Hacker News Reader

Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

A similar phenomenon is the use of pets as pseudo-children or relationship partners. Babies are expensive and ruin your sleep for years. Significant others can cheat on you, leave or simply get boring. A cat, however, just like these YouTube boyfriends, is fairly inexpensive, practically takes care of itself, will always love you and will never leave. It is a sort of infantalization of the relationship process.

I think the only solution will be a cultural recognition that the consumeristic mentality of easier = better isn’t necessarily true, and that difficulty, struggle and suffering are inherently worthwhile, more authentic and character-building.

View on HN

> and that difficulty, struggle and suffering are inherently worthwhile

Sure, I'll happily go through that "inherent struggle and suffering, but who's going to pay for childcare? Or for after-school (there's no way me and my gf would be able to raise a kid on one salary only). Who's going to economically "smooth things up" for me and my gf and our potential kid when one of us loses his/her job and can't find anything else for 3 to 6 months? My parents can't financially do it. Her parents can't financially do it. Our savings most definitely would not be enough to support the 3 of us for 6 months.

In other words and as much as I hate this word it really bugs me when some people lecture from a position of privilege when it comes to other people's lives. Please don't take this the wrong way, is just that I've heard the same discourse as yours from friends of mine and it really bugs me, especially as those friends are in a financially better position (their parents too), which makes a hell of a lot of a difference.

You can raise kids on one income. Millions of people are doing so in this country right now, many of them very likely with much less income than you. Half of the households in the US make less than 63k. Something like 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck.

Your attitude though is very common and I think it reflects a deeper social phenomenon. The reality is that kids do not need that much to become a normal, well-adjusted adult. Food, active and caring parents, and clothes. That’s pretty much it. People believe they need a lot of gadgets and gizmos and various services (e.g., preschool), but the actual impact of these is either very small, unclear, or sometimes even negative. Nevertheless, people suffer a tremendous amount of anxiety over things like getting into a good preschool, Christmas toys, bedrooms for every kid, paying for college, etc. Why?

I don’t think it’s actually because deep down, we believe our kids are failures if we can’t pay for their Yale education, or if, god forbid, they don’t go to college at all. I think there’s something else going on. I’ve been thinking about this for a long while, but I’m not really prepared to formulate it, just to say money is not the real reason. I say this having two kids myself and one income, and a similar financial situation that you describe above, except for having the one income.

I don't live in the States where I'm sure that things are better, money-wise, and I do know the way our parents and grand-parents grew up (i.e. poor to very poor), but I personally don't have the heart in me to bring a person into this world that will have to risk going through the same material hardships that I went through (or my parents or grand-parents). I don't want gizmos and all that (I personally don't have a laptop and I care very little about electronic stuff, even though I'm a programmer), but the truth is that education, healthcare and housing have become really, really stressful for people like me who have not won the real-estate lottery.

Cat does not love you. It never leaves, cause you locked it. If you move away, cat prefers to stay.

Treating children like pets would be effectively emotional abuse. And while dog can fill some of yours emotional needs, quite frankly, kids won't.

I have children and had pet and I can tell you that those two are comparable in any way. Not just in easy vs hard scale, but it is fundamentally different relationship.

You overstate a little. Both require overlapping responsibilities from the head of the household.

Both, for example, require someone to be home to feed them (and take care of other biological needs) every day. The amount of effort for a child is much higher, but having a pet or a child both make it impossible to catch an impromptu flight to Vegas or pull an all nighter at work.

And, yes, that does require some emotional maturity and, for some, fill some emotional needs.

I did not said pets don't fill any needs, I said they are completely different then what you get with children.

For cat, you can put enough food to bowl and have someone else wisit a day after to change it.

You can absolutely pull all nighters with cat. The cat will be fine.

Less so with dog if you are single, but walking dog is still incomparable to all the interaction that goes on with kid - even on playground.

> I have children and had pet and I can tell you that those two are [not] comparable in any way.

I was replying to this.

> You can absolutely pull all nighters with cat. The cat will be fine.

Your couch or mattress may be ruined, though, depending on the cat.

I agree completely. But the perception that they are comparable, that pets are sufficient to replace human connection, seems to be a growing trend.

I don't think so. It is just something that people who want others to have children project into childless people with pet. It is something to invalidate/insult childless people with. Or childless in general. And occasionally to those with one child and pets.

I have never heard childless person say that they have pet instead of children. They don't have pets instead of children.

They just don't have kids and have pets. Not as replacement tho.

I'm going to disagree with you on that first sentence.

It's likely that cats can sense your superior attitude toward them. As a result, they avoid bond-forming behaviors that require trust and vulnerability and mutual respect. Which in turn has reinforced your false idea that all cats are indifferent.

I've been very close with two cats. They followed me around everywhere in our house wherever I went, sat next to/on me at every opportunity, cuddled with me in bed every night, scratched furniture if I ignored them, waited for me at the door, called out when I wasn't home by a usual hour, and became visibly depressed (eating less, losing interest in play) when I would away on holiday for more than a day.

>cats can sense your superior attitude toward them. As a result, they avoid bond-forming behaviors that require trust and vulnerability and mutual respect.

cats can trust and respect? I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize animals to this degree.

> cats can trust and respect?

I think you're doing the reverse of anthropomorphizing - assuming that because humans have an experience, then that experience must be unique to humans.

Cats have all kinds of trust signals: showing their belly to you, slowly blinking at you, circling you with tail up, fully grooming themselves where you can see them.

You won't see these signals if you don't treat the cat with respect, i.e.: invade their space without "asking" (letting them sniff your hand from a safe distance first), pick them up when their body language indicates they are just fine where they are, pet them on places that are vulnerable (belly, throat), touch their fur when your hands have lotions or other scents.

what makes you think they can't trust or respect? do you think they treat all people identically?

Don't know whether cat loves it's owner or not. But as long as you feed it would stay. Where i live people don't lock cats but they do stay.

This is a pretty interesting article about animals and emotions by a primatologist: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/sunday/emotions-a...

It goes through a lot of emotions specifically thought to be human and shows evidence for them in animals. I couldn't find a paragraph to sum it up, but this might be the thesis of the article:

> Uniquely human emotions don’t exist. More and more, I believe that we share all emotions with other species in the same way that we share virtually every organ in our bodies with them. No exceptions.

> Like organs, the emotions evolved over millions of years to serve essential functions. Their usefulness has been tested again and again, giving them the wisdom of ages. They nudge us to do what is best for us. Some emotions may be more developed in humans, or apply to a wider range of circumstances, but none is fundamentally new.

Sure, but really, cats don't love you. They tolerate you and may like you.

Dog may love you. Snake won't. Cats don't.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting companionship and getting a pet. Extra points if you take it from a shelter.

That isn’t what I said, at all. Pets are awesome. But they aren’t replacements for human connection.

And if someone tells you that it is for them, will you inform them that they are wrong to feel that way?

Well I wouldn’t say it to their face, because that would be rude. But yes I’d posit that they are wrong.

No, because remaining polite is important.

But I will make a mental note of it, and infer that said person was socialized improperly (f.e poor family life, severe bullying, inability to form strong bonds, unstable or has no non-surface relationships with other people), and thereby stay away.

I don't in anyway mean to offend, and I am certain the other would reply with "I don't want such a judgemental person in my life, anyway."

I would not stay away from someone because he was bullied or poor growing up. I find it wrong that someone would choose to further ostracise or marginalise or push away such person. You was bullied therefore I stay away? Wtf.

If such person would harming me or my kids, I would stay away. But not just because their life was tougher then mine.

I wouldn't say it's because of the hardship, but usually the side-effects of said hardship, i.e untreated emotional problems, poor mindsets towards people and relationships, very closed off emotionally -- "guarded" and feeling like they constantly need to "defend" themselves in every relationship.

After being close with a multitude of people that were improperly socialzed -- and a multitude of people that were propeely socialized -- I'm not going to put myself in lower quality relationships "out of the goodness of my heart and soul" anymore.

It is dependent on the hardship though, and if the person recieved social support from his support system (f.e combat service in the military, growing up poor but very good family and values, etc.). Barring that, I'm more than likely going to be scarred emotionally by people that didn't learn how proper, healthy relationships look like, and it's a "we" not a "you vs. me."

Would you say you are free of untreated emotional problems and poor mindsets?

Absolutely not. I'm not arrogant enough to make such a claim, and my observations tell me we all have them in one way or another.

But I can say with confidence that I don't let my own problems negatively affect the people I care about. I've worked hard to get to here, because I know firsthand how it affects people.

"You say animals fulfill your emotional needs better than people? By God, I will prove you right!"

Funny, you're not wrong (in two ways ;)

The older I get, the more I start identifying with the "you know, a dog would probably be a lot simpler than all of this shit" crowd. However, I try not to lower my standards of life as I mature.

Expect nothing, but demand the best, yada yada.

A cat is a replacement for a child in the same way a electric kick scooter is a replacement for a truck.

I.e. they're better for the environment.

“difficulty, struggle and suffering are inherently worthwhile, more authentic and character-building”

Is there any research on this topic or is this just your opinion?

What is “research” supposed to mean in this case? It’s a philosophical proposition, one that has been expounded by thousands of cultures throughout history. If anything, justification for an easy, hedonistic life is the rarity.

Wow that paragraph is like the poster child for the logical fallacy called “appeal to tradition”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I don’t know if you’re looking for an actual discussion or just prowling around for opportunities to link to logical fallacies. Assuming the best intentions...

My question stands: what does research mean in this case? Are you looking for a scientific study which confirms or denies that “difficulty is more authentic?” It is a question beyond the purview of science. The arguments for such a view would be found in philosophical and religious texts.

Not that I necessarily agree that espousing your viewpoint requires research, but it might be constituted by studies showing correlations with more difficult but meaningful lives and long term contentedness/happiness, or with traits we generally see as positive, such as honesty.

It would be a circular exercise. Defining what is considered positive, for example contentedness, is itself a culture-specific value. There are and have been plenty of cultures which consider other values more important. Even then, defining happiness is itself not a scientific endeavor.

Ultimately you end up at philosophy or religion.

keiferski, I would guess research mean examining patterns of individuals faced with poverty and those that didn't in their childhood. Are people grown in poor household with lack of healthcare and struggling diseases better than those who didn't and lived relatively comfortably? If you learn something from facing difficulty or suffering then how does it materialize? What form does it take?

Insofar as that is purely a philosophical proposition, there is nothing there for society to recognize - you might consider struggle and suffering worthwhile but you can't make that judgement for anyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com