Summary of Key Points
This article discusses the changing nature of human-pet relationships in contemporary society, exploring why young people regard pets as "family members" rather than mere "pets," whether pets are replacing children, the hierarchy of moral disdain within the pet-owning community, the challenges in animal protection legislation, and the impact of virtual pets on real pets. Essentially, these changes in human-pet relationships are the result of a combination of factors such as declining birth rates, smaller family structures, complex social interactions, and economic pressures (high costs of having children). These trends reflect young people's desire for simple, secure emotional connections, but they also bring about new issues such as moral divisions, lagging laws, and weakened interpersonal skills.
1. Why Do Young People Prefer to Give Their Affection to Pets Rather than Humans?
When young people call their pets "fur kids" or "family members," it's not just about elevating the status of pets; it's about reducing the complexity of human relationships. Imagine calling someone your "son" without having to negotiate who will do the dishes or take care of the children, and without worrying about being betrayed suddenly. Pets require nothing more than food in exchange for loyalty—no hidden "social debts."
Today's interpersonal relationships are like an "opaque ledger": you have to return favors when invited out to eat, offer emotional support when someone complains, and risk negative reviews if you don't attend a birthday party. Young people claim to suffer from social anxiety, but in reality, they're just tired of playing this game of exchanging obligations. Pets represent a "safe asset" because they don't reveal secrets, don't form groups to criticize you, and won't post your failures on social media. To put it bluntly, it's not that young people prefer pets; they fear humans—fearing the complexity and uncontrollability of interpersonal relationships, as well as the risk of being judged, recorded, or betrayed.
2. Can Pets Really Replace Children? What Will Happen in China’s Future?
The idea that pets will replace children is not about loving pets more than having children; it's a consequence of low birth rates, smaller family sizes, and individualism. The situation varies from country to country:
- In Latin America (Argentina, Mexico), pet ownership is high, but so are birth rates, and pets are seen as complementary members of the family.
- In the United States and Australia, many people own pets, and birth rates are not low; pets grow up with their children.
- In East Asia (Japan, South Korea), birth rates have plummeted, and the number of pets exceeds that of children; pets have become a substitute for children (in Japan, in 2023, there were more cats and dogs than children under 15).
In the next 10 to 15 years, pets will not completely replace children in China, but the core areas of first-tier cities may follow the trends in Japan and South Korea. The reason is not that young people prefer pets; it's due to unchanging factors such as high costs of living (housing, education) and ongoing pressure on families. As long as low birth rates persist, the emotional role of pets will become even more prominent.
3. How Does the Hierarchy of Disdain in the Pet-owning Community Originate? What Lies Behind the Moral Showmanship?
The hierarchy within the pet-owning community (from rescuing to adopting, from buying pedigree cats to using imported or domestic pet food) is essentially a form of using moral stance as a social currency. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that class is determined not only by wealth but also by taste and knowledge. Nowadays, flaunting wealth is criticized, and academic qualifications are no longer unique; people seek new symbols to distinguish themselves—such as their attitude towards animals.
Moral capital has several advantages: pets are common and easy to observe, the barrier to participation is low (you can show your support by sharing posts), and they evoke sympathy. However, this approach also has drawbacks: it marginalizes those who want to own pets but have limited means (such as those who use domestic pet food), potentially driving them further away from the pet-owning community. True morality lies in taking responsibility for oneself (for example, doing your best to provide a good life for your pet), not in trying to outdo others.
4. Why Does China Lack a National Animal Protection Law? How Can It Be Established in the Future?
There are three main reasons why China doesn't have a national animal protection law:
1. Lack of social consensus: In coastal cities, pets are treated like family members, but in rural areas of central and western China, eating dog meat is a cultural tradition, and dog farming is a source of income; laws cannot change these practices.
2. Pets are considered property: Under current law, pets are treated the same as personal items; harming a pet is only punishable as "intentional damage to property" (only if the value exceeds 5,000 yuan).
3. Divided attitudes towards dogs: Some people don't leash their dogs or abandon them, while others are extremely dog-loving and may confront those who sell dog meat; there's a lack of public support for animal protection laws.
Progress has been made: in 2020, cats and dogs were removed from the "livestock and poultry" category, and the 2021 Animal Epidemic Prevention Law requires more civilized pet ownership. The future approach should be gradual: start with a law on the protection and management of companion animals, focusing on preventing cruelty and addressing stray animals. Developed provinces and cities can lead by implementing stricter regulations and gradually promoting "life education" (not about animal rights, but about compassion for vulnerable beings).
5. Will Virtual Pets Replace Real Pets? Will People Still Love Each Other in the Future?
Virtual pets (AI dogs, paper dogs) may replace real pets in terms of their practical uses (companionship, emotional support), but the existential value of real pets will increase—owning a real pet requires time, space, and patience to care for a "imperfect being" (which can get sick, die, or be disobedient). This is similar to how handmade items and organic food have become symbols of higher social status, indicating the ability to handle complexity.
What's more concerning is the weakening of interpersonal skills: Young people tend to resolve conflicts by simply replacing those who don't fit in (blocking friends, ending relationships when things go wrong). Pets and AI may make them accustomed to minimal friction in their lives. In the future, people might be polite but lack the ability to build meaningful connections with others. The real question is: when perfect substitutes for human relationships are available, will those who still value interpersonal interactions remain?
This article raises the question of what we lose when we place our emotional needs on pets. The answer may be the courage to interact with others and the ability to find connection in imperfection. But this is not the fault of pets; it's society that has made us more afraid of the hassle involved in genuine relationships.