SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Pope Francis speaks to the Vatican employees during an audience for the Christmas greetings in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican on December 23, 2021. (Photo: Filippo Monteforte/AFP via Getty Images)
No Good Comes From the Valorization of Parenthood and the Denigration of Adopting Animals
A personal perspective: division between parents and pet adopters serves no one.
Jan 18, 2022
On January 5, 2022, Pope Francis spoke in Rome and described people who have pets instead of children as selfish. He went on to say that pet keeping was "a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity."
Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
There's so much that is wrong about his statement.
1. Spoken by someone who himself chose not to have children, presumably for a higher good, the criticism is ironic. Many people forgo having children precisely because they are acting unselfishly and recognize the imperative of Laudato si', the Pope's second encyclical that calls all people of the world to take "swift and unified global action" on environmental degradation and climate change. Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
2. People don't have biological children because they are unselfish. In a world full of children in need of homes and foster care, and in the midst of a climate change and biodiversity crisis caused by habitat destruction and carbon emissions, the choice to have biological children (rather than adopt) is selfish, full stop. I should know. I chose to have a biological child. Evolution has "programmed" every species on Earth to reproduce. It's natural to procreate and have children despite the toll doing so has taken on us over history--the high incidence of pregnancy and delivery complications, maternal death in childbirth, infant mortality, and much more. Knowing the stress, cost, and worry I would experience by having a child, I nonetheless wanted to create a new human with my husband, experience all that motherhood had to offer, and participate in this powerful aspect of the human lifecycle. But my choice was hardly unselfish. As Nandita Bajaj, the Executive Director of Population Balance who teaches an online graduate course on Overpopulation and Pronatalism through Antioch University and the Institute for Humane Education, says: "The fact that after fighting for personal and reproductive liberation for centuries, women in some countries are finally able to exercise their right to have no or fewer children is something to be celebrated." Indeed. Calling such people selfish is selfish.
3. Many people adopt animals who need homes, rather than purchase dogs from breeders, precisely because they are acting unselfishly. I should know this, too. I've never purchased a dog or cat from a breeder, but have rescued 17 over my lifetime. One old dog we found running in traffic on a congested boulevard turned out to be a nightmare. Aggressive and unpredictable, Beau would occasionally chase my husband down the stairs, growling and snarling. We didn't want to keep him, but we knew that it wasn't a good idea to try to foist this problem dog on someone else. We unselfishly cared for him lovingly and compassionately until he died. Adopting animals enriches, rather than detracts from, our humanity. Unlike children, whom we often make extensions of ourselves, take pride in, expect to care for us in old age, and brag about--there's no reflected glory in a mutt from a shelter. Yes, they shower us with love, which is great for us, but it also betters us to care for them.
4. There's no need for, and no good that comes from, the valorization of parenthood and the denigration of adopting animals. Why do that? Why create a stink about a non-issue? Declining population growth in many wealthy countries, and the subsequent economic and social impacts of an aging population, is an issue to address, but to think that calling people selfish for not wanting children but wanting pets solves anything or is helpful is a bit bizarre. And the reality is that many, if not most, families in Europe and the U.S. have both children and pets. Are such families semi-selfish and semi-unselfish?
Fortunately, there are people like Nandita Bajaj and many others who are attempting to do what the Pope did not do when he spoke on January 5: find real solutions to the problems we face regarding a growing human population globally and a declining birthrate in certain countries.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Zoe Weil
Zoe Weil is the co-founder and president of the Institute for Humane Education (IHE), where she created the first graduate programs in comprehensive Humane Education linking human rights, environmental preservation, and animal protection offered online through an affiliation with Antioch University. She has given six TEDx talks including her acclaimed TEDx, "The World Becomes What You Teach," and is the author of seven books including "The World Becomes What We Teach: Educating a Generation of Solutionaries" and "Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life" (2009).
On January 5, 2022, Pope Francis spoke in Rome and described people who have pets instead of children as selfish. He went on to say that pet keeping was "a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity."
Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
There's so much that is wrong about his statement.
1. Spoken by someone who himself chose not to have children, presumably for a higher good, the criticism is ironic. Many people forgo having children precisely because they are acting unselfishly and recognize the imperative of Laudato si', the Pope's second encyclical that calls all people of the world to take "swift and unified global action" on environmental degradation and climate change. Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
2. People don't have biological children because they are unselfish. In a world full of children in need of homes and foster care, and in the midst of a climate change and biodiversity crisis caused by habitat destruction and carbon emissions, the choice to have biological children (rather than adopt) is selfish, full stop. I should know. I chose to have a biological child. Evolution has "programmed" every species on Earth to reproduce. It's natural to procreate and have children despite the toll doing so has taken on us over history--the high incidence of pregnancy and delivery complications, maternal death in childbirth, infant mortality, and much more. Knowing the stress, cost, and worry I would experience by having a child, I nonetheless wanted to create a new human with my husband, experience all that motherhood had to offer, and participate in this powerful aspect of the human lifecycle. But my choice was hardly unselfish. As Nandita Bajaj, the Executive Director of Population Balance who teaches an online graduate course on Overpopulation and Pronatalism through Antioch University and the Institute for Humane Education, says: "The fact that after fighting for personal and reproductive liberation for centuries, women in some countries are finally able to exercise their right to have no or fewer children is something to be celebrated." Indeed. Calling such people selfish is selfish.
3. Many people adopt animals who need homes, rather than purchase dogs from breeders, precisely because they are acting unselfishly. I should know this, too. I've never purchased a dog or cat from a breeder, but have rescued 17 over my lifetime. One old dog we found running in traffic on a congested boulevard turned out to be a nightmare. Aggressive and unpredictable, Beau would occasionally chase my husband down the stairs, growling and snarling. We didn't want to keep him, but we knew that it wasn't a good idea to try to foist this problem dog on someone else. We unselfishly cared for him lovingly and compassionately until he died. Adopting animals enriches, rather than detracts from, our humanity. Unlike children, whom we often make extensions of ourselves, take pride in, expect to care for us in old age, and brag about--there's no reflected glory in a mutt from a shelter. Yes, they shower us with love, which is great for us, but it also betters us to care for them.
4. There's no need for, and no good that comes from, the valorization of parenthood and the denigration of adopting animals. Why do that? Why create a stink about a non-issue? Declining population growth in many wealthy countries, and the subsequent economic and social impacts of an aging population, is an issue to address, but to think that calling people selfish for not wanting children but wanting pets solves anything or is helpful is a bit bizarre. And the reality is that many, if not most, families in Europe and the U.S. have both children and pets. Are such families semi-selfish and semi-unselfish?
Fortunately, there are people like Nandita Bajaj and many others who are attempting to do what the Pope did not do when he spoke on January 5: find real solutions to the problems we face regarding a growing human population globally and a declining birthrate in certain countries.
Zoe Weil
Zoe Weil is the co-founder and president of the Institute for Humane Education (IHE), where she created the first graduate programs in comprehensive Humane Education linking human rights, environmental preservation, and animal protection offered online through an affiliation with Antioch University. She has given six TEDx talks including her acclaimed TEDx, "The World Becomes What You Teach," and is the author of seven books including "The World Becomes What We Teach: Educating a Generation of Solutionaries" and "Most Good, Least Harm: A Simple Principle for a Better World and Meaningful Life" (2009).
On January 5, 2022, Pope Francis spoke in Rome and described people who have pets instead of children as selfish. He went on to say that pet keeping was "a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity."
Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
There's so much that is wrong about his statement.
1. Spoken by someone who himself chose not to have children, presumably for a higher good, the criticism is ironic. Many people forgo having children precisely because they are acting unselfishly and recognize the imperative of Laudato si', the Pope's second encyclical that calls all people of the world to take "swift and unified global action" on environmental degradation and climate change. Such people choose not to have children because they do not want to contribute to more resource depletion and carbon emissions.
2. People don't have biological children because they are unselfish. In a world full of children in need of homes and foster care, and in the midst of a climate change and biodiversity crisis caused by habitat destruction and carbon emissions, the choice to have biological children (rather than adopt) is selfish, full stop. I should know. I chose to have a biological child. Evolution has "programmed" every species on Earth to reproduce. It's natural to procreate and have children despite the toll doing so has taken on us over history--the high incidence of pregnancy and delivery complications, maternal death in childbirth, infant mortality, and much more. Knowing the stress, cost, and worry I would experience by having a child, I nonetheless wanted to create a new human with my husband, experience all that motherhood had to offer, and participate in this powerful aspect of the human lifecycle. But my choice was hardly unselfish. As Nandita Bajaj, the Executive Director of Population Balance who teaches an online graduate course on Overpopulation and Pronatalism through Antioch University and the Institute for Humane Education, says: "The fact that after fighting for personal and reproductive liberation for centuries, women in some countries are finally able to exercise their right to have no or fewer children is something to be celebrated." Indeed. Calling such people selfish is selfish.
3. Many people adopt animals who need homes, rather than purchase dogs from breeders, precisely because they are acting unselfishly. I should know this, too. I've never purchased a dog or cat from a breeder, but have rescued 17 over my lifetime. One old dog we found running in traffic on a congested boulevard turned out to be a nightmare. Aggressive and unpredictable, Beau would occasionally chase my husband down the stairs, growling and snarling. We didn't want to keep him, but we knew that it wasn't a good idea to try to foist this problem dog on someone else. We unselfishly cared for him lovingly and compassionately until he died. Adopting animals enriches, rather than detracts from, our humanity. Unlike children, whom we often make extensions of ourselves, take pride in, expect to care for us in old age, and brag about--there's no reflected glory in a mutt from a shelter. Yes, they shower us with love, which is great for us, but it also betters us to care for them.
4. There's no need for, and no good that comes from, the valorization of parenthood and the denigration of adopting animals. Why do that? Why create a stink about a non-issue? Declining population growth in many wealthy countries, and the subsequent economic and social impacts of an aging population, is an issue to address, but to think that calling people selfish for not wanting children but wanting pets solves anything or is helpful is a bit bizarre. And the reality is that many, if not most, families in Europe and the U.S. have both children and pets. Are such families semi-selfish and semi-unselfish?
Fortunately, there are people like Nandita Bajaj and many others who are attempting to do what the Pope did not do when he spoke on January 5: find real solutions to the problems we face regarding a growing human population globally and a declining birthrate in certain countries.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.