Just by doing some cursory reading on the topic I came across [1] which suggests this isn't entirely true.
[1] https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/nutrition/dogs-can-adapt-t...
But you do make an interesting point about younger people replacing pets with children.
Well the cat produces only waste while a human creates technology/innovation.
Imagine raising a bunch of cats instead of people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezzos Elon Musk or Warren Buffet.
A cat won't develop electric cars for sure.
> Well the cat produces only waste while a human creates technology/innovation.
This statement is problematic for numerous reasons. I'll focus on two.
Have you had a pet? I'm a dog person. They create waste (in small amounts, they're not very large), but they also bring joy, companionship, love, a reason to walk outside at least 3 times/day. They make me a better person.
Some humans create technology/innovation. Some humans create value that has nothing to do with tech or saving the planet. Some humans don't create much value at all.
> A cat won't develop electric cars for sure.
And being realistic, neither will most humans. While the potential certainly exists, comparing the relative merits of raising kids vs. raising pets by focusing on people like Gates, Bezos, Musk and Buffet is not quite right either. (I'd also question why these are the four people we're benchmarking against).
For sake of argument, it's worth considering this: for people who choose pets (or nothing) over kids, how much does that decision enable them to more fully pursue their passions? Is it possible that not having kids makes it more likely that someone will create the next big thing in tech? Or be the source of innovation that helps improve the planet? I know my own struggles with depression have a direct impact on my ability to create value, and my dogs help me with my depression. Conclusion: my dogs create value.
Going back to the original argument: "pets are more eco-friendly than children" - I think this still has merit. Can the opposite be true? Sure. Is it generally true? That's more complicated.
Of course there are some bad apples but that's mostly due environment factors.
I still believe that when you have to choose between a cat and a human being you should bet on the human to solve the eco problems.
This has some teleological problems. When you make an important breakthrough, there are innumerable factors which contributed to the breakthrough happening. It feels tempting to say "if I hadn't been born, this breakthrough wouldn't have happened". But to the extent that's true, it's also true that if you hadn't read a certain book, or had a certain teacher in the third grade, the breakthrough wouldn't have happened.
It's also often just false though: if you had never existed, someone else who read the book would have made the breakthrough - probably not too long after! (see steam-engine time) By this reasoning, writing books, being a teacher or any other number of things are better long term investments than physically creating a child.
> Of course they are some bad apples but that's mostly due environment factors
Breaking out some personal information now: I was raised in an abusive home. I was deprived of a traditional upbringing/education, and have spent most of my adult life learning how to be an adult.
I've also found success, but it's been complicated.
One thing I know for sure: having kids will never be the right thing for me, and that's ok.
Everyone has a different situation, but your commentary does not leave room for the wide spectrum of circumstances that people are dealing with.
> but your kids might do it or their children so you could say children are a good long term investment
Or they might not. To have kids solely for this reason is extremely questionable.
Arguing about kids vs. cats is not useful if you don't consider the many factors that should be considered when having kids, even if the focus of your argument is one of environmental impact. For example, say I choose to have kids purely because I thought that might someday save the environment, but ignore the fact that I'm not well equipped to raise children to begin with (a factor that lessens the chances of future success), my plan starts to sound like a pretty bad one.
An earlier comment pointed out that many younger people are deciding to have pets instead of kids. That comment did not explore why. Without understanding why (I added my why as an anecdote), any argument about the baseline merits of one vs. the other is not going to be an argument worth considering.
A cat wouldn't have developed ICE vehicles either
Also, tech/innovation != progress
Failing to curb climate change isn't progress, failing to curb covid progression isn't progress. You don't "move fast and break things" with things you only get a single shot at
Are you able to predict what the impact would be if, for example, Windows had not happened? Would the world be a Linux heaven? Would computers still be an expensive hobby? Would smartphones exist? Would you have a job?
You do not have the answers to any of those questions, please don't pretend.
Unironically this would probably be a better world to live in. I can certainly think a few more names worth adding as well.
You could argue (you'd be wrong) that it's bad for them to hold onto most of the billions they earned, but arguing that Gates, Elon and Bezos have produced "net negative" for the world is incredibly dumb and cynical. They've obviously produced an incredible amount of value for billions of people.
The cat things doesn't matter, we humans have the capacity to alter the world like no other animals and so far we're on course to destroy most of it, and its life, by the end of the millennia. It doesn't matter what a cat can or cannot do, what matters is what we do, tech gadgets are fun and all but as I said, take a few steps back.
Imagine raising a bunch of cats instead of people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, ...you can't pick and choose what you win in the genetic lottery.
If you vote and support oppresive policies you will make/get people like that in the leadership regardless of how many people you replace with cats.
Cats could lead to a more fulfilling life in just the right people who make a difference for society down the line. This kind of speculation is pointless.
Of course you should not raise children if you don't like doing that. I didn't decide myself yet. But if your "religion" is "eco-friendly" then I believe god prefers you to have children instead of cats.
Personally I hope that lockdowns continue because that is what is best for the environment. If the next generation has to be sacrificed to save the planet, then that's a cost we should be willing to impress upon them.
Probably not very popular, but I think mandatory birth control AS WELL as impossible meats are in our near future (or should be).
I'm talking about the opposite: preventing catastrophic global warming and creating a better world by performing natural selection intentionally and gradually.
In all reality, I'm not even advocating it. I'm merely observing that we are heading towards needing mandatory birth control, and once that happens there will be a societal conversation about who gets to procreate.
If we make it a based on capitalism then only those who prop up white supremacy gets to procreate. That is not equitable: the conversation will move towards racial justice and the social collective will override capitalism.
Because natural selection operates on the basis of racial quotas that were intentionally set by other humans? Nothing about this sounds natural to me. Neither does it sound right either, for that matter.
If you're concerned about racial justice as represented by population, there seems to be a natural effect that more educated, read whiter, populations reproduce less. I'm pretty sure if we sent every black person to Harvard and systematically limited white education, you'd get a lot more white babies and less black ones.
It would only be systematic if the Gov forced it on people. On the other hand, if the social collective moved to dismantle systemic racism by voluntarily choosing to create systems that, over time, rebalance racial populations - that would not be systemic racism.
Rebalancing out white bodies is the opposite of systemic racism.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/can...
Some even have to, because they're allergic to animal protein.
For what it's worth, the trends these researchers are talking about in the US with younger people having more pets and treating them better with higher quality foods is because younger people are having fewer children, instead replacing the lost affection and need to care with pets. Surely, replacing a human child with a cat is eco-friendly. Even if the cat eats nothing but meat, it never grows large, never grows old, and never learns to drive or require its own separate house. Carbon footprint has to be lower than more babies.