Are we commercialising pets too much? This is what the animal ethicist says
15.12.2023
Translation: machine translated
Bows, jumpers and other accessories: many pet owners dig deep into their wallets for their pets. Animal ethicist Nico Müller explains when commercialisation and humanisation become critical. Or are we even dehumanising our animals?
If you look around in our online shop or in pet shops, you will be almost overwhelmed by products for four-legged friends. There is now an animal counterpart for almost everything you can buy as a human. Is this morally justifiable? I asked the animal ethicist Nico Müller from the University of Basel.
Source: Roman Seifert
Nico Müller, 71,991 products appear in our shop under the keyword "pet supplies". Are we commercialising our animals too much?
What is sold is more important than the number. There are a few products on Galaxus that are ethically questionable. For example, an electric cattle prod that delivers electric shocks, a cattle soother that keeps cattle from drinking with spikes or homeopathy books that favour withholding medical help from farm animals.
Which pet products do you consider critical?
I would strongly advise against plastic hamster balls or balls in which the animals can roll around the home. These are unhygienic and harbour a high risk of injury. Anyone using them may even be in breach of Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Swiss Animal Welfare Act. But I also don't think much of accessories and costumes if they have no function for the animal.
Are we humanising our animals with these products?In the case of accessories and costumes, yes, to some extent. For example, some people attribute fashion tastes to their animals that they don't actually have. In doing so, they project their own needs and desires onto the animal. As a result, the animal itself fades into the background.
How did this come about?
The supposed pampering of pets was already a topic in the Middle Ages. Back then, it was mainly about how much money you should spend on pets or whether you should take them to church. In the last 200 years, almost everything that can be commercialised has been commercialised. In addition to cultural practices such as Christmas, this also includes pets. Sometimes, however, the opposite of humanisation happens today: animals are dehumanised.
When is dehumanisation the case?
For example, when owners are of the opinion: As long as my pet is still eating, it's fine. I only need to go to the vet when it's obviously suffering. In doing so, they simplify the animal and make it less human-like than it really is. That's probably why around 93 per cent of Swiss dogs don't have health insurance.
Would that be necessary?
Absolutely. When an animal falls ill, the cost of treatment can quickly mount up. Without insurance, it is a matter of luck whether an animal is treated - or whether it is euthanised because it is cheaper. Generally speaking, depending on what is more convenient for people, they attribute or deny human characteristics to animals.
Do we need animals at all?
We have been living with dogs for around 14,000 years and with cats for around 6,000. Direct contact with animals is a legitimate need. But that doesn't justify torture breeding. If you look at the full animal shelters, you should ask yourself whether pets should still be bred.
In which direction do you think the relationship with our animals will develop in the future?
The fact that even the Federal Council has now recognised that meat consumption needs to be reduced makes me hopeful that our relationship with animals will become less self-evident. What this could mean for pets is difficult to say. I would like to see us trivialise them less and treat them more maturely.
What would that mean in concrete terms?
For example, that we take out pet health insurance and that this even becomes public and compulsory in future. I would also think it would make sense to reintroduce compulsory dog training courses throughout Switzerland.
Why?
Not only to reduce the number of bites, but above all to educate people about how to handle animals. At the moment, it is left to chance where owners find information. This can also lead to the development of cruel practices, such as pushing the snouts of dogs that are not house-trained into faeces. Basically, I would like us to take the needs of our pets as seriously as our own.
Finally, would you have three suggestions for products that fulfil animal needs?So-called intelligence toys can be useful, for example for overweight cats. It keeps them busy and slows down the pace of eating. Lick mats are practical for distracting an animal when it needs to keep still for a short time. The most important thing, however, is that we think critically about our relationship with animals. That's why I recommend a stimulating book by sociologist Marcel Sebastian: "Streicheln oder Schlachten?"
By the way: Our Category Management has been informed about the criticised cattle prods, cattle suction cups and hamster balls. Some have already been removed from the range.
Do you think we commercialise and humanise our animals too much? Tell me in a comment.
Cover photo: Shutterstock/BearFotos
Darina Schweizer
Senior Editor
Darina.Schweizer@digitecgalaxus.chI like anything that has four legs or roots. The books I enjoy let me peer into the abyss of the human psyche. Unlike those wretched mountains that are forever blocking the view – especially of the sea. Lighthouses are a great place for getting some fresh air too, you know?
Health
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
Pets
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest