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

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#51

Post by kevinh »

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…

> 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.

Ultimately, it's a question of whether they want to comply with the ADA or not when considering which to prioritize.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#52

Post by [deleted] »

papln wrote: post #10
lotsofpulp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ridiculous how many people have "service" animals nowadays. I don't care for the smell of animals, nor can I vet the training abilities of all animal owners, so I'd rather not deal with them at all. Somehow everyone has an emotional problem nowadays that requires a pet to be with them at all times.

This is clearly false hyperbole.

[deleted]

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#53

Post by recusancy »

coldpie wrote: post #43
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!).

That's probably more related the fact that going into greener spaces helps our moods.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getti...

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#54

Post by Retra »

makerofspoons wrote: post #46
mikestew wrote: post #32

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. 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.

So would going to a gym. But it's easier to build a habit of taking care of something you love at home than doing a chore you have to drive/walk across town to do.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#55

Post by firstplacelast »

dudul wrote: post #3
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.

It is indeed not for everyone since I personally hated it :) I find it extremely distracting. When there is a dog around, you'll always find a bunch of people throwing the ball with it or something like that in the middle of the open space. And there is of course the dog owner who just doesn't care where the dog is. Doesn't care that it's coming to my desk to lick my shoes, or bothering me while I'm trying to eat in…

Awww, this makes me sad. I am a dog lover and I forget that some people are really not. I'm currently in a small office where the CEO brings his dog. It's an older, smaller (I think terrier) breed and he's the only one that does it currently.

But this dog is fantastic! I think I've heard him bark like 2x in the 3 years I've been there, he's quite laid-back and wanders around the office but is more likely to follow the CEO around and lay at his feet or he sleeps outside the conference room when the CEO is in meetings. He will come to the kitchen when people are in it, but he has been trained to stay out of it so he just sits at the door.

I love, love, love having him in the office and I think everyone else does too (but now I'm hoping there aren't people adversely affected that don't speak up). Even when the CEO is traveling, sometimes his wife will drop him off for the day because the dog is so chill and people like the interaction, will take him on walks around the business park, etc.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#56

Post by dmitrygr »

dudul wrote: post #3
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.

It is indeed not for everyone since I personally hated it :) I find it extremely distracting. When there is a dog around, you'll always find a bunch of people throwing the ball with it or something like that in the middle of the open space. And there is of course the dog owner who just doesn't care where the dog is. Doesn't care that it's coming to my desk to lick my shoes, or bothering me while I'm trying to eat in…

> open space

There's your problem right there

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#57

Post by sokoloff »

Raphmedia wrote: post #50
awillen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

It's not the office pet, it's many people's family pet that this policy targets allowing. People are realistically not going to replace a beloved family pet in order to be able to bring them to work.

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#58

Post by sokoloff »

bberrry wrote: post #30
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

It's likely quite individual but personally I feel like I am less satisfied with life now that I have young children due to them dominating the agenda and life in general. I am however expecting kids to "pay off" in the happiness department in old age. I would imagine having no family at that stage in life would be quite bleak.

The first few years are indeed fairly taxing and energy/happiness sapping overall. Once they can have a conversation and you can experience (and guide) them learning things, it gets way, way better!

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#59

Post by [deleted] »

makerofspoons wrote: post #33
gota wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Some people now spend more on feeding their pets than they do feeding their children," Yes, this is easy when you have zero children and more than zero pets; and I'll wager a good amount of money that its true only in that case > In the U.S., American dogs bless us with 10 million tons of waste a year. 10 million tons of waste a year is really not that much for 350 million people, for the benefits of having pets i…

It is, however, a simple way for individuals to avoid growing their carbon footprint. Not doing something is easier than changing an entrenched lifestyle. It's the same as saying "don't buy a large home", "don't buy a large vehicle (or preferably any vehicle at all)", "don't travel" - you're not missing out on anything, you're simply avoiding a destructive behavior. If you have a dog or cat already there isn't much y…

[deleted]

Re: Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

#60

Post by homonculus1 »

charliesharding wrote: post #27
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.

One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)

The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint.

You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.

Post reply on HN