Or is it just another in a series of lifestyle choices?
A lot of resources are involved in supplying the pet industry. Are there ways we can mitigate the impacts? Or will we need to regulate the number of pets to ensure human needs are met worldwide?
2007-07-21 03:16:37 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
Yes, both human population increase and pet population increase are problems.
In most cases, our pets use far less resources than we humans do, so the pets are a small (but still significant) part of the problem.
Of course, a lot depends upon how you treat your pet. If you feed your pet a lot of meat (as we typically do for dogs and cats), then there is a substantial impact because the production of large quantities of meat harms the environment (especially the way we raise cattle, etc. in the U.S.). If you drive your pet a lot of places (e.g. to pet groomers, dog parks, etc.), then that makes the problem worse.
2007-07-21 18:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Environmentalist 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Forget kittens. There were 3 billion humans in 1950. Today, 6 billion. The population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Unless human numbers stop growing, conservation, innovation, or green power are futile. Human numbers WILL be limited. The only question is does mankind do it ourselves, or do we let starvation and disease do it for us.
2007-07-21 19:42:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting point. I personally believe the earth's population (of humans) is already greater than the earth can permanently sustain. Whether it's a high-tech society (like the US) or a low-tech society (like parts of Africa), the use of natural resources has outpaced the earth's ability to replenish them. And, the populatin will DOUBLE again in 35 years and again 35 years after that, etc. In 35 years, we will have 14 billion people, and 28 billion in 70 years.
We have problems, and it isn't simply global warming.
2007-07-21 12:07:41 · answer #3 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The cure is worse than the disease.
Many people look on pets as members of their family.
Your proposal will be viewed as an attack on pets.
If you attack pets essentially you are attacking people.
You would severly damage the political capital that you need to solve other more pressing problems if you were to use your political capital on this issue.
The results that you would achieve would be very minor.
The political cost would be enormous.
2007-07-21 11:50:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I have something to say. You can recycle with pets .....I think? See instead of buying a new breed or pet in a store ,people could go to an animal shelter then adopt an animal who really needs a home...BIG time.
2007-07-21 13:43:13 · answer #5 · answered by dlc 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe a good idea to look at "Pets" as food, like many Asian countries. My son and I were shopping in some Asian countries and noted the conditions were not very good in many "Pet" shops. Found out they were food stores.
Every animal is just food for another species in nature. Man is the interrupter of nature.
2007-07-21 10:35:35 · answer #6 · answered by GABY 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋