A Conversation About Babies

[poliphilo]

"Now there are real babies around," says Ailz. "I can see that my pets are simply baby substitutes."

"That's a woman thing," I say. "Women must have something in their brains that makes them respond to small helpless creatures. I know I don't have it."

"The need to have something totally dependent on you," she says.

"For me," I say, "babies are just potential human beings. I value them for what they're going to become. The sooner they're out of the drooling, up-chucking, helpless stage the better."

"I suspect the babies feel that way too," says Ailz.

Comments

[acathartes.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the baby thing. An intelligent, responsive infant or wee one is cute and interesting, a person in the making; a baby who's just a lump is far less attractive than my cute, intelligent, responsive parrots.

Of course, I think of *them* as my babies, to some extent. They *are* genuinely dependent on me, emotionally as well as physically.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The rabbits are definitely not my babies. They belong to a very alien species. I'm fond of them- but there's no emotional dependency on either side.

[acathartes.livejournal.com]

Not every pet animal makes the emotional bond with humans. Dogs, cats (I assume), and some kinds of bird do; the more intelligent a bird is, the more likely it is to bond emotionally with its owner and depend on them. I loved my finches, but I have a much greater emotional investment with my cockatiels, who can reciprocate far more.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I guess the creatures that bond best with humans
are the ones that are used to living in herds, packs or flocks.