It goes through a lot of emotions specifically thought to be human and shows evidence for them in animals. I couldn't find a paragraph to sum it up, but this might be the thesis of the article:
> Uniquely human emotions don’t exist. More and more, I believe that we share all emotions with other species in the same way that we share virtually every organ in our bodies with them. No exceptions.
> Like organs, the emotions evolved over millions of years to serve essential functions. Their usefulness has been tested again and again, giving them the wisdom of ages. They nudge us to do what is best for us. Some emotions may be more developed in humans, or apply to a wider range of circumstances, but none is fundamentally new.
Dog may love you. Snake won't. Cats don't.
It's likely that cats can sense your superior attitude toward them. As a result, they avoid bond-forming behaviors that require trust and vulnerability and mutual respect. Which in turn has reinforced your false idea that all cats are indifferent.
I've been very close with two cats. They followed me around everywhere in our house wherever I went, sat next to/on me at every opportunity, cuddled with me in bed every night, scratched furniture if I ignored them, waited for me at the door, called out when I wasn't home by a usual hour, and became visibly depressed (eating less, losing interest in play) when I would away on holiday for more than a day.
cats can trust and respect? I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize animals to this degree.
I think you're doing the reverse of anthropomorphizing - assuming that because humans have an experience, then that experience must be unique to humans.
Cats have all kinds of trust signals: showing their belly to you, slowly blinking at you, circling you with tail up, fully grooming themselves where you can see them.
You won't see these signals if you don't treat the cat with respect, i.e.: invade their space without "asking" (letting them sniff your hand from a safe distance first), pick them up when their body language indicates they are just fine where they are, pet them on places that are vulnerable (belly, throat), touch their fur when your hands have lotions or other scents.
Both, for example, require someone to be home to feed them (and take care of other biological needs) every day. The amount of effort for a child is much higher, but having a pet or a child both make it impossible to catch an impromptu flight to Vegas or pull an all nighter at work.
And, yes, that does require some emotional maturity and, for some, fill some emotional needs.
For cat, you can put enough food to bowl and have someone else wisit a day after to change it.
You can absolutely pull all nighters with cat. The cat will be fine.
Less so with dog if you are single, but walking dog is still incomparable to all the interaction that goes on with kid - even on playground.
I was replying to this.
> You can absolutely pull all nighters with cat. The cat will be fine.
Your couch or mattress may be ruined, though, depending on the cat.
I have never heard childless person say that they have pet instead of children. They don't have pets instead of children.
They just don't have kids and have pets. Not as replacement tho.
Treating children like pets would be effectively emotional abuse. And while dog can fill some of yours emotional needs, quite frankly, kids won't.
I have children and had pet and I can tell you that those two are comparable in any way. Not just in easy vs hard scale, but it is fundamentally different relationship.