Treating Animals as if They were Human
Column for Evening Herald, July 2008

Recently, Liveline received a call from a man whose daughter’s dog had escaped while he was looking after it. The dog was being held in a pound and the man was refusing to pay the fine because he felt he was being ripped off, particularly given that the dog’s escape was an accident.

Though the man received some support for his stance, the chief reaction of the callers was outrage. They viewed the man as a heartless person who was willing to allow his dog to be held hostage on principle. This was in spite of the fact that the man stressed that the dog was a much-loved pet and that he would be collecting it on the last day.

The callers’ reaction is an indication of an increasing trend in society towards giving animals the qualities of humans. I once read a Sunday Times article by AA Gill about the hopeless lives lived by the inhabitants of a town in Russia. One of the pictures accompanying the story was of a neglected bear in the town zoo. Most of the reaction Gill received expressed sympathy for the bear. Never before have pets held such a central place in society. Our increased disposable income enables us to treat animals as indulgences. You can now buy bubble-makers or sound-therapy CDs to calm your hyperactive pet. In America, the amount of money spent on pets represents the GDP of 64 different countries.

To me, this represents a warped set of values. When I hear people say that they love their pets more than any person they know, or that they would rescue an animal before they would rescue a human, it disturbs me. Animals simply aren’t human beings. They do not have the range of emotions or level of awareness that a human being has. If humans are held against their will, they know that they are helpless.

I have often heard people say that they love animals because they don’t answer back. In an increasingly atomised society, are people using animals as a way to avoid the emotional entanglements that are part and parcel of human relationships? I grew up in a vet’s practice, surrounded by animals. This gave me a sense of proportion about animals. We took care of our animals, but our attitude to them was practical. We knew that a dog wouldn’t suffer if it were left to sleep outside. As keen horsewomen, my mother and sisters knew that using a whip to spur on a horse did not leave emotional scars.

Our view was typical of a more rural attitude to animals. Rural people love animals just as much as those who live in towns, but they understand that there is a natural life cycle in the countryside, in which every animal has their place. As our society becomes more urbanised, we become divorced from this rural reality and are more inclined to elevate animals to the status of human beings.

But if I have a problem, an animal can’t offer me comforting words or talk sense into me. An animal can’t deconstruct that great film I saw in the cinema with me. A cat may curl up in my lap and purr, but a human being can tell me he loves me. Human beings may answer back in ways I don’t like, but to me, it is this challenge that gives human relationships meaning. Ultimately, the rewards of loving another human outweigh the challenges. This is why my first loyalty will always be to human beings.

The reality is that the man in the pound was not mistreating the dog. The dog was being well-cared for. It had everything it needed. It was in no danger of being put down. If people could weep for their fellow man the way they can weep for a dog or cat, the world would be a more just and compassionate place.