Pets.

kneemos

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Augmerson

I like them. I think their good.

BeerWolf

Er, no ?

How the hell would you even begin to propose that ? There's millions of pets, you expect people to idly stand by for them all to be put down ? Get real...

shruikan2553

How do people justify spending money on anything when it could go towards helping needy people?

anncoates

kneemos wrote: »

and how do pet owners justify spending money

By earning it.

DamagedTrax

Feed them properly and they cost little to nothing. i own a reg'd champion dog and she costs me about €7 a week to feed. she's fit and healthy and happy, not fat and overfed and unhappy.

€7 per week is a very small price for companionship and love.

inocybe

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

How do you justify spending money on yourself other than the minimum necessary for survival, when it could go to the needy?

Gee Bag

You want to make the needy eat pedigree chum?

Mince Pie

Its been proven that having a pet can help with mental illness and I know for certain that my dog made me get out of the house when I was going through some lower points in my life.
She also makes me laugh everyday which is good for the soul. You can't put a price on that!

krudler

Feck that pets are great, animals are better than humans most of the time.

Sulla Felix

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

How much do you pay for your internet connection OP? Could probably feed a family for a month in sub saharan africa for that.

R.F.

Gee Bag wrote: »

You want to make the needy eat pedigree chum?

Dunno about that. Tesco Dog food maybe, though

krudler

Sulla Felix wrote: »

How much do you pay for your internet connection OP? Could probably feed a family for a month in sub saharan africa for that.

they probably still have better broadband than most of Ireland though.

greenpilot

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

It's probably time to ban Children, Op, as they use more of our resources. And you need a licence for a dog?.....meh...

Knex*

Right on, OP.

And with the Earth dwindling, we should stop wasting resources on humans too. How can we justify keeping our parasitic species alive to the detriment of the planet, and all other species on it?

Just leave my woofins alone.

danniemcq

Gee Bag wrote: »

You want to make the needy eat pedigree chum?

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

kneemos

Sulla Felix wrote: »

How much do you pay for your internet connection OP? Could probably feed a family for a month in sub saharan africa for that.

Indeed but most of them are meat eaters.Meat will become more and more scarce with rising populations,it's also bad environmentally.

DamagedTrax

danniemcq wrote: »

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

ive never understood people feeding their dogs that crap. you can feed a dog a good healthy mixed raw/kibble diet for a lot less.

Artful_Badger

BeerWolf wrote: »

Er, no ?

How the hell would you even begin to propose that ? There's millions of pets, you expect people to idly stand by for them all to be put down ? Get real...

Dont put them down just neuter them all and keep neutering them until they all die off naturally.

R.F.

greenpilot wrote: »

It's probably time to ban Children, Op, as they use more of our resources. And you need a licence for a dog?.....meh...

The Chinese have it to a tee.

One child per family and eat the dog

Sulla Felix

kneemos wrote: »

Indeed but most of them are meat eaters.Meat will become more and more scarce with rising populations,it's also bad environmentally.

Internet is bad for the environment too. All those server farms don't cool themselves!

kneemos

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Internet is bad for the environment too. All those server farms don't cool themselves!

They don't eat valuable resources.

Bannasidhe

kneemos wrote: »

They don't eat valuable resources.

Like fossil fuels used to create electricity?

Riiiiight...

BeerWolf

kneemos wrote: »

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Internet is bad for the environment too. All those server farms don't cool themselves!

They don't eat valuable resources.

:pac:

kneemos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like fossil fuels used to create electricity?

Riiiiight...

With billions of people going hungry I'd be more concerned food supply than fossil fuels.

Sulla Felix

kneemos wrote: »

They don't eat valuable resources.

Correct. They don't eat. I think the word we'd use in this context is "consume".
Each google search you do, consumes about 44J of energy, or 10kcal.

Specialun

OP is just pi$$ed that not even the local neighbourhood dog or cat wants to be his friend

Sulla Felix

kneemos wrote: »

With billions of people going hungry I'd be more concerned food supply than fossil fuels.

Well that's just silly. Modern manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels for everything from transport to fertilizers. It's far more likely we'll see a collapse in food production due to the depletion in energy sources than from any other reason.
The food supply is pretty good worldwide, it's the distribution of technology, waste etc that's holding us back from feeding the world.

BeerWolf

kneemos wrote: »

With billions of people going hungry I'd be more concerned food supply than fossil fuels.

OP, you might be surprised but a lot of perfectly fine food is thrown away by farmers because of their appearance, and retail markets not buying them... henceforth this food is just dumped...

Link

Link 2

We are not in any danger of being close to a food shortage... thus all your current concerns are thus void.

Fishyfreak

Generally anything i post (on any given subject) ends a thread. Please God let this post be another!

TheBegotten

We'd be fine if people would embrace cheaper, more efficient industrial farming methods and genetic engineering...but that's a whole different kettle of three-eyed fish

SimonTemplar

OP, do you own a smart phone or a tablet or a laptop or a portable music player or a HD TV or any designer clothes or anything above the minimum needed to survive adequately? Do you spend money on drink or cigarettes or fine food?

If you answer yes to any of these, ask yourself your own question.

Sulla Felix

TheBegotten wrote: »

We'd be fine if people would embrace cheaper, more efficient industrial farming methods and genetic engineering...but that's a whole different kettle of three-eyed fish

Three eyed fish? Nah, I want twelve-breasted chickens. (and wimmins )

Artful_Badger

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

DamagedTrax

BeerWolf wrote: »

OP, you might be surprised but a lot of perfectly fine food is thrown away by farmers because of their appearance, and retail markets not buying them... henceforth this food is just dumped...

Link

Link 2

We are not in any danger of being close to a food shortage... thus all your current concerns are thus void.

and this - police used to hold crowds back from perfectly good food being disposed of.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/01/food-a01.html

Kintarō Hattori

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Why don't you live a humble life and everything that you don't need to survive you donate to the needy.............................. no I didn't think so.

Once you earn your way it's up to you to decide how you spend your money. What resourced do pets take up exactly?

oldyouth

I'll spend my money on what I want to, thank you very much, whether it is my pet, the needy or both.

DamagedTrax

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

thats only one aspect of pet ownership, not every pet owner thinks that way. most of us regard our pets as family (NOT a source of entertainment to be discarded when we bore of them) and they are treated accordingly.

the same could be applied to people who have kids just to get housing or benefits. should we ban the human race too because of a handful of imbeciles?

Sulla Felix

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

Why is it morally corrupt? You can't just declare it to be so.

danniemcq

oldyouth wrote: »

I'll spend my money on what I want to, thank you very much, whether it is my pet, the needy or both.

ah a cat then!?

Reindeer

My GF has a pet AND she's needy. The needy have pets. What's the problem?

DamagedTrax

Reindeer wrote: »

My GF has a pet AND she's needy. The needy have pets. What's the problem?

i think she's two timing both of us :eek:

Artful_Badger

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats one aspect of pet ownership. the same could be applied to people who have kids just to get housing or benefits. should we ban the human race too because of a handful of imbeciles?

Like wise people shouldnt be having kids willy nilly. But you cant ban the human race and I'm not proposing a ban on animals existing. I'm proposing a ban on breeding them and selling them. If that results in the animals disappearing so be it.

ncmc

danniemcq wrote: »

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

That’s very true. Had to feed my dog Pedigree in an emergency a few weeks back and the colour, smell and consistency of her poo afterwards was disgusting. It’s total rubbish and also a false economy. A 10kg dog is recommended to eat two cans a day, I can feed my dog good quality kibbles for about €1 per day.

My dog costs me about €14 per week. That includes food, grooming every three months, vet say twice a year, insurance and dog licence. It’s nothing compared to the love and companionship she offers in return. I’d give up every luxury in my life before I’d give up my dog.

Menas

This thread is one of my pet hates.

DamagedTrax

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Like wise people shouldnt be having kids willy nilly. But you cant ban the human race and I'm not proposing a ban on animals existing. I'm proposing a ban on breeding them and selling them. If that results in the animals disappearing so be it.

wow, you're just a cuddly bundle of happiness arent you? :eek:

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

same as you can justify using the internet for posts, when the money from that could go to the needy

My pet is part of my family, and so, he will be looked after the same as anyone in my family circle, before any outside cause.

ncmc

danniemcq wrote: »

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

That’s very true. Had to feed my dog Pedigree in an emergency a few weeks back and the colour, smell and consistency of her poo afterwards was disgusting. It’s total rubbish and also a false economy. A 10kg dog is recommended to eat two cans a day, I can feed my dog good quality kibbles for about €1 per day.

My dog costs me about €14 per week. That includes food, grooming every three months, vet say twice a year, insurance and dog licence. It’s nothing compared to the love and companionship she offers in return. I’d give up every luxury in my life before I’d give up my dog.

Dogs aren't entertainment, they're part of the family.

Artful_Badger

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Why is it morally corrupt? You can't just declare it to be so.

Sure I can, I can declare anything I want. A market for animals being bought and sold results in the suffering of countless animals through abuses. You can say its down to the scummy few but its not. Plenty of animals are unwanted for various reasons and end up in the pound or on the streets. And there will always be scummers in society and as long as animals are treated as commodities they will be abused by scummers out to seek a profit.

Considering all that is unnecessary and simply fills a market for animals to be bought as objects of entertainment. I considering it to be morally corrupt.

Mark Twain

While my cat, Mugabe, sometimes lets off some absolute stinkers of farts; I don't see them as contributing massively to overall climate change. Certainly no worse than his owner after a gallon and a half of stout.