused an instinctive understanding with animals.
In the process of evolution
DNA data for living domestic animals suggests they split from their wild counterparts 5,000 to 15,000 years ago. Livestock breeding also contributed to this. However, it is difficult to understand when cats and dogs were identified as a special category of pets. After all, many factors prevented the domestication of animals. This is also the impossibility of preventing unwanted crossings of domestic and wild breeds, because the animals had free access to each other. Domestication was also slowed down by periods of famine, when people had to use all livestock for food, and then domesticate new individuals. 
And only thanks to the complete isolation of domestic animals was it possible to develop breeds that no longer crossed with wild ones. We know most of these breeds now.
Influence of genes
Not everyone is given the gift of loving animals. The genes responsible for such attachment may have spread among the first farmers. Such people developed animal husbandry and prospered compared to those who continued to hunt for meat. Why doesn't everyone have warm feelings towards animals? It is likely that alternative behavioral strategies were also viable at that time. 
There is one more point that has become known thanks to recent research. Affection for pets is closely related to caring for the entire natural world. That is, people can be divided into two categories:
- Those who are concerned about the environment and feel unity with nature, affection for animals.
- Those who enjoy the benefits of modern technology without thinking about the natural world around them.
It turns out that pets can revive our connection with nature, which we have increasingly ignored.
