Did you ever read something that made such infinitely good sense that you immediately incorporated it into your personal philosophy? That’s what happened to me years ago when I was reading Norman Cousin’sCelebration of Life: A Dialogue on Immortality and Infinity. (Harper and Row, 1974). In it he notes that, when we believe that the world is flat, the further apart two people move, the greater the distance between them. But once we realize that the world is round, the further apart they move, the closer they become. So it is with ideas, too, and there are many examples of this in the companion animal realm.
For example, consider the flat world of pet weight. In that world, we have the starving bag of bones at one end of the spectrum and the well-fed animal at the other. The people responsible for the bag of bones are inevitably viewed as abusers, and passionate calls for their punishment fill the media. Pictures of the sorry creatures appear in newspapers and on shelter websites; some animals even find themselves part of “real life” television shows that describe their wretched state and its aftermath. In such shows, a happy ending involves throwing the book at the evil perpetrator of the heinous crime while the pet goes to folks who would never do such a thing. In a bittersweet one, the perp is never caught, but the animal is saved and goes to a loving home In the worst scenario, the criminal gets away and the animal dies.
Going back to those happier endings, once in that loving home, the assumption is that the abused animal will then progress to the “good” end of the linear spectrum in this new environment. However, when we believe that the world is flat, that sets us up for linear, more-is-better thinking. If starving a companion animal is abuse, then the more we feed our pets, the more we must love them. So sometimes when people get a pet, they may do everything in their power to fatten up that animal to consciously or subconsciously put as much distance between that abuser and themselves. They dwell in a flat world in which one’s humane status is determined by the amount one feeds one’s animals.
However, if we then consider the results such human beliefs create, we discover that the opposite end of the starvation (i.e. abusive human) spectrum is not the fit and trim animal. Instead, it consists of that increasing population of overweight and medically obese companion animals of all species.
Another way to look at this is that, if we take a round rather than flat world view of companion animal weight, relative to any detrimental effects on the animal, the human orientations represented by the two extremes are far more alike than different. However, flat-thinkers often don’t see it this way at all. Can you imagine a show on the Animal Planet in which devoted animal cops creep into neat suburban split levels or upscale metropolitan townhouses and rescue obese Labradors, Persian cats, canaries, ferrets, or rabbits? Or what about pictures of corpulent pets showing up in the literature of humane organizations seeking contributions to combat such atrocious human neglect? Would you contribute as much to that cause as one seeking to help starving animals? Or would those pictures make you feel guilty or unjustly persecuted? Or imagine a headline blaring, “Local Couple Arrested for Animal Abuse” followed by a report detailing how Albert and Harriet Petlover “did willfully overfeed their dog, Cuddles, thereby causing the animal to suffer years of weight-related medical and behavioral problems.” Surely such a story would strike terror in the hearts of pet-lovers nationwide, but for far different reasons than those elicited by stories about emaciated junkyard dogs owned by substance abusers.
Nonetheless, in terms of the toll it takes on the animal, it is as abusive to overfeed as underfeed. The only difference is that underfeeding may generate dire effects in a relatively short period of time, whereas those related to overfeeding may erode an animal’s health and behavior for years.
So join me in stepping back far enough to see the whole picture rather than just the part(s) that emotionally appeals for some reason. When you do, you’ll discover as I did that it is not one group’s hatred and another’s great love of animals that places them poles apart. It is the willingness of both to condemn animals to live with consequences of detrimental human beliefs that brings them so close together.
Did you ever read something that made such infinitely good sense that you immediately incorporated it into your personal philosophy? That’s what happened to me years ago when I was reading Norman Cousin’sCelebration of Life: A Dialogue on Immortality and Infinity. (Harper and Row, 1974). In it he notes that, when we believe that the world is flat, the further apart two people move, the greater the distance between them. But once we realize that the world is round, the further apart they move, the closer they become. So it is with ideas, too, and there are many examples of this in the companion animal realm.
For example, consider the flat world of pet weight. In that world, we have the starving bag of bones at one end of the spectrum and the well-fed animal at the other. The people responsible for the bag of bones are inevitably viewed as abusers, and passionate calls for their punishment fill the media. Pictures of the sorry creatures appear in newspapers and on shelter websites; some animals even find themselves part of “real life” television shows that describe their wretched state and its aftermath. In such shows, a happy ending involves throwing the book at the evil perpetrator of the heinous crime while the pet goes to folks who would never do such a thing. In a bittersweet one, the perp is never caught, but the animal is saved and goes to a loving home In the worst scenario, the criminal gets away and the animal dies.
Going back to those happier endings, once in that loving home, the assumption is that the abused animal will then progress to the “good” end of the linear spectrum in this new environment. However, when we believe that the world is flat, that sets us up for linear, more-is-better thinking. If starving a companion animal is abuse, then the more we feed our pets, the more we must love them. So sometimes when people get a pet, they may do everything in their power to fatten up that animal to consciously or subconsciously put as much distance between that abuser and themselves. They dwell in a flat world in which one’s humane status is determined by the amount one feeds one’s animals.
However, if we then consider the results such human beliefs create, we discover that the opposite end of the starvation (i.e. abusive human) spectrum is not the fit and trim animal. Instead, it consists of that increasing population of overweight and medically obese companion animals of all species.
Another way to look at this is that, if we take a round rather than flat world view of companion animal weight, relative to any detrimental effects on the animal, the human orientations represented by the two extremes are far more alike than different. However, flat-thinkers often don’t see it this way at all. Can you imagine a show on the Animal Planet in which devoted animal cops creep into neat suburban split levels or upscale metropolitan townhouses and rescue obese Labradors, Persian cats, canaries, ferrets, or rabbits? Or what about pictures of corpulent pets showing up in the literature of humane organizations seeking contributions to combat such atrocious human neglect? Would you contribute as much to that cause as one seeking to help starving animals? Or would those pictures make you feel guilty or unjustly persecuted? Or imagine a headline blaring, “Local Couple Arrested for Animal Abuse” followed by a report detailing how Albert and Harriet Petlover “did willfully overfeed their dog, Cuddles, thereby causing the animal to suffer years of weight-related medical and behavioral problems.” Surely such a story would strike terror in the hearts of pet-lovers nationwide, but for far different reasons than those elicited by stories about emaciated junkyard dogs owned by substance abusers.
Nonetheless, in terms of the toll it takes on the animal, it is as abusive to overfeed as underfeed. The only difference is that underfeeding may generate dire effects in a relatively short period of time, whereas those related to overfeeding may erode an animal’s health and behavior for years.
So join me in stepping back far enough to see the whole picture rather than just the part(s) that emotionally appeals for some reason. When you do, you’ll discover as I did that it is not one group’s hatred and another’s great love of animals that places them poles apart. It is the willingness of both to condemn animals to live with consequences of detrimental human beliefs that brings them so close together.