Are Pets/Dogs Replacing Kids?

The San Francisco Chronicle recently asked the question that I’m sure is keeping most of you up at night, “are pets replacing kids?” Let’s examine.

Now this is almost an unfair question coming from a San Francisco newspaper.  A city where a 3rd of the residents can’t have kids (at least naturally) and another 3rd are single, douche bags popping their collars every Saturday night in a desperate attempt to win over the easiest women on the West Coast.  Sorry Southern California San Francisco women have you beat (not saying they’re hotter just more slutty).  Think about it like this: 1/4 t0 1/3 of the male dating population is not interested in “innies” only “outies”, another 1/4 are dirty hippies and wouldn’t be caught dead, out having a good time or “conforming” to societal norms, as Seinfeld would say “UNDATABLE!”  So what you’re left with is the usual amount of douche bags, tech dorks and guys from Walnut Creek otherwise known as the “bridge and tunnel” crowd (those of you from New York or elsewhere think Jersey Shore sans the ocean).  So among the women the competition is stiff for a normal man with two eyebrows who typically has multiple options on any given night.  If you’re a semi-good looking guy it’s fish in a barrel.  The barrel is the Marina (queue the obligatory eye roll) or the occasional club in the SOMA.  Sorry, my apologies, got off topic.  My point is that San Francisco isn’t really breeder central (cut to readers from Noe Valley shaking their heads) and definitely not  a city known for the family demographic.  Hence the article fits with the local population however not necessarily a balanced demographic.  I’m sure pets here outnumber kids by a 3 to 1 margin (see the Marina Green or Dolores Park).  However, the Chronicle article comes packing actual statistics.  In, “an analysis of the 2010 U.S. Census revealed that there are now more households with dogs (43 million) than children.”

Not just an East Coast epidemic.

Speaking as a married, parent of two dogs I can say without equivocation that this is true for my wife and I.  Now we don’t go dressing our dogs up (okay once) and spending lavish or even modest amounts of disposable income on “our children” but they do serve to fill the void that traditionally would have been occupied by kids.

Personally this trend makes sense to me as dogs serve many purposes from companionship to guardians.  Kids on the other hand are “takers” they assume the world owes them something and cry or throw the dreaded temper tantrum when they don’t receive whatever the hell it is they want.  Dogs, on the other hand, are the most loyal creatures on earth and as an added benefit are utilitarian in nature.  They can offer a variety of services most of which cannot be duplicated by kids nor would you want them to.  Case in point dogs serve as companions to the homeless.

Can your kid do this?  Without then asking for more allowance.

Besides dogs are not entirely useless.  They serve as bookends.

They get the paper bringing us the great news of the day.

Sometimes they even read without the nagging, “daddy listen,” self-centered, me first crap.

Kids are fun in severe moderation but even when you go out of the way to show them a good time do children show their appreciation? No.

In fact, most parents (if they’re being honest) will tell you that, kids, unlike dogs, are a full-time job.  They require a significant monetary investment (think diapers and daycare) and say goodbye to nights out with friends or random weekend benders.  Dogs on the other hand require much less maintenance.  Kids will keep you up all hours of the night, run you ragged worrying about whether your child will end up a paraplegic the moment you turn your head or even worse a Democrat.  Many late nights are spent checking the closet and under the bed for monsters, or reading terrifying children’s stories (seriously Hansel & Gretel, Red Riding Hood, or worse Cinderella – the cause of many a young man’s headache) the constant vigilance required to make sure your child is exposed to the right aspects of our world and at the same time shielded from the evil that surrounds us can age a person quicker than being President.

Of course today’s Children’s books give one reason to pause.

Still not convinced? Let’s compare Wilfred with the Olsen Twins.

Wilfred on “bitches”

Olsen Twins on “Staying Cool”

I think I’ve made my point.  Even someone as universally revered as Paris Hilton would rather have Butters dressed as a pet dog than just Butters.

It’s not just dogs.  Americans have a love affair with their pets.  A 2011 Pet Owners survey found that almost 39 million U.S. households own a cat with a total of 86 million felines loose on our streets while their mortal enemies fish out number them almost 2 to 1 with a total of 159 million pet fish lying in wait.  Bidding their time. Waiting for the revolution.

It’s more than just a love affair we have with our pets it’s a subconscious survival instinct.  Children are dangerous to your health.  They are incubators of death. Carrying disease akin to blankets wrapped in small pocks.  With their cute faces and unassuming personalities they break down our defenses and immunities like a Trojan horse as their illness wraps us in a virus filled cocoon of misery.

Then again dogs and kids share an affinity for the simple joys in life.  How bad can they be disease and all?

They can be a source of humor.

Kids can be funny but not many of them can play dead.

Speaking of dead there is an uncanny resemblance between Zombies & Babies.

My sense is that this trend, of pet ownership over child rearing, will continue and certainly increase as generations become more narcissistic and self-serving.  Although it can be argued having kids or miniature versions of yourself is about as narcissistic as it gets.  The cause is some where between less responsibility and the financial liability of raising children in this crazy, mad world.