What do you think?
Rate this book
The Animals Among Us: How Pets Make Us Human
A leading anthrozoologist and the bestselling author of Dog Sense and Cat Sense explains why we are so drawn to pets.
Historically, we relied on our pets to herd livestock, guard homes, and catch pests. But most of us don't need animals to do these things anymore. Pets have never been less necessary. And yet, pet ownership has never been more common than it is half of American households contain a cat, a dog, or both. Why are pets still around?
In The Animals Among Us , John Bradshaw, one of the world's leading authorities on the relationship between humans and animals, argues that pet ownership is actually an intrinsic part of human nature. He explains how our empathy with animals evolved into a desire for pets, why we still welcome them into our families, and why we mourn them so deeply when they die.
Drawing on the latest research in biology and psychology, as well as fields as diverse as robotics and musicology, The Animals Among Us is a surprising and affectionate history of humanity's best friends.
Historically, we relied on our pets to herd livestock, guard homes, and catch pests. But most of us don't need animals to do these things anymore. Pets have never been less necessary. And yet, pet ownership has never been more common than it is half of American households contain a cat, a dog, or both. Why are pets still around?
In The Animals Among Us , John Bradshaw, one of the world's leading authorities on the relationship between humans and animals, argues that pet ownership is actually an intrinsic part of human nature. He explains how our empathy with animals evolved into a desire for pets, why we still welcome them into our families, and why we mourn them so deeply when they die.
Drawing on the latest research in biology and psychology, as well as fields as diverse as robotics and musicology, The Animals Among Us is a surprising and affectionate history of humanity's best friends.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published October 31, 2017
49 people are currently reading
686 people want to read
About the author
John Bradshaw
11 books79 followersJohn Bradshaw is Foundation Director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol. He lives in Southampton, England.
Librarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Librarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
December 16, 2017
Readers expecting this to be one of those books that takes three hundred plus pages to basically tell us that pets make our lives better will be disappointed by this book. John Bradshaw, the foundation director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol, England, has spent decades studying the interrelationships between animals and humans and has read all of the claims about the magical properties of pet ownership and has discounted many of them. Anthrozoology, a term coined by Bradshaw and other members of the scientific community, is a field of study that brings together experts from a variety of fields “to study the personal relationships that people have with animals and, to a lesser extent, that animals have with people”. His strict scientific approach to the subject, while it doesn’t always tell pet owners what they want to hear, applies a level of critical analysis and skepticism that is sorely needed where scientific research is involved.
Bradshaw was not born into a pet-owning family but came into it as an adult due partially to his work and partially to his marriage to a pet person. As such he approaches the subject with a more impartial view that many authors of books about pets. He sees how many pet owners “become so fond of their animal companions that they seem willing to accept any ‘fact’ that will countermand the negative attitudes that surface in the media from time to time”. He debunks the widely held view that pet ownership makes us more empathetic by citing research that shows little evidence to show a link tying how sympathetic people are towards animals to the empathy shown to other humans. He also claims that there is insufficient evidence to support the commonly held belief about serial killers that cruelty to animals in childhood is an indicator of a progression to violence against humans later in life.
He is also reluctant to throw his endorsement behind the animal-assisted therapy movement advocates contend that “animals (especially dogs) have a magic touch with people with impaired health or well-being”. He begins the book with the story of a woman ejected from an airplane when the so-called therapy pig she smuggled onboard defecated in the aisle. He exhibited particular disdain for the use of dolphins as “cotherapists”, charging patients thousands of dollars to swim alongside the mammals:
He does not dispute that there are benefits to pet ownership. He acknowledges that some studies have shown that owning pets, particularly dogs, help to extend a person’s lifespan but posits that it could be the exercise of daily walks more than the presence of the animal that is making the person healthier. His main conclusion, though, appears to be that we, as social animals, crave the company of others and that we are happier when we have it even if it is just a furry lump sleeping in the couch next to you (I’m talking to you, Sheila!). While he is quick to contend that many studies lack sufficient data to support their published conclusions, he still believes in the benefits of the codependent relationship between humans and pets. One controversial question that he does believe that science has answered is the one that asks whether or not our pets actually love us. They do. According to Bradshaw, theirs is a simple sort of affection free from angst. I found this comforting, I no longer need to worry that Smudge will be traumatized when I tell Sheila that she’s my favorite dog.
Bottom line: While a bit drier than I expect, this book provided a scientific look at the relationships that exist between humans and pets dating back thousands of years to when early man first tossed a scrap of meat to a wolf lurking around the fire. I found there was a lot to learn from it.
*Quotations are cited from an advanced reading copy and may not be the same as appears in the final published edition. The review was based on an advanced reading copy obtained at no cost from the publisher in exchange for an unbiased review. While this does take any ‘not worth what I paid for it’ statements out of my review, it otherwise has no impact on the content of my review.
FYI: On a 5-point scale I assign stars based on my assessment of what the book needs in the way of improvements:
*5 Stars – Nothing at all. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
*4 Stars – It could stand for a few tweaks here and there but it’s pretty good as it is.
*3 Stars – A solid C grade. Some serious rewriting would be needed in order for this book to be considered great or memorable.
*2 Stars – This book needs a lot of work. A good start would be to change the plot, the character development, the writing style and the ending.
*1 Star – The only thing that would improve this book is a good bonfire.
Bradshaw was not born into a pet-owning family but came into it as an adult due partially to his work and partially to his marriage to a pet person. As such he approaches the subject with a more impartial view that many authors of books about pets. He sees how many pet owners “become so fond of their animal companions that they seem willing to accept any ‘fact’ that will countermand the negative attitudes that surface in the media from time to time”. He debunks the widely held view that pet ownership makes us more empathetic by citing research that shows little evidence to show a link tying how sympathetic people are towards animals to the empathy shown to other humans. He also claims that there is insufficient evidence to support the commonly held belief about serial killers that cruelty to animals in childhood is an indicator of a progression to violence against humans later in life.
He is also reluctant to throw his endorsement behind the animal-assisted therapy movement advocates contend that “animals (especially dogs) have a magic touch with people with impaired health or well-being”. He begins the book with the story of a woman ejected from an airplane when the so-called therapy pig she smuggled onboard defecated in the aisle. He exhibited particular disdain for the use of dolphins as “cotherapists”, charging patients thousands of dollars to swim alongside the mammals:
“Dolphins supposedly do something “magical” to the water around them, lifting anyone who swims past into a euphoric state. Maybe it's the sonar they emit (the clicks dubbed into TV documentaries about cetaceans). Maybe it's their alleged ability to trigger in us a meditative state or to “synchronize” the left and right hemispheres of our brains. (Or maybe it's just fun to swim in an exotic location alongside a playful mammal.)"
He does not dispute that there are benefits to pet ownership. He acknowledges that some studies have shown that owning pets, particularly dogs, help to extend a person’s lifespan but posits that it could be the exercise of daily walks more than the presence of the animal that is making the person healthier. His main conclusion, though, appears to be that we, as social animals, crave the company of others and that we are happier when we have it even if it is just a furry lump sleeping in the couch next to you (I’m talking to you, Sheila!). While he is quick to contend that many studies lack sufficient data to support their published conclusions, he still believes in the benefits of the codependent relationship between humans and pets. One controversial question that he does believe that science has answered is the one that asks whether or not our pets actually love us. They do. According to Bradshaw, theirs is a simple sort of affection free from angst. I found this comforting, I no longer need to worry that Smudge will be traumatized when I tell Sheila that she’s my favorite dog.
Bottom line: While a bit drier than I expect, this book provided a scientific look at the relationships that exist between humans and pets dating back thousands of years to when early man first tossed a scrap of meat to a wolf lurking around the fire. I found there was a lot to learn from it.
*Quotations are cited from an advanced reading copy and may not be the same as appears in the final published edition. The review was based on an advanced reading copy obtained at no cost from the publisher in exchange for an unbiased review. While this does take any ‘not worth what I paid for it’ statements out of my review, it otherwise has no impact on the content of my review.
FYI: On a 5-point scale I assign stars based on my assessment of what the book needs in the way of improvements:
*5 Stars – Nothing at all. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
*4 Stars – It could stand for a few tweaks here and there but it’s pretty good as it is.
*3 Stars – A solid C grade. Some serious rewriting would be needed in order for this book to be considered great or memorable.
*2 Stars – This book needs a lot of work. A good start would be to change the plot, the character development, the writing style and the ending.
*1 Star – The only thing that would improve this book is a good bonfire.
October 30, 2019
As a student with a keen interest in environmental issues and theories about human/nonhuman matters, I thought this book would be particularly stimulating. Unfortunately, 'The Animals Among Us' by John Bradshaw did not live up to most of my academic expectations.
What caught my attention when purchasing this book was the apparently seminal and promising approach offered by the "science of anthrozoology", which sets out to recast our perception of human/animal relationships through a better understanding of their biological, cultural and species-specific niceties. John Bradshaw's analysis, however, is fraught with flawed and misguiding theoretical as well as ontological assumptions that strongly undermine the author's ambition to better grasp the concept and practice of pet-keeping.
Before going any further in my review, I simply wish to specify that I only went as far as 200 pages (which covers the first 7 chapters); I was indeed not willing to go beyond that page count for a series of reasons that are laid out below.
First and foremost, John Bradshaw's arguments are imbued with gendered assumptions that are seemingly taken for granted and that I would personally define as properly sexist. Throughout his entire study, the author indeed endorses stances on what he ostensibly deems to be biological and acknowledged gendered differences between men and women in their relationship with animals and pets in particular. These assumptions run through every chapters and go completely unchallenged, thus detracting from the scientific validity of John Bradshaw's general argument. Here are but a few quotes that support this idea:
Rather than fleshing out his explanation of apparent gendered differences with cultural factors (such as the pervasiveness of patriarchy and masculine norms in our societies, which are epitomized in our relationship to and representation of animals), John Bradshaw thus purports that these differences can be reduced to biological disparities alone, referring to a fondamental inequality in the distribution of certain emotions in men's and women's brains, such as attachment to one's offspring, responsiveness to cute features, or more sentimental personality traits. For researchers trained in the social sciences, this can seem highly prohibitive, insofar as it relies on scientifically unsound arguments about gender, thus confining people in stereotyped reactions (which leads to sexism) and not taking into account cultural and social explanations. These assumptions are dubious in essence and should therefore not be given unqualified credence.
Although the first and second chapters (which map out the ancient and modern evolution of the practice of pet-keeping) entail interesting yardsticks to better understand the history behind the notion of "pet", the following chapters are but an accumulation of references to related studies in biology, psychology and behavioral sciences. Although some of them include some thought-provoking or potent arguments explaining various aspects of our relationship to pets, I personally found that the author's personal interpretations fell short of any novel propositions. While being very wary of such a methodological approach myself (i.e. inventorying a large series of related studies), I figured out that John Bradshaw's book was probably thought as a kind of repertoire of studies and ideas on modern practices and representations of pet-keeping, that would open out towards a more theoretical and sophisticated analysis of their anthropological, social and cultural bedrocks.
I was very disappointed, however, by John Bradshaw's use of the studies he engages with throughout the book. His comments are but mere factual observations and opinions that rarely provide the reader with sharp, critical insights. His propensity to switch from one study to another, regardless of their methodological validity (*evidence for this will be detailed below) and heuristic quality, thus depreciates the author's effort to suggest a new approach to human/animal relationships and pet-keeping in contemporary theory and practice. I think this is particularly problematic insofar as some of the referenced studies seem notably shallow and/or scientifically questionable in their methodology.
*One particular example comes to my mind when speaking of methodologically flawed studies quoted in John Bradshaw's book. Page 96 and 97, evidence for the aura of "trustworthiness" or "attractiveness" bestowed by pets onto their human owners is demonstrated by referring to a French study that uses... a chat-up line experiment to illustrate the power of dogs to draw people into conversation! The studies is introduced as follows:
Finally, a serious weakness with John Bradshaw's work is that his arguments are infused with what is commonly labelled as "biological determinism". Biological determinism is "the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning." Although there most certainly exists a kind of biological determinism in every aspects of human behaviour (we are all accustomed to certain climates, or environmental features that make up our lifeworld and influence our health), it has been the role of social sciences, for the last two centuries, to better highlight the overwhelming influence of social, cultural, political or economic structures over people's habits, beliefs and/or behaviours. This is the major criticism that I would bring forth when reflecting on 'The Animals Among Us': that is, the lack of dialogue with and knowledge of social sciences (whether these encompass philosophy, sociology, anthropology or other disciplines) on the matter of human/animal relationships. Instead of referring to the pervasiveness of a liberal anthropology in our economic and social structures, which fosters individualism, John Bradshaw argues that
To sum it all up, I would not recommend this book because (or so I think) its scientific, academic and heuristic value is quite weak. I would also say that it is methodologically ambiguous and can therefore not provide in-depth and sound analysis of contemporary issues around human/animal relationships. Some parts are engaging and interesting but the general argument is, in my opinion, highly unsatisfactory from the viewpoint of social sciences. I do not doubt, however, that John Bradshaw is a renown professor in Biology and Vet studies, and surely has compelling arguments to offer in these disciplines.
What caught my attention when purchasing this book was the apparently seminal and promising approach offered by the "science of anthrozoology", which sets out to recast our perception of human/animal relationships through a better understanding of their biological, cultural and species-specific niceties. John Bradshaw's analysis, however, is fraught with flawed and misguiding theoretical as well as ontological assumptions that strongly undermine the author's ambition to better grasp the concept and practice of pet-keeping.
Before going any further in my review, I simply wish to specify that I only went as far as 200 pages (which covers the first 7 chapters); I was indeed not willing to go beyond that page count for a series of reasons that are laid out below.
First and foremost, John Bradshaw's arguments are imbued with gendered assumptions that are seemingly taken for granted and that I would personally define as properly sexist. Throughout his entire study, the author indeed endorses stances on what he ostensibly deems to be biological and acknowledged gendered differences between men and women in their relationship with animals and pets in particular. These assumptions run through every chapters and go completely unchallenged, thus detracting from the scientific validity of John Bradshaw's general argument. Here are but a few quotes that support this idea:
"Across mankind as a whole, some people seem much more empathetic than others (...). Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and empathy definitely runs in families."(p. 110)
"Psychologists who have looked specifically for them have found a few similarities between emotional closeness to pets and the propensity to form affectionate relationships with other people. (...) As in other aspects of their emotional lives, women tend to express more affection for their pets than men do, but that may simply be because women tend to be more open about their emotions."(p. 143)
"Men are generally less outwardly responsive than women and less perceptive that women in judging fine differences in apparent cuteness in infant faces."(p. 184)
"Of course, teddy bears do not breed, so their evolution most likely reflected the preferences of the people buying them, many of whom would be women and therefore particularly susceptible to the attractions of the 'baby pattern'."(p. 189)
Rather than fleshing out his explanation of apparent gendered differences with cultural factors (such as the pervasiveness of patriarchy and masculine norms in our societies, which are epitomized in our relationship to and representation of animals), John Bradshaw thus purports that these differences can be reduced to biological disparities alone, referring to a fondamental inequality in the distribution of certain emotions in men's and women's brains, such as attachment to one's offspring, responsiveness to cute features, or more sentimental personality traits. For researchers trained in the social sciences, this can seem highly prohibitive, insofar as it relies on scientifically unsound arguments about gender, thus confining people in stereotyped reactions (which leads to sexism) and not taking into account cultural and social explanations. These assumptions are dubious in essence and should therefore not be given unqualified credence.
Although the first and second chapters (which map out the ancient and modern evolution of the practice of pet-keeping) entail interesting yardsticks to better understand the history behind the notion of "pet", the following chapters are but an accumulation of references to related studies in biology, psychology and behavioral sciences. Although some of them include some thought-provoking or potent arguments explaining various aspects of our relationship to pets, I personally found that the author's personal interpretations fell short of any novel propositions. While being very wary of such a methodological approach myself (i.e. inventorying a large series of related studies), I figured out that John Bradshaw's book was probably thought as a kind of repertoire of studies and ideas on modern practices and representations of pet-keeping, that would open out towards a more theoretical and sophisticated analysis of their anthropological, social and cultural bedrocks.
I was very disappointed, however, by John Bradshaw's use of the studies he engages with throughout the book. His comments are but mere factual observations and opinions that rarely provide the reader with sharp, critical insights. His propensity to switch from one study to another, regardless of their methodological validity (*evidence for this will be detailed below) and heuristic quality, thus depreciates the author's effort to suggest a new approach to human/animal relationships and pet-keeping in contemporary theory and practice. I think this is particularly problematic insofar as some of the referenced studies seem notably shallow and/or scientifically questionable in their methodology.
*One particular example comes to my mind when speaking of methodologically flawed studies quoted in John Bradshaw's book. Page 96 and 97, evidence for the aura of "trustworthiness" or "attractiveness" bestowed by pets onto their human owners is demonstrated by referring to a French study that uses... a chat-up line experiment to illustrate the power of dogs to draw people into conversation! The studies is introduced as follows:
"The ease with which dog owners strike up conversations with one another seems to reflect an aura of trustworthiness endowed by the dog (...). This effect seems remarkably powerful: for example in one study conducted in France a twenty-year-old man delivered the following chat-up line to 240 young women chosen at random while walking alone in a pedestrian-only area: 'Hello, my name is Antoine. I just want to say that I think you're really pretty. (...) I was wondering if you would give me your phone number (...)' When Antoine was accompanied by a dog, almost a third of the young women handed over their phone numbers (...)."I was taken aback when reading that piece of "argumentation"; one may indeed wonder when it has become acceptable to build a scientific argument on a study that uses a sexist practice as its methodological foundation. Street harassment and unsolicited advances, if included in a study, should be strongly confronted rather than casually used as a "method" for testing conjectures.
Finally, a serious weakness with John Bradshaw's work is that his arguments are infused with what is commonly labelled as "biological determinism". Biological determinism is "the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning." Although there most certainly exists a kind of biological determinism in every aspects of human behaviour (we are all accustomed to certain climates, or environmental features that make up our lifeworld and influence our health), it has been the role of social sciences, for the last two centuries, to better highlight the overwhelming influence of social, cultural, political or economic structures over people's habits, beliefs and/or behaviours. This is the major criticism that I would bring forth when reflecting on 'The Animals Among Us': that is, the lack of dialogue with and knowledge of social sciences (whether these encompass philosophy, sociology, anthropology or other disciplines) on the matter of human/animal relationships. Instead of referring to the pervasiveness of a liberal anthropology in our economic and social structures, which fosters individualism, John Bradshaw argues that
"modern biological thought - the 'selfish gene'- approaches (...) altruism with scepticism"(p.13) ; instead of stressing the prevalence of a certain religious legacy in Western culture, John Bradshaw purports that
"religiosity - the strength of one's belief- is quite strongly genetically inherited" and that, similarly, "the desire to own a pet may be "genetically heritable", "encoded in our DNA" and that "children inherit their parents' genetic predisposition to interact with animals"(???) (p. 67-68); instead of alleging that culturally defined beauty standards may impact the attractiveness of people and animals alike, John Bradshaw claims that
"cuteness is a powerful biological force that ensures that mammals will care for their offspring"(p. 181). The list of similar allegations goes on and on, with constant references to evolutionary theory, at a time when "natural" and "social" scientists are questioning the validity of its ontological premises. If a new science of "anthrozoology" is to be coined, reuniting human and nonhuman matters, then we need to stop polarizing discussions on either side of the scientific spectrum ("natural" vs "social" sciences). I thought, when purchasing this book, that anthrozoology was endorsing a view a man and animals as bound by a shared sociality, albeit a differentiated one. Instead, I found a book that eluded cultural and social aspects of human/nonhuman relationships and only resorted to biological arguments - hence my disappointment.
To sum it all up, I would not recommend this book because (or so I think) its scientific, academic and heuristic value is quite weak. I would also say that it is methodologically ambiguous and can therefore not provide in-depth and sound analysis of contemporary issues around human/animal relationships. Some parts are engaging and interesting but the general argument is, in my opinion, highly unsatisfactory from the viewpoint of social sciences. I do not doubt, however, that John Bradshaw is a renown professor in Biology and Vet studies, and surely has compelling arguments to offer in these disciplines.
April 11, 2020
Should have the subtitle: how to draw grand conclusions based on scant evidence. Very disappointing.
October 1, 2018
This is a great book for anyone who really wants to know the hard science available to date (2017) about why people keep pets and what they get out of it.
SPOILER - stop reading here if you don't want to know -
here's what I got out of it:
1) Evolution and human genetics has predisposed us to favor a focus/interest in animals
2) Like love, pets are the equivalent of an opioid addiction - oxcytocin, dopamine and endorphins
3) All that stuff about health benefits is hogwash, for the most part
4) There can be just as many drawbacks to the pet owner as there are benefits
None of the above in any way decreases my devotion to pet keeping or diminishes it in my view. We are what we have evolved to be, and to celebrate the pleasures of living is not trivial - it is something we do too rarely in general. Sure, it would be great to say that being a pet owner makes you somehow a superior person or fills some obvious void that other people suffer because they don't have a pet, but the truth is it is just a lifestyle choice. If you enjoy it, do it. And hopefully the experience is positive for the pet as well.
SPOILER - stop reading here if you don't want to know -
here's what I got out of it:
1) Evolution and human genetics has predisposed us to favor a focus/interest in animals
2) Like love, pets are the equivalent of an opioid addiction - oxcytocin, dopamine and endorphins
3) All that stuff about health benefits is hogwash, for the most part
4) There can be just as many drawbacks to the pet owner as there are benefits
None of the above in any way decreases my devotion to pet keeping or diminishes it in my view. We are what we have evolved to be, and to celebrate the pleasures of living is not trivial - it is something we do too rarely in general. Sure, it would be great to say that being a pet owner makes you somehow a superior person or fills some obvious void that other people suffer because they don't have a pet, but the truth is it is just a lifestyle choice. If you enjoy it, do it. And hopefully the experience is positive for the pet as well.
April 20, 2018
This book approaches the question of what draws humans to keep pets from a scientific viewpoint, so if you want to read that we adopt dogs and are adopted by cats because they are warm and fuzzy, this is not the book for you. However, if you want to know why we react the way we do to animals, then by all means, give this book a gander. Author John Bradshaw goes into much detail what happens in the brain when we interact not only with animals but with human babies as well. You will likely learn more than you really care to know about humans and their pets.
January 1, 2019
Generally speaking, I don't think it fair to review a book without having read it from start to finish but, that's exactly what I'm doing here with The Animals Among Us. I've tried to read this book without stopping for the last few months but have found that I needed a break from it on two or three occasions - I've set it down for a week or two then resumed reading later. This time I'm setting it down, just over half way through, for the last time.
What does one expect from this book? My expectations were formed years ago when I read the author's book Dog Sense. I've read literally thousands of books on animals since then and, no doubt, my perception has changed. I expected the insight and empathy that I recall, perhaps erroneously, from Dog Sense. Instead what I'm finding a book that, just over half way through, has seemed to dismiss much of what is beautiful and intriguing about animals in general and dogs in particular. I'm also find a book that is possibly equally dismissive - at least so far - of many of the humans who love and appreciate their pets.
I feel like there is coming a point in this book where the author will show my perceptions (of the book) to be rubbish, that he'll indicate a strong appreciation for dogs born out of understanding them in and of themselves. I no longer think I can keep slogging through looking for that point, however. Perhaps this bit is a weakness in me as a reader. I think that a true understanding of the relationship between humans and pets should be born out of understanding of both what makes humans "tick" and what kind of beings dogs (and other pets) actually are, independent of humans. (I do understand that, particularly with dogs, who they are is largely influenced by our shared evolution and so separating us, in a sense, can be tricky!). This book, 165 pages in, seems to dismiss dogs and other pets - at least so far.
I gave this book 2 stars instead of one because there is some interesting information within. I just didn't find it compelling enough to continue to the conclusion, especially when my "to read" pile consists of roughly 200 more books, most of which will probably be a more enjoyable and worthwhile read!
What does one expect from this book? My expectations were formed years ago when I read the author's book Dog Sense. I've read literally thousands of books on animals since then and, no doubt, my perception has changed. I expected the insight and empathy that I recall, perhaps erroneously, from Dog Sense. Instead what I'm finding a book that, just over half way through, has seemed to dismiss much of what is beautiful and intriguing about animals in general and dogs in particular. I'm also find a book that is possibly equally dismissive - at least so far - of many of the humans who love and appreciate their pets.
I feel like there is coming a point in this book where the author will show my perceptions (of the book) to be rubbish, that he'll indicate a strong appreciation for dogs born out of understanding them in and of themselves. I no longer think I can keep slogging through looking for that point, however. Perhaps this bit is a weakness in me as a reader. I think that a true understanding of the relationship between humans and pets should be born out of understanding of both what makes humans "tick" and what kind of beings dogs (and other pets) actually are, independent of humans. (I do understand that, particularly with dogs, who they are is largely influenced by our shared evolution and so separating us, in a sense, can be tricky!). This book, 165 pages in, seems to dismiss dogs and other pets - at least so far.
I gave this book 2 stars instead of one because there is some interesting information within. I just didn't find it compelling enough to continue to the conclusion, especially when my "to read" pile consists of roughly 200 more books, most of which will probably be a more enjoyable and worthwhile read!
July 17, 2021
This is great book for those people who are interested in pets and people who keep pets and want to know more about the reasons that the pet/human alliance came about.
The author is very knowledgeable about his subject (anthrozoology) and so is able to give a well-researched and knowledgeable account of these whys and wherefores of the human/pet bond.
He dives back into prehistory and gives his opinions into how it all started. He looks into genealogy and tells us how it probably continued that way and he delves into psychology and biology and tells us what's happening in the minds and bodies of the parties concerned to tell us how we feel about what happened to us in relation to our continuing relationship with the animals among us.
In other words, he gives a comprehensive and learned account of the whole kit and caboodle so that those who are interested can understand.
Unfortunately, I'm not that interested. I picked this out of a box of books I bought to sell for profit. And that's that.
Read it, as I said, if you're interested or if you have a pet. Otherwise - don't bother.
The author is very knowledgeable about his subject (anthrozoology) and so is able to give a well-researched and knowledgeable account of these whys and wherefores of the human/pet bond.
He dives back into prehistory and gives his opinions into how it all started. He looks into genealogy and tells us how it probably continued that way and he delves into psychology and biology and tells us what's happening in the minds and bodies of the parties concerned to tell us how we feel about what happened to us in relation to our continuing relationship with the animals among us.
In other words, he gives a comprehensive and learned account of the whole kit and caboodle so that those who are interested can understand.
Unfortunately, I'm not that interested. I picked this out of a box of books I bought to sell for profit. And that's that.
Read it, as I said, if you're interested or if you have a pet. Otherwise - don't bother.
July 15, 2017
Irrelevant comment: I hate books that have prefaces or prologues. Usually they have no bearing on the story until later and by the time I've forgotten what it said. In my mind, it's just a waste of time. Why not just call it Chapter 1? I gave a mental groan when I saw this book had a Preface, Conventions and Introduction at the beginning and confess that I skipped all of them until I finished the book and then went back to read them.
I found a lot of interesting passages, factoids, bits and other information in the book and that's why I enjoyed it. Some of it pertained to areas which I considered I had some expertise in so I was quite impressed. But I also found that the book lacked direction. Rather than a plot with a flow chart like progress, it was rather like a mass of words that had no direction. I think I would have enjoyed it much more if it was better organized than the way that it's organized now.
Overall, I skipped the parts I found uninteresting but still found plenty of interesting parts to read and that's why I gave it 3 stars.
I got this book as a free ARC.
I found a lot of interesting passages, factoids, bits and other information in the book and that's why I enjoyed it. Some of it pertained to areas which I considered I had some expertise in so I was quite impressed. But I also found that the book lacked direction. Rather than a plot with a flow chart like progress, it was rather like a mass of words that had no direction. I think I would have enjoyed it much more if it was better organized than the way that it's organized now.
Overall, I skipped the parts I found uninteresting but still found plenty of interesting parts to read and that's why I gave it 3 stars.
I got this book as a free ARC.
December 23, 2017
This is a book by an anthrozoologist looking at the state of scientific knowledge regarding the relationship of people and pets. Why do people own pets? Why are pets so popular? How do pet owners benefit from their animals? Are pet owners better off than those who do not own pets?
Get the idea? Is there a scientific basis to what pet owners say to justify their time with their animals? ...to what critics of pet owners say about them?
This is not the typical book that I read. I will add the disclaimer that I have recently been mourning the passing of our second hound and was doing lots of processing regarding what I really thought about the experience with our dogs and the grief engendered by their passing. The author, if I recall correctly, is a pet owner and is certainly not hostile to dogs, cats, or other pets. He is also a skillful scientist who knows a lot about the conduct of research.
So what is the verdict? The book goes over a lot of issues and review a variety of papers. Overall, without giving away the key results, it is safe to say that scientific studies have found it difficult to validate many of the claims made about pet ownership. There may be plenty of cases that suggest certain results, but there are also lots of potential alternative explanations for these results. For example, if there is evidence that dog owners as a population have generally good health it may be the case that people who are already healthy can choose to own dogs. The fact of dog ownership does not clearly cause the good health. Ownership and health may be correlates or good health may lead to greater dog ownership rather than the reverse. So the experiences of owners are claiming benefits may not be wrong but may well be more complicated than simple explanations would suggest. Regarding other benefits, such as improved cardiovascular health from frequent walks, a lot depends on the vigor and length of the walk, such that some walks will promote good health more than others. In addition, while pet ownership may have positives, there are also negatives (poop scooping) that may mitigate benefits.
Overall, the book supports the value of pet ownership but shows that clearly documenting this value is hard to do in a controlled setting such as is required for producing a publishable research study.
To put it another way, the book does not settle many of the controversies among dog owners such as whether dogs love their owners or just want the food. The book also has lots of good discussions of the variation in pet owning practices around the world, the history of pet owning, and some of the genetic research regarding why humans own pets. The book is well documented and very readable.
Pet enthusiasts may be frustrated by the paucity of conclusive findings but shouldn’t be. Obtaining clear research results on these issues is much harder than it seems at first. I would much rather read about the quality studies that get produced and encourage researchers to produce more.
Before too long, I will also likely get another dog and will not be troubled at all by the fact that a dog is not a human, does not speak English, and may primarily just want the food and shelter. They are still lots of fun to have around and I value that.
Get the idea? Is there a scientific basis to what pet owners say to justify their time with their animals? ...to what critics of pet owners say about them?
This is not the typical book that I read. I will add the disclaimer that I have recently been mourning the passing of our second hound and was doing lots of processing regarding what I really thought about the experience with our dogs and the grief engendered by their passing. The author, if I recall correctly, is a pet owner and is certainly not hostile to dogs, cats, or other pets. He is also a skillful scientist who knows a lot about the conduct of research.
So what is the verdict? The book goes over a lot of issues and review a variety of papers. Overall, without giving away the key results, it is safe to say that scientific studies have found it difficult to validate many of the claims made about pet ownership. There may be plenty of cases that suggest certain results, but there are also lots of potential alternative explanations for these results. For example, if there is evidence that dog owners as a population have generally good health it may be the case that people who are already healthy can choose to own dogs. The fact of dog ownership does not clearly cause the good health. Ownership and health may be correlates or good health may lead to greater dog ownership rather than the reverse. So the experiences of owners are claiming benefits may not be wrong but may well be more complicated than simple explanations would suggest. Regarding other benefits, such as improved cardiovascular health from frequent walks, a lot depends on the vigor and length of the walk, such that some walks will promote good health more than others. In addition, while pet ownership may have positives, there are also negatives (poop scooping) that may mitigate benefits.
Overall, the book supports the value of pet ownership but shows that clearly documenting this value is hard to do in a controlled setting such as is required for producing a publishable research study.
To put it another way, the book does not settle many of the controversies among dog owners such as whether dogs love their owners or just want the food. The book also has lots of good discussions of the variation in pet owning practices around the world, the history of pet owning, and some of the genetic research regarding why humans own pets. The book is well documented and very readable.
Pet enthusiasts may be frustrated by the paucity of conclusive findings but shouldn’t be. Obtaining clear research results on these issues is much harder than it seems at first. I would much rather read about the quality studies that get produced and encourage researchers to produce more.
Before too long, I will also likely get another dog and will not be troubled at all by the fact that a dog is not a human, does not speak English, and may primarily just want the food and shelter. They are still lots of fun to have around and I value that.
January 18, 2018
This is the second of Anthrozoologist John Bradshaw's books that I have read, the first being 'In Defence of Dogs', which, possibly because I prefer dogs to all other animals, I liked better. I did find this book a wee bit repetitive; although if this is your first Bradshaw, it may not be the case for you. However, this is an interesting, well-researched book, written in Bradshaw's very accessible style. It tries to answer the question, 'Why do we keep pets?' After all, they cost us money and time; they sometimes pee and poo in the house; and in the case of dogs, they need to be exercised several times a day.
Bradshaw tackles all the claims for the possible benefits of pet keeping - they are good for our health, for example - and examines the case for each, with reference to available scientific studies. The results, which I won't divulge, may surprise you. But in my case, as a serial dog-owner of many years, it's simple: they remind me to live in the present and enjoy life while I have it; and they bring me joy.
Bradshaw tackles all the claims for the possible benefits of pet keeping - they are good for our health, for example - and examines the case for each, with reference to available scientific studies. The results, which I won't divulge, may surprise you. But in my case, as a serial dog-owner of many years, it's simple: they remind me to live in the present and enjoy life while I have it; and they bring me joy.
September 21, 2020
Guter Überblick über den wissenschaftlichen Fachbereich, aber an vielen Stellen wird sich der unangenehmen spekulativen und positivistischen Strategien aus der Evolutionspsychologie bedient, die dem ganzen Feld mittlerweile einen schlechten Ruf verleihen. Zum Beispiel die wiederholte Annahme, dass Frauen im Neolithikum besonders gern junge Tiere aufzogen, um ihre Heiratsfähigkeit zu beweisen. Also im gesamten Neolithikum. Überall. Wurde geheiratet was das Zeug hielt. Und die Frauen hockten mit einem Welpen im Haus. Weil Frauen heutzutage auch eine stärkere Bindung zu Tieren zeigen als Männer. Und das EINORDNEN von Quellen, die teilweise 30 Jahre alt sind, wohl nicht zur wissenschaftlichen Praxis gehört, wenn man sich selbst als Autor eines Schlüssewerkes versteht.
Aber das Cover ist sehr süß.
Aber das Cover ist sehr süß.
July 14, 2018
A very thought provoking book!! Interesting and a wonderful history of how pets are and have been important to us since the beginning of time.
January 5, 2025
Tenía muchas espectativas puestas en este libro porque leí otro del mismo autor que me pareció súper ilustrativo (Cat Sense, está traducido al español). Desgraciadamente, no ha estado a la altura. Tiene observaciones interesantes pero me ha resultado un tanto reiterativo. Además, sus conclusiones sobre la antropología son muy utilitarias, muy al estilo del pensamiento inglés. Casi parece que los comportamientos humanos estuvieran preprogramados y por tanto, nuestras interacciones con los animales se limitaran a lo útiles que nos resultaron al principio y todos los millones de años desde entonces estuvieran predestinados.
Tampoco ayuda que la edición en español es bastante chapucera: frases en las que no se entiende que quiere expresar, hay referencias a una imagen en tal página en la cual no está la imagen, en las notas al pie de página aparecen traducidos los títulos de publicaciones en inglés o incluso URLs (y ni siquiera de manera consistente).
Tampoco ayuda que la edición en español es bastante chapucera: frases en las que no se entiende que quiere expresar, hay referencias a una imagen en tal página en la cual no está la imagen, en las notas al pie de página aparecen traducidos los títulos de publicaciones en inglés o incluso URLs (y ni siquiera de manera consistente).
October 16, 2018
Accessible, browsable, detailed. An engaging, scientific look at anthrozoology for the pet-curious (me), and probably also for animal lovers. A mite rePETative ;)
December 28, 2017
Interesting but I disgree with his opinion that I can't tell if my dog doesn't feel guilt. I can tell he's been bad when I come through the door and see his posture! I don't need to go into the kitchen to find the garbage he got into.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...
August 2, 2017
The author anthrozoologist John Bradshaw breaks this heavily detailed book down into 11 chapters that focus on the human race's relationship as evolving with animals/ pets.
It speaks to our reactions to pets; ancient, modern and imaginary. It also speaks to some instinctual and genetic characteristics we may exhibit with pets.
In many cases the book generalizes about dogs. I found the section on health benefits of dog ownership ascribed to green space keenly interesting. As was the detailing on inbreeding and hybrids as well as usage of animals in relationship to therapies. This read also provided a multi cultural section that addresses ancient times as well as using animals as a food source.
This book is a well rounded read bridging domestic and the wild animals and our bond with them.
It speaks to our reactions to pets; ancient, modern and imaginary. It also speaks to some instinctual and genetic characteristics we may exhibit with pets.
In many cases the book generalizes about dogs. I found the section on health benefits of dog ownership ascribed to green space keenly interesting. As was the detailing on inbreeding and hybrids as well as usage of animals in relationship to therapies. This read also provided a multi cultural section that addresses ancient times as well as using animals as a food source.
This book is a well rounded read bridging domestic and the wild animals and our bond with them.
January 1, 2018
Many of the author’s ideas were interesting but he kept reiterating his points over and over again. His main points are about humans’ ability to anticipate what animals may be thinking in order to hunt them, how animals are domesticated, the changing roles of dogs and cats, keeping of wild animals as pets by modern hunter gather societies, the “cuteness” factor and whether pets are beneficial to human health.
February 4, 2024
I did not like this. The further I read the greater my dislike!
Excellent one star reviews by fellow readers with whom I thoroughly agree
So no need for any further comment from me
Excellent one star reviews by fellow readers with whom I thoroughly agree
So no need for any further comment from me
April 28, 2018
Stopped on page 124 out of 310. I certainly gave it a fair try.
Where to start on why I found this book such a time-waster? The introduction and the first chapter, which summarizes the history of petkeeping, had new information that boded well. For example, the author makes the point that, in subsistence societies, women who were meticulous caretakers of animals could increase their value in the marriage market. I hadn't thought of that, yet it makes perfect sense.
But once you are past page 74 or so, you are in a land of smoke and fog. The author has so little definite to say, yet takes a LOT of time to say it. It seems that every thought is fenced around with phrases like "possibly" and "it may be".
The illustrations added little for me, because they were drawings. The author claims, for example, that in some subsistence societies, women may suckle abandoned wild animals they find. And a drawing on page 31 is captioned "Ainu woman suckling a bear cub".
This is quite an amazing concept for an urbanized Westerner. Does it really happen? Is it common? How are such women regarded? I want photographic proof and and least some real data. All I got was the author's assertion and a drawing. You can draw a unicorn too, but a drawing of a unicorn doesn't mean unicorns exist.
As further evidence that a drawing can show anything, accurate or not, consider page 105, a drawing of President Franklin Roosevelt with his Scottish Terrier, Fala. Terriers are smallish dogs. But Fala's head is bigger than Roosevelt's. This terrier is the size of a Great Dane.
I've really spent enough time on this.
It's a good topic for a book. This book can be source material for the meticulous academic or journalist who should attempt it.
Where to start on why I found this book such a time-waster? The introduction and the first chapter, which summarizes the history of petkeeping, had new information that boded well. For example, the author makes the point that, in subsistence societies, women who were meticulous caretakers of animals could increase their value in the marriage market. I hadn't thought of that, yet it makes perfect sense.
But once you are past page 74 or so, you are in a land of smoke and fog. The author has so little definite to say, yet takes a LOT of time to say it. It seems that every thought is fenced around with phrases like "possibly" and "it may be".
The illustrations added little for me, because they were drawings. The author claims, for example, that in some subsistence societies, women may suckle abandoned wild animals they find. And a drawing on page 31 is captioned "Ainu woman suckling a bear cub".
This is quite an amazing concept for an urbanized Westerner. Does it really happen? Is it common? How are such women regarded? I want photographic proof and and least some real data. All I got was the author's assertion and a drawing. You can draw a unicorn too, but a drawing of a unicorn doesn't mean unicorns exist.
As further evidence that a drawing can show anything, accurate or not, consider page 105, a drawing of President Franklin Roosevelt with his Scottish Terrier, Fala. Terriers are smallish dogs. But Fala's head is bigger than Roosevelt's. This terrier is the size of a Great Dane.
I've really spent enough time on this.
It's a good topic for a book. This book can be source material for the meticulous academic or journalist who should attempt it.
February 20, 2022
I was initially drawn to this book because of the blurb on the back which mentioned that the topics cover the science of anthrozoology, the history of mankind and animals, and how domestic animals have shaped our evolution as humans. I thought that the book would be, as the author endorsement from The Times suggests, “a rich and fascinating book” which to an extent I believe Bradshaw accomplished. However, the book felt like it could be reduced/summarized to about 200 pages. After which I felt like the topic was drifting, becoming somewhat boring, and repeated. That is not to say that the book is not worth reading especially considering that the majority (two-thirds) were intriguing, but that there were certainly points that I had to put the book down and revisit later because it felt like I was reading a lot of nothing.
To put it simply, I learned and enjoyed reading chapters 1-8, but found the last few chapters skim-worthy.
To put it simply, I learned and enjoyed reading chapters 1-8, but found the last few chapters skim-worthy.
June 10, 2018
One of the most memorable points was the argument that human communities in prehistory were often multi-species communities, and that this was a uniquely human tendency. That even before the domestication of dogs, cats and pigs, human societies incorporated baby wild animals. This can still be seen in certain places such as in north Japan were baby bears are caught and reared until they became too problematic to keep any longer, as well as certain hunter gatherer groups in South America who keep large collections of wild monkeys with them. In both cases hunters would kill the adults and bring the baby animals back to be raised as 'children' among the community.
April 16, 2024
Antrhopology. Paeontology. Zoology. Endocrinology. Neurology... We Do take for granted our daily interaction with pets and other domestic animals, but one must read this book to discover the trove of information behind the scenes, how many factors contributed to guide us from hunter-gatherer and our wolves through modern terapy pets and certain eccesses of pet ownership.
Youìll be surprised, that's for sure!
Youìll be surprised, that's for sure!
March 23, 2018
Useful information if you are a pet lover, pet hater, or pet don't carer. I liked that the writer takes a scientific approach and delves into reasons for us liking or hating pets, naturally this has evolutionary roots. I wished it was also available in abridged version, as with other psychology books, it has a lot repetition and unnecessary stuffing. Enjoyed it though.
September 4, 2018
A fairly scientific write up of various studies on pets and animals. Not everyone would enjoy this as much as I did. Just about halfway through when it started to get repetitive about dogs and cats, it transitioned into evolution of animals with humans and got interesting again. It made me enjoy my interactions with my pets all the more while reading it.
September 16, 2025
The first half of the book is a fairly repetitive catalogue of popular notions and studies the author doesn't like. Chapter 6 begins with the author's belief that animals categorically lack theory of mind, followed by the further revelation that the author also believes animals lack minds, and that any opinion to the contrary is purely anthropomorphism.
February 6, 2019
Con muchas teorías interesantes sobre por qué los seres humanos son los únicos animales que han domesticado otros animales y nuestra fascinación por las mascotas, pero hay momentos en que se pasa de extenso y no llega a ser claro en su estructuración.
December 29, 2017
I thought his analysis on how anthropomorphism and agency detection led to our fascination with animals. However, the conclusions at the end of the book were unsatisfying.
April 13, 2018
I tend to be more anthropomorphic towards animals than Bradshaw would support, so we diverge on a number of assumptions in the book.
April 26, 2018
Meatier than I expected. Wide-ranging exploration of the meaning of animals in the lives of humans
May 6, 2018
the narrator was awful
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews