Pets give birth to only the people themselves – perhaps because the pets require resources for maintenance. But how did this man have a hobby? When the four chimpanzees once caught a young blue duiker African antelope), from the first, it seemed that they decided to keep the animal as a pet.
They tinkered with the antelope for a while, but in the end it ended sadly for her: a chimpanzee playing too rough with her, and she died. Monkeys, however, continued for another half hour fun with a dead carcass. Science is not known exactly when the person first appeared pets. We know, however, that thousands of years ago our ancestors most likely have kept the wolves. Perhaps originally they caught them more cubs, domesticated, and found that they are useful in hunting.
Gradually, the wolves become more tame and obedient and eventually evolved into dogs. According to the findings of a study published in May 2015, it could have happened 27,000 years ago. In fact, it is rather strange – considering that the content of a pet does not come cheap. It needs to be fed, to provide him shelter, vaccinations and veterinary care. Yes, pets make man company, but caring for them takes time, and in response to them often does not receive any practical help (with some exceptions, to which, for example, can be attributed guard or hunting dogs).
Growing up a child can help their parents in old age. Taking care of close relatives, too, has a practical sense from an evolutionary point of view we have them close sets of genes, and the successful survival of the family is the widest possible dissemination of these genes. By the domestic dog, cat or rat this is not applicable. From pet silly to wait some material benefits – but millions of people nevertheless contain them and find family members.
Among the scientists for several decades dominated by the view that animals have a beneficial effect on human health, especially on his psychological comfort, and even supposedly contribute to an increase in life expectancy. But this is not definitive evidence. There have been studies, the results of which were forced to experts suggest that pets really are good for you – but some recent experiments gave the opposite result.
For example, scientists have found that having pets, people tend to suffer more from mental health problems and more severe depression than those who do not have pets. Other studies have shown that life satisfaction among pet owners is not higher than that of other people. Despite the fact that in recent years, experts largely dispelled the myth about the benefits of pet health of their hosts, the topic still comes up in the media. Having a pet is not helping people to live longer – scientists have proved it, – says John Bradshaw from the School of Veterinary Science at Bristol University in England.
But in the past to live together with animals could be useful. According to Bradshaw, it allows women to demonstrate skills in the care of a helpless creature – that gave a glimpse of the future of its maternal qualities. In addition, pets stimulate and develop empathy. According to another theory, possession of a pet gave a direct allusion to the wealth of the owner. The presence of a pet has demonstrated that a person is enough additional resources to contain it. The history and culture has a rich reservoir associated with the demonstration of our desire to have pets, but in fact it’s just a human instinct, which once was a direct allusion to the ability to maintain them, – says Bradshaw.
James Serpell, a professor of ethics of the treatment of animals from the University of Pennsylvania in the United States, believes that the ownership of pets and to this day there is an advantage in evolutionary terms. According to him, people – a social being, is constantly striving to make relationships with others, including our pets. People who do not have social support, are more susceptible to diseases and infections.
But he nevertheless admits that this effect is difficult to prove, and the results of relevant studies, as we have seen, are mixed. Inevitably plays a role and the cultural component: in different societies perceive pets differently. As a result of cross-cultural analysis of 60 countries revealed that dogs kept in 52 of them, but only in 22 countries, dogs are considered pets. In some societies to pets are cruel – for example, the anthropologist Jared Diamond watched it in a tribe in New Guinea. A tribe in Kenya Kimbo dogs kept only for protection. The language of that tribe is not the word pet Kimbo never petted dogs and do not let them in the house.
Harold Herzog of West Karolinska University in the United States observes that such a difference in approach to the pet simply talking about the cultural characteristics of a society. According to Herzog at the annual conference of the Association of Psychological Science, we lead pets, because it makes the surrounding, because it is socially contagious. We are generally arranged so that we attract living beings – we are predisposed to consider the puppies and kittens cute. But this puppy may seem nice to us in the United States and in South Korea it is perceived as the food. What was going on? – Asks scientist.
He concludes that the habit of the content of domestic animals – is the result of the perception of social cues from others. In other words, it is a meme, a fashion which is constantly fed by its own popularity. Herzog said that to explain this habit in terms of the theory of evolution is not possible – citing the results of an analysis of more than 48 million certificates of registration issued by the American Kennel Club. Analysis showed the cycles of growth and decline of popularity of this hobby.
The popularity of dogs can fly up to heaven – and can just as quickly fall. The cycle of fashion dog breed takes about 25 years. They are in vogue and out of it – as the sneaker. For example, now more and more people give birth to yourself Bulldogs, and the purity of the breed today has less value. Besides, now popular to take dogs from shelters. About the same, according to scientists working in fashion and trends.
Serpell with this view does not agree. He believes that the hunter-gatherer communities have come to the content of domestic animals in a natural way and, therefore, it is a hobby in general characteristic of human nature: The argument that the maintenance of pets may affect fashion is untenable – because people have begun to develop a close relationship with animals at the dawn of its history. Perhaps so, but the culture – in the form of art, music and language – existed before man domesticated the dog. Herzog believes that although the inner craving for sweet little animal is clearly important for the person, but it is not enough: To become a characteristic feature of society requires the transfer of cultural heritage.
Therefore, in the forms of animals are so many regional and historical variations.So difficult to establish with certainty why people give birth to pets – this may be due to a combination of factors. But in any case, puppies or kittens from this not become less cute.