“Animals are better than humans”
Do you ever find yourself saying that animals are better than humans, or have you heard someone else do so? What does this statement reveal about the person making it?
Some articles (such as here and here) share reasons why some people feel this way. Below, I compiled a list of common themes.
Animals:
- genuinely enjoy activities with their owners,
- are pleasant to look at or watch,
- show unconditional love and loyalty,
- are low-maintenance and easy to please,
- do not judge,
- provide stress relief,
- and make a rapt audience for their owners.
A few of these points more or less make sense, and some of them are contestable. That said, I do not believe any of these are the real reasons why a human being would consider animals better than humans, but I will get to that later.
First off, I don’t agree that pets have unconditional love and loyalty. There’s the reality of runaway pets, some from abusive households (which proves they would not put up with just any treatment and therefore had conditions) and even some from happy households. Moreover, the process of an animal bonding with a human usually involves the human providing it with food, shelter, and affection in order to earn the animal’s friendship.
I am also not convinced that animals do not judge.
Moreover, animals don’t necessarily reduce stress and may sometimes even increase it. Anyone who has ever tried to convince a cat to come inside every night so it won’t be picked off by predators will understand.
Regarding animals providing a rapt audience, sure, a man can talk about his interesting day at work to his pet, and it might be genuinely fascinated. However, the animal obviously does not comprehend what he is saying and cannot provide any intellectual input of its own. It merely gazes curiously as its master makes indecipherable noises. In regards to back-and-forth interaction, the best this man can expect is for his pet to respond to emotional cues. This is more likely to happen if the animal is from an intelligent species, such as a dog as opposed to, say, a fish. The quality of social interaction is lacking compared to what another person potentially can provide.
As for animals being low-maintenance and easy to please, I completely agree. Animals are less complex than people, and their needs are more straightforward. It is normally very easy to meet an animal’s needs, which are food, shelter, affection, and for some species, exercise.
Can an animal meet a human’s needs for companionship as well as other people?
In my opinion, there are two qualifiers to check if an animal can perform as well as people in this regard, and these are: can the animal consistently 1) reduce depression and 2) reduce loneliness? Now, this is the part where many people may respond, “Of course they can!”
Not so fast.
The research into the ability of animals to reduce depression and loneliness is (surprisingly) a mixed bag. There are studies finding that they can indeed relieve depression and loneliness, studies indicating they make little difference overall, and also studies showing a higher association with depression and loneliness!
So, what really drives people to say animals are better than humans?
I believe the answer is a history of having unfulfilling relationships and unsatisfactory interactions with people.
People are social in nature and desire companionship. I believe the companionship of other people is optimal. However, this can change if a given person consistently fails to have rewarding interactions and relationships with people. There could be many reasons for this, and I will offer four here:
- Being surrounded by the wrong people. This can include lacking the skills to test character, leading to relationships with the wrong people. A person who has consistently had negative encounters with low quality people could decide to take self-protective measures at some point and seek the company of animals rather than risk getting hurt again.
- Personal social skill deficit, leading to disruptions in otherwise normal relationships. In such cases, animals are substituted because they are much more predictable and less complex than humans. I think this may be the case for some people who think animals love unconditionally; what is really going on is they better understand how to please an animal than a human. It’s much easier to cheer up a dog by giving it a treat than it is to, say, placate a stressed and insecure spouse.
- Isolation from others, be it geographical or otherwise, limiting the ability to meet kindred spirits. In such a scenario, a lonely person might find it easier to acquire a quality pet than to locate compatible human companionship.
- Misanthropy. An example of this comes from Walt Whitman, who in his poem “I Think I Could Turn And Live With Animals…” appears to express a dislike of people, particularly Christians.
While animals are wonderful to have around, they can not truly replace the richness and complexity that other humans bring in relationships. For this reason, I think it is a good idea for a person who has difficulty with interpersonal relationships to identify the problem and correct it if possible.
Did you enjoy this article? Here are others you may like:
Actors ARE Like Their Characters
How Well Does Psychotherapy Work? Mental Health Workers Tell the Truth