MetabolicTrash
Member
Is this another clearly visible example on how aging, environment, and stresses work together to influence health, longevity, etc.?
Wild animals in industrialized areas usually die much younger than they do as pets, even accounting for some of the high PUFA or low quality chow/foods they're given when kept inside. Indoor pets seem to face little stress (don't have to hunt or avoid predators/fighting a lot; relax and live in comforting places without elements, weather, rain, heat, cold; are taken care of and played with/given attention/made happier; etc.). Also, extend this further to see that stray animals are usually: bad tempered; always in "survival mode" more; strained/stressed; usually less happy/peaceful from an observable impression at least -- now extrapolate all of these findings and compare them with the typical human in a similar "more evolved" type of environment of stress, rigidity, "survival mode," work captivity, bad diet/PUFA and etc.
It seems ironic or interesting even that our "human built prisons of captivity" some might call them (9-5 workdays forever and taxes being examples some would likely point out) decline our health, while captivity for "wild" animals tends to improve their health when removing their stresses. We improve the well being of pets by holding them captive, while we concede with our "adulting" prisons and take a deliberate toll on our own health unknowingly it seems.
Not all forms of captivity you could say work well, but in the sense of a proper, modern pet-human connection and accommodation it seems to usually work well in said "pets'" favor in particular, along with the humans (some evidence suggests that people who have pets might be healthier for longer at least).
It seems basically that wild pets in city-like areas -- or even out in their "natural wild" you could say -- are much more likely to become sick, ill, aged or even die significantly younger/in less time. If you take it a step further and have like a "Peat pets" kind of approach like we take here with us humans we might see them live even longer -- or one day may be immortal by way of such a process of keeping them healthier and happier and applying the same concepts on ourselves to them as well.
But the point of questioning is how overall this would help the pets generally. Aren't indoor pets getting less sunlight and crappier foods often, but yet they still live longer than their feral counterparts? Is it because -- between indoors and sunlight/more "natural" foods tradeoff -- it's better than modern alternatives the cats and dogs and etc. would live in (poor weather, scarcity and toxins/poisons + other things they're kept away from by being housecats/dogs/etc.?).
Wild animals in industrialized areas usually die much younger than they do as pets, even accounting for some of the high PUFA or low quality chow/foods they're given when kept inside. Indoor pets seem to face little stress (don't have to hunt or avoid predators/fighting a lot; relax and live in comforting places without elements, weather, rain, heat, cold; are taken care of and played with/given attention/made happier; etc.). Also, extend this further to see that stray animals are usually: bad tempered; always in "survival mode" more; strained/stressed; usually less happy/peaceful from an observable impression at least -- now extrapolate all of these findings and compare them with the typical human in a similar "more evolved" type of environment of stress, rigidity, "survival mode," work captivity, bad diet/PUFA and etc.
It seems ironic or interesting even that our "human built prisons of captivity" some might call them (9-5 workdays forever and taxes being examples some would likely point out) decline our health, while captivity for "wild" animals tends to improve their health when removing their stresses. We improve the well being of pets by holding them captive, while we concede with our "adulting" prisons and take a deliberate toll on our own health unknowingly it seems.
Not all forms of captivity you could say work well, but in the sense of a proper, modern pet-human connection and accommodation it seems to usually work well in said "pets'" favor in particular, along with the humans (some evidence suggests that people who have pets might be healthier for longer at least).
It seems basically that wild pets in city-like areas -- or even out in their "natural wild" you could say -- are much more likely to become sick, ill, aged or even die significantly younger/in less time. If you take it a step further and have like a "Peat pets" kind of approach like we take here with us humans we might see them live even longer -- or one day may be immortal by way of such a process of keeping them healthier and happier and applying the same concepts on ourselves to them as well.
But the point of questioning is how overall this would help the pets generally. Aren't indoor pets getting less sunlight and crappier foods often, but yet they still live longer than their feral counterparts? Is it because -- between indoors and sunlight/more "natural" foods tradeoff -- it's better than modern alternatives the cats and dogs and etc. would live in (poor weather, scarcity and toxins/poisons + other things they're kept away from by being housecats/dogs/etc.?).
