<Barbaric has primitive as a meaning so it probably wont be understood until future humans look back and call us such>

So does this mean that a man hunting on a horse is more primitive than a Neanderthal chucking rocks at a woolly mammoth?

I am somewhat perplexed as to how having a pet is barbaric.

Not sure why, Fester.

>>I am somewhat perplexed as to how having a pet is barbaric.<<

If Jeweley is right, then it's perfectly natural that you would be perplexed.

>>Barbaric has primitive as a meaning so it probably wont be understood until future humans look back and call us such<<

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Fine, Pericles. I cannot find evidence that pet owners are more violent, and I was of the opinion that human animal interaction has become more sophisticated with the development of civilisation, not less so. Nor am I aware of evidence that pet owners are less intelligent than people who dont have pets. So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?

Fester: I have seen studies showing a positive correlation of violent crime with animal cruelty, but the only correlation of pet ownership and violence I know of is the increased pet ownership of victims of domestic violence.

I cannot find evidence that pet owners are more violent, and I was of the opinion that human animal interaction has become more sophisticated with the development of civilisation, not less so. Nor am I aware of evidence that pet owners are less intelligent than people who dont have pets. So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?

People who don't like pet ownership will find that it akin to Domestic Violence. Those who like pets will find that pets & their owners receive a mutual benifit.

Like the Rock Man said to Oblio, "You sees what you want to see, & you hears what you want to here."

I'm glad you ask, Fester.

>>So what reasoning will these people of the future use to determine that pet ownership is barbaric?<<

It will be precisely the same reasoning that civilization eventually employed to realize that keeping human slaves was a pretty tacky idea.

The majority of slaves, as you well know, were well treated. They didn't have their freedom, of course, but at least they were kept well fed, if only to ensure they could work efficiently. Properly housed, so they could bring up their families without having to worry about earning wages. And given plenty of exercise, so that they remained healthy and productive.

Just like pets, in fact.

Except perhaps for the raising families part. Not many pet dogs are allowed to do that. Unless of course they happen to be adult animals in a puppy farm, when it is compulsory.

http://www.rspca.org.au/how-you-can-help/campaigns/puppy-farms.html

That's a pretty sad process too, when you think about it, designed solely to keep up with the population's demand for their doggy product.

Barbaric? To me it's a no-brainer. Keeping animals for the amusement of humans is the very antithesis of civilized behaviour.

<It will be precisely the same reasoning that civilization eventually employed to realize that keeping human slaves was a pretty tacky idea.>

Slavery was ended on the basis that human beings should not be bought or sold. Do you think that animals should not be bought or sold?

<The majority of slaves, as you well know, were well treated.>

Were they? Are they? Low paid workers in India get about 15 cents for making a garment, or about 14 cent an hour for picking cotton. That, to me at least, is appalling exploitation. And if I gave my pets freedom they would face a miserable existence, whereas a freed slave may enjoy a far more comfortable life.

As for puppy farms, I agree that they can be barbaric, but breeders mistreating animals in such operations are breaking the law. In contrast, commercial production of eggs or pork entails animal abuse which rivals the worst puppy farms, yet they are legal.

<Keeping animals for the amusement of humans is the very antithesis of civilized behaviour.>

Pet ownership tends to increase in populations with increasing levels of education and prosperity. In fact, it is a consequence of civilisation, not its antithesis as you claim.