People have pets all the way from ants and fish through mice and cats to dogs and pigs. This might be closer to a fish than a dog but those are all common pets for normal people. I think if it can learn and interact, it's going to be a meaningful pet, at least more than a fish is.
I think this is the right track, but perhaps not intro/extro, and simply what people want from a pet. Want a constant companion? Get a dog. Want another thing sharing the space, that can look after itself? Get a cat. Want something pretty to look at that knows it's place? Get a fish...
It seems like an expensive toy, but good entertainment. If the cost can be brought down, it could bring joy to a lot of people's lives when they can't have pets.
Been thinking about whether I should get a pet. Some logistics, but also the M.I. like the guy in the piece. Not sure that the article helps my decision, but the comments here add some solidarity.
People are really keen to allow their pets to be used in research as long as they understand the importance. Pets are a massive resource that is just being wasted.
Random thought: Give every child one as a pet so they get emotionally attached and over time, society will grow to associate these creatures as man's friend.
I find your second statement a little bizarre. People are going to feel varying degrees of attachment to their pets. Why would you care? You can think it's silly or weird, but who are you to take offense at something like that?
I thought the "having animals" numbers were pretty interesting too; it looks like having a pet in the picture may lead to a fairly sizable increase in contact rates.
reply