Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

psychreg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#41

Post by awillen »

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #24
Ididntdothis wrote: post #2

For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a very nice touch and made it much more humane.

I hate to be a party pooper, but make sure that if you bring animals to the office they are hypoallergenic. For cats, you want to look for breeds that produce less Fel D1 protein. There is probably something similar for dogs. One office I once interviewed at had the CEO's dog roaming around and I had to decline the job offer for this reason. I'm sure that I could have talked about it but nobody wants to be the one wh…

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so this isn't chump change.

Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#42

Post by randlet »

charliesharding wrote: post #12

Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with increasing rates of mental health problems

No. In the early years, having children is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult than a typical pet both physically and mentally and therefore would be crazy to draw a conclusion from a study on pets.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#43

Post by coldpie »

floatingatoll wrote: post #34

Has anyone done a study on pet inanimate objects, such as rocks or coconuts or plants? Not to undervalue live animal pets, but people are pretty intensely personal about their pet objects, too — and if the same benefit can exist for a pet rock, then you can say that your pet has a small carbon footprint and be twice right.

That's an interesting thought, especially plants. While my cats are precious to me, I'd put my home garden at a very close second place. Twice a day I go out and review my garden and it never fails to improve my mood. Noticing what is new each day, performing the chores that need attention, discovering little surprises (I saw a stag beetle this morning!).

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#45

Post by nootka »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #22
Liquix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something you classify as an 'extravagance' could be classified by others as 'best friend', 'most uplifting part of the day', revered by the egyptians' 'my only reason for getting out of bed when faced with crippling depression', etc. Amusement parks, restaurants, and the manufacture of your latest high-tech gadget also generate carbon footprints. One could argue that none of those things are strictly necessary for s…

Beyond what you're saying (which is quite true), if you're rescuing dogs, as I mostly do, the only way you can say there is a net increase in carbon is because I'm providing a better quality of life for my dogs (which undoubtably increases carbon emissions) and causing my dog to live longer than it would if it was wild or killed in a shelter. I don't particularly see "reduce carbon impact by killing dogs/animals" as…

Looks like we have a bit of a modest proposal going here.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#46

Post by makerofspoons »

mikestew wrote: post #32
makerofspoons wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose. I'm not in disagreement with you on that last part- extravagances like amusement parks, gadgets, and restaurants should be appropriately taxed until the resources they consume come down to sustainable levels. Everything needs to be scaled back.

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose. Keep on wondering, because I doubt anyone will bend over to fit your view of the world. Starting with the foundational point that you have no idea why people have pets at the individual level, or even macro based on what you've post so far on the subj…

I made no such assumption. There is nothing that can be done about the animals that are already here. But someone considering an animal for their mental well-being might be better served volunteering instead. The data shows adding an animal to your lifestyle increases your environmental impact considerably. Working in the community garden adds almost nothing and potentially would provide the same positive effect.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#47

Post by darkpuma »

x2f10 wrote: post #36
owlninja wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. The worst part is all these companies selling emotional support animal certificates or registries, despite the fact they are usually meaningless.

>I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. Of course there is. Emotional support animals are now being offered as an alternative to medication.

They're also now being offered as an alternative to your pet getting stowed with the luggage when flying...

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#48

Post by DangitBobby »

floatingatoll wrote: post #34

Has anyone done a study on pet inanimate objects, such as rocks or coconuts or plants? Not to undervalue live animal pets, but people are pretty intensely personal about their pet objects, too — and if the same benefit can exist for a pet rock, then you can say that your pet has a small carbon footprint and be twice right.

You might like this episode of Hidden Brain: [Pets, Pests And Food: Our Complex, Contradictory Attitudes Toward Animals](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...)

>VEDANTAM: When we come back, do our pets actually improve our lives?

>HERZOG: Pet owners were better off in terms of their psychological and physical health than non-pet owners. But as they pointed out, so are people with Mercedes-Benzes.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#49

Post by aphextim »

downandout wrote: post #29
dawhizkid wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.

I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way. That is an extreme viewpoint. The number of people thinking this way may in fact be “increasing” because of the social media echo chambers that make almost any extreme viewpoint seem normal to those who have them. But I seriously doubt the number of people that actually refuse to have children based upon fear of climate change is high enough to make…

I would agree with you on this as well. It may appear that this is a more popular way to think and it very well could be increasing more than it had in the past, in western first world technology bubbles.

However I feel for every person coming to this conclusion there are 100 more people on this planet who are ignorant to this trend and will continue to keep having babies, whether intentional or just by the circumstance of where they live.

Opinion/Personally I was on board with the whole, "I'll just adopt" rather than bring an additional carbon creature into this planet. However I went from being idealistic and 20, to rational and 30 and during this time met the love of my life whom if I had not met her I would never consider having a child of my own. I think that is a big factor, finding someone who you truly want to grow old with and start a family.

The idea of a creature made up with some of her genes and mine is amazing. Also call me selfish but why should I deny myself the experience of having a child because of some unforeseen doomsday future event that even with me denying myself the experience will happen anyway. Sure I may slow it down by not having a child, but the chances of 1 less human on this planet impacting the future of the world is about as probable as me creating a child who will solve the worlds climate issues, again just my opinion on the matter.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#50

Post by Raphmedia »

awillen wrote: post #41
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be a party pooper, but make sure that if you bring animals to the office they are hypoallergenic. For cats, you want to look for breeds that produce less Fel D1 protein. There is probably something similar for dogs. One office I once interviewed at had the CEO's dog roaming around and I had to decline the job offer for this reason. I'm sure that I could have talked about it but nobody wants to be the one wh…

The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so…

> The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful.

Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death.

Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company.

Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/

Post reply on HN