Pope Francis warns against pet affections

[+Link of Hyrule]

With respect; that sounds like a very selfish reason to have children. Yet I see this attitude displayed all the time. I've spoken to many elders who bemoan the fact that their one or two children don't visit or phone them. There's certainly no guarantee that any offspring you have will grow up and maintain a filial relationship. I've been tempted several times to respond "ah, that's too bad, maybe you should have had even more children".

The experiences I've had are in North America, I can imagine in the 3rd world/Global south many people are quite upfront about why they have so many children, for the exact reasons you pointed out. This would make sense in these countries since they lack a social safety net and children can literally mean the difference between life and death. But to beget children just so you won't be bored in your retirement, well that's a rather poor excuse. My response would be, get a hobby, learn a new skill, further your education, volunteer, or dare I say it, adopt a cat or dog from a shelter.

Perhaps having children does have its selfish reasons. Does that discount the valuable contribution they can provide in your old age?

And just so we are abundantly clear, I used the words of the article as "loneliness", not "boredom". Having kids just so you won't be "bored" in your old age is an interpretation of my comments that you have chosen to add. I never even hinted at boredom. I'm actually a little angry, to tell you the truth, because as I wrote my previous post I had tears welling in my eyes thinking about my parents. I can't see how I have even hinted at the idea of children as a means of evading "boredom". My entire post was about the idea of isolation and loneliness in the face of losing the one you spent virtually your entire life with. Loneliness is not boredom. Ever.

[Leonardo]

Perhaps having children does have its selfish reasons. Does that discount the valuable contribution they can provide in your old age?

And just so we are abundantly clear, I used the words of the article as "loneliness", not "boredom". Having kids just so you won't be "bored" in your old age is an interpretation of my comments that you have chosen to add. I never even hinted at boredom. I'm actually a little angry, to tell you the truth, because as I wrote my previous post I had tears welling in my eyes thinking about my parents. I can't see how I have even hinted at the idea of children as a means of evading "boredom". My entire post was about the idea of isolation and loneliness in the face of losing the one you spent virtually your entire life with. Loneliness is not boredom. Ever.

I agree, but that is not a sound argument that an elderly person, having lost a life-partner, should withdraw from the world and face "bitter loneliness".

[redhen]

Perhaps having children does have its selfish reasons. Does that discount the valuable contribution they can provide in your old age?

Again, there is no guarantee that this will be the case. Just talk to any personal support worker about relatives that ignore their elders.

And just so we are abundantly clear, I used the words of the article as "loneliness", not "boredom" ... Loneliness is not boredom. Ever.

Boredom and loneliness frequently go hand in hand, any psychologist will affirm this.

One could argue, from anecdotal evidence, that many people prefer the company of their faithful dog over people. There are many palliative care services that bring cats and dogs into hospices for the express purpose of cheering up the elders there.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I agree, but that is not a sound argument that an elderly person, having lost a life-partner, should withdraw from the world and face "bitter loneliness".

Agreed, but to once again use my mother as an example, she would not have had a choice. Her circle of friends was extremely limited - one or two colleagues at work, the husband of her best friend (her best friend passed away ten years before), and maybe one or two others. Mum and dad were almost literally "everything" to each other. None of the people mentioned so far could spend extended time with her. A couple of hours here and there is the best they could muster. My point is that when one is in a situation where their partner is truly the only thing in their world, once the person passes away there is actually no recourse to reconnect with the world. They can put out feelers, join clubs or interest groups, but they are for all intensive purposes, "alone". That is why my mother chose to retire in a village, so she could have a community around her to interact with. Unfortunately she passed away while in transition, but the point is that if I or my brother were not present even the retirement village would have been beyond her.

This isn't about withdrawing from the world, it is about having the contacts to engage with the world once the one contact you had was gone. For mum, dad was enough. That was all she needed. I lost count of the times that mum cried to me about how she wished dad had taken her with him when he did pass. It took everything I had then not to break into tears at that admission. It wasn't that mum withdrew from the world, it was a case that her life had been so reliant on dad that once gone she didn't have the contacts to reconnect with the world

In the context of this discussion, the best case scenario here would be for the Pope to preach that couples should always maintain multiple avenues back to the world, no matter how consuming a relationship is. But if this is the message, then it suggests that closeness to human love is actually wrong, and that loving another far more than yourself is wrong, that you should always think of yourself first.

Look, Leo - maybe my parents' love did actually isolate themselves from alternative avenues of expression. Perhaps they could have been more active in how they engaged their social circles (completely against my dad's psychological outlook on life, for the record). Perhaps there are a thousand things they COULD have done different. But they didn't. And when dad passed away it left mum in a singularly horrific situation - loneliness. Thankfully my brother and I were indeed there for her. And that is the point of the speech by Francis - children can help against loneliness. It's not about maintaining a social circle once your partner has died! It's about being able to re-establish/create new social circles once your partner passed away. And that is what the Pope is replying to, and that is where the role of children come in, and therefore what the Pope was talking about.

In conclusion, your statement that an elderly person "withdraws" from society when their partner dies implies that the social connections exist for said person to integrate with society to begin with. Much of the time these social connections don't even exist.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Again, there is no guarantee that this will be the case. Just talk to any personal support worker about relatives that ignore their elders.

Agreed. I never claimed otherwise. But NOT having kids is a definite guarantee that this WILL be the case!

Boredom and loneliness frequently go hand in hand, any psychologist will affirm this.

One could argue, from anecdotal evidence, that many people prefer the company of their faithful dog over people. There are many palliative care services that bring cats and dogs into hospices for the express purpose of cheering up the elders there.

Boredom and loneliness are 100% different things. While loneliness can lead to boredom, it is naive and shallow to even suggest that they are among the same. And certainly it is a corruption of everything I wrote in my previous post to assume that I intended boredom when I referenced loneliness.

And sure, there may be the idea of pets to take care of the lonely. I'm not arguing that it does not exist. But I DO argue (quite strenuously) that such relationship will never, and can never, replace the relationship between a parent and their children. My old Kelpie/Labrador/Shepherd cross was a dear family friend for 16 years, had he still been alive when dad passed away I doubt he could have ever been the equivalent of myself or my brother in the wake of my dad's passing.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Having children is one way to help fill that gap. Can a dog or a cat help heal the damage of losing your partner? In a sense, nothing ever will, but a son or daughter is a damned-sight better than a pet in helping through the grieving process.

Okay, that may be the case for you, but you certainly can't apply that across the board; I don't think there is any sort of 'one-size-fits-all' approach to dealing with grief. And I'm not sure if you are fully taking into account the comfort and perspective that pets can bring to people, and most importantly, how in certain bad relationships, the existence of children can make grieving worse.

Frankly I think what the Pope is encouraging here is irresponsible; as has been noted our ecosystem is being strained already largely due to an over-abundance of people. Suggesting you have children to alleviate potential future loneliness at the end of your life, contrary to the suggestions here that there is some type of 'selfishness' involved with deciding not to have children, is selfish in itself. Most people, or at least the vast majority of people Francis is referring to, are having children because they want to; I'm not sure why that's not selfish but people not having children if they don't want to is selfish. Even though I find things to like about this Pope in a relative sense, it's tough to buy the idea that he's suggesting this for unselfish reasons himself, and not partly out of selfishness for the health of his church.

[Leonardo]

In conclusion, your statement that an elderly person "withdraws" from society when their partner dies implies that the social connections exist for said person to integrate with society to begin with. Much of the time these social connections don't even exist.

Then wouldn't it have been a better idea for the Pope to recommend building those social connections outside the immediate family, to guard against the 'loneliness of old age'?

But he didn't, and I suspect his reason for promoting having children was influenced - perhaps subconsciously - by his desire for the 'family' of the Catholic Church to expand, or at least not dwindle.

[redhen]

Mum and dad were almost literally "everything" to each other.

It wasn't that mum withdrew from the world, it was a case that her life had been so reliant on dad that once gone she didn't have the contacts to reconnect with the world

One can certainly love another, but it can be unhealthy to rely solely on one person for your happiness. This is a recipe for disaster.

Other religions and philosophies warn about exactly this kind of dependence, yes, I'm thinking of Buddhism and Stoicism.

[WoIverine]

This amuses me. Always thought that people who refer to their pets as "their babies" were a little too attached. It's those same people who would go back for their little fifi in a zombie apocalypse. lol

Edited June 4, 2014 by WoIverine

[quiXilver]

wow... just wow.

I guess you really have to hope those in your think tank keep breeding since it's hard to convince a critical thinker of a story such as this, after the age of reason...

"Hey, so there was this guy, the son of the creator of the universe.

His mother was human, but his dad was invisible and made a baby inside a woman by magic.

This boy, supposedly never did anything wrong and told everyone to love each other and lots of people dug this...

Except for a bunch of people who didn't like it and then got together and killed him and he went to hell and was tortured.

Then he was raised from the dead, by (insert made up not part of the bible reason here) and now because of that, you can do whatever you want and because he was murdered you can be forgiven anything and live forever."

huh?

"Well because it's all based on atonement for sin and it used to be when you hit someone, or stole something, or murdered someone, or did anything wrong, you'd have to kill a chicken or a cow and spill their blood on an altar, or burn the carcass to atone and erase your wrongdoings... you know, because killing animals makes past wrongdoings disappear... only now, some guys killed this loving person thousands of years ago and if you claim to believe that he's still alive somehow, you will be forgiven for all the nasty **** you do..."

So just sign up over here... we do require 10% of everything you make from now on, but you can come here on Sundays and we'll explain in great detail just how awesome the invisible rule making man who killed his own son for your bad deeds is...

Eternal life for 10% and a few measly words of belief...

or....

hey catholics... have more kids...

Sunday School enrollment is open all year round.

[redhen]

This amuses me. Always thought that people who refer to their pets as "their babies" were a little too attached.

I cringe too when I hear people talking about their "furbabies". It's just as unhealthy to get overly attached to a pet as it is to hang your entire happiness on one person.

Yes, some people go overboard with anthropomorphizing their pets, dressing them up and talking baby talk to them. This is probably what Pope Francis was getting at.

Yet cats and dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years and have relied on us. We have purposefully bred and selected the most docile while removing the more aggressive ones (except where that trait was useful). I believe we have a moral duty of care towards them. The same for every other domesticated species.

[shadowhive]

Okay, that may be the case for you, but you certainly can't apply that across the board; I don't think there is any sort of 'one-size-fits-all' approach to dealing with grief. And I'm not sure if you are fully taking into account the comfort and perspective that pets can bring to people, and most importantly, how in certain bad relationships, the existence of children can make grieving worse.

I agree and I've seen first hand how children can't help things. A few years ago my nan spent her last years in a care home. You'd hear from nurses how some families (like us) would visit their relativies regularly. Others just dumped them there and never came or cared. While my mother and I went regularly (3 times a week, sometimes more) my uncle barely went that any times over a year. Children sometimes just won't care about their parents.

Likewise when my grandad was on his last legs (and grieving for the lost of his wife due to Azeimers) my uncle wasn't there. (Until the day after he diedand all he cared abut was money but that's another matter.) During my grandad's grief he'd push us away no matter how hard we tried to get him to open up.

What did help, though, was a dog. Because of the dog we got my grandad he went outside every day. He had fresh air and he'd socialise with people he won't otherwise. It helped him deal with the loneliness he faced. And when they were gone and it was us who was grieving that little dog did the same to us. He kept us going and he's family. I honestly don't know how we would have coped without him.

When my nan died I handled it badly and I.. .well I have trouble vocalising how I felt. So mum got me pets in the form of guinea pigs and they helped me as well, gving me something to cuddle and smile about at a time when I couldn't. To me it's obvious that pets can help with grief, at times just as well as people can.

[ambelamba]

Why doesn't the pope Francis do this: EVANGELIZING EURO-MUSLIMS!!!!

Edited June 5, 2014 by ambelamba

[Mr Walker]

Yup, since the 1960's, with the invention of "the pill" and the feminist movement, Western counties have seen a steady decrease in birth rates. But homo sapiens is not going to go extinct, at least not yet. All the other countries in the world (except Japan) are witnessing exponential human population growth, with no end in sight. See the thread on the current mass extinction over on the Earth, Disasters and the Environment forum. This species die off is attributable to habitat loss which in turn is caused by human encroachment.

The other side of this population question is all the unplanned pregnancies. United States statistics for 1987 showed that of “5.4 million pregnancies among American women, about 3.1 million (57 percent) were unintended at the time of conception. Of these, about 1.6 million were aborted”

Cohen, J, Ten myths of population, Discover, April 1996 v17 n4

To me, this is unconscionable.

I don't think it's the case that couples are purposefully avoiding pregnancies with the plan to replace them with pets. I think for various reasons they don't want kids and that opens up the possibility to adopt a dog or cat.

p.s. I apologize for that cheap shot about cats and dogs not paying tithes. That was unnecessary.

You are out of date Almost every western country is now below replacement fertility level. Japan is an extreme example followed by western Europe, but we are all in the same leaking boat And even in Africa fertility rates are declining rapidly. By about 20 50 on present trends the whole worlsd will drop beloew replacement fertility level After tha tit is onlya matter of time. In the first generation of decline perhaps between 2050 and 2100, population will decline slowl,y but the decline will increase rapidly.. Ultimately unless fertility is increased to above 2.2 children per woman, the human race will become extinct (and that could take only a few generations .) While this might seem improbable it is statistically inevitable without higher fertility levels. However the greater problem is current demographies. Because there are so few young working people there is not enough being earned to care for older or disabled people who cannot work. In japan recognition of this has lead to the development of robots as nurses, companions, health workers etc for the aged. in less xenophobic countries, workers are imported from developing countries, sometimes successfully, at other times generating serious racial and religious/cultural tensions.

http://www.oecd.org/berlin/47570005.pdf

Replacement rates [edit]

Graph of Total Fertility Rates v. GDP per capita of the corresponding country, 2009. Only countries with over 5 million population were plotted to reduce outliers. Sources: CIA World Fact Book

Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women give birth to enough babies to sustain population levels.

If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44,45 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.^[4] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

The current WORLD replacement fertility rate is about 2.36, only marginally above replacement level (2.1 in developed countries and up to 2.4 or so in countries with a high infant mortality to give a world average of 2.2 ie the number of children on average every woman must have in er life time)..it has halved since the 1950s, and on present trends will fall below replacement level in a decade or two at the longest. Hence, by 2050 the world will not be producing enough babies to replace the population .

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

One can certainly love another, but it can be unhealthy to rely solely on one person for your happiness. This is a recipe for disaster.

Other religions and philosophies warn about exactly this kind of dependence, yes, I'm thinking of Buddhism and Stoicism.

It works for me. We never had children, although we have cared for many, but my wife and I (like our parents and other family ) are a co-dependent team who really need no other social/emotional attachments in life to be happy. While we enjoy the company of others, we can, and do, go days or weeks at a time just in each other's company. I do not understand why you would see this as a recipe for disaster, IF the relationship is solid, sound and balanced/complementary. But then we have been happily married for 40 years and that is short compared to many of our family's marriages. My parents were married for 60 years until dad died and my wife's parents for over 70 years.

[Mr Walker]

_{My wife does say that she prefers animals to humans for a variety of logical reasons, but I disagree. I would rather support another human in need than keep a pet. But as a compromise we do both. We support both humans and animals to the best of our ability and work to improve conditions for both. At one point we had half a dozen people we were caring for, ranged from a baby a few months old to a couple in their nineties. At the same time we cared for 8 dogs, a dozen sheep we had hand reared from abandoned lambs, plus many chooks ducks cats rabbits and a variety of exotic birds, plus native animals and birds.}

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mr Walker