We have big box stores for pets.
We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring pet food and pet supplies to all parts of the world.
We devote some amount of farm land and livestock to feeding those pets.
It’s interesting when people suggest to reduce global human population but I have never heard anyone suggest to reduce pet populations as a method for combating climate change or for simply reducing resource usage.
The worldwide dog population is estimated to be 900 million.
There are 600 million to 1 billion cats living in the world today.
Do you have a link to that research? I can’t see how this can be true in the larger picture. I will stop having dogs when I die but children will crow up, and have children of their own who also will do the same.
Me having pets instead of children puts a stop to that chain of placing consumers into the world and stopping such a strain, must be worth much more
Sigh. The study was not about children having children which is a different matter entirely. That’s a different choice, by different people, and no they won’t necessarily have children just like (shock) you were a child once and decided not to have children. It’s about ownership of pets, adjusted to per year because yes pets don’t live as long. Jfc. This seems like you don’t like the result so you’re trying to get out of it. Chow.
They’re also asking for a source, which you’re failing to provide.
No - I’m simply stating that not having children is better for the environment than having pets especially in the long run (as I mentioned in my original comment). What I am arguing is that not having children sets a definite stop to a growing and (potentially) continually branching line of consumers and poluters. I am not looking at the comparison simply here and now, but as a whole and as a long term effect
I think we are comparing two slightly different things and thisbis why I wanted to compare what you are refering to, with what I was trying to explain