If I read one more article or listen to one more podcast about the dire social effects of flagging birth rates in developed nations, I think I’ll have a cow myself. Various countries have tried various programs to hike the birth rate but with limited success. It’s tempting to think we are doomed, that nothing can be done. Nevertheless, I think we can do something about it. In fact, I have a plan!
I know, I know, whenever you hear a politician say “I have a plan,” the reflex response is a cringe followed by a hankering to stock up on food and water, plus a trip to the nearest gold and silver exchange. But I am not a politician! My proposal will in no way endanger the republic, though the great unwashed will likely find it outrageous. Nevertheless, I submit it for your consideration. It’s really quite simple: MAKE DOGS ILLEGAL! Granted, that dictum might leave you scratching your head but not from flea infestation. The cause and effect of this policy needs some fleshing out, so let’s do so.
Thanks to birth control, abortion, and feminism, women in the civilized world are having fewer babies. The barefoot and pregnant policy is kaput. And the consensus is that it’s all good. After all, working women are good for the economy and, as we all know, if something is good for the economy, that trumps every other consideration. Of course, we could argue about what really is or is not “good” for the economy, short-term and long-term, but that would require a book-length digression.
Admittedly, keeping women barefoot and depriving them of their beloved footwear would be cruel and unusual punishment. Also, it would bankrupt shoe designers and manufacturers, which would ripple throughout the global economy and probably throw a lot of workers in third world sweatshops out of work. No need to do that.
Pregnancy is another matter. It’s true that childless women earn more money so they have more disposable income – more money to buy more stuff! Also, the government collects more tax revenue! On the other hand, the minuscule birth rate is doing a number on manufacturers of kid-related merchandise. You might have noticed that Toys ‘R” Us stores are no more. No telling what’s going on with Mattel, Fisher-Price, and Oshkosh B’gosh. And what about Kellogg’s and General Mills and all those other purveyors of kids’ cereals? Do we want to live in a world devoid of Fruit Loops and Lucky Charms? Unthinkable, I know, but in the meantime I wouldn’t advise buying stock in any of the above-referenced companies.
Then there’s the whole welfare state Ponzi scheme…how can it stay afloat with more and more retired people and fewer and fewer working people? Of course, we can always revert to pre-welfare state realities…you know, work all your life till you die or get too sick to work, whichever comes first. Good luck selling that austerity program to the public.
Now let’s introduce that much-vaunted female nurturing instinct. This is a divisive concept among feminists. The hard-core egalitarian feminists assert there is no such instinct. The nurturing instinct is just another social construct devised to keep women down. The female supremacist feminists insist there is a nurturing instinct and it is one reason why women are superior to men – but that doesn’t mean they’ll be any help in elevating the birth rate. You’ll never hear any of them repeating that old “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” line. Nevertheless, let’s give a nod to evolutionary biology and posit that there is something like a female nurturing instinct or drive. More to the point, how does this instinct or drive express itself among childless women?
Well, I have observed that as the birth rate has fallen the dog population has grown apace. I don’t have any statistics to prove that, but I do have an informal survey. When I moved into my current home 40 years ago, I almost never saw anyone walking a dog down my street. There was one old lady with a dachshund who went by now and then, and that was it. Now almost every time I go out my door there is someone with one or more pooches on a leash going by. More often than not, it is a young man, woman, or couple in prime siring/childbearing years.
Now I’m sure that canine upkeep is cheaper than childcare. I don’t think abortion has ever been a thing with dogs but canine disposability has a long history, as decomposing puppy corpses in burlap bags were once commonplace in lake and river bottoms. Unlike human beings, problematic dogs can be put down with no fear of social disapproval. And when a healthy dog wears out his welcome for one reason or another…well, you just take him for a long ride, open the car door, and let him fend for himself. If he gets in touch with his inner wolf, he just might make it.
Conscientious dog owners would never countenance the above behavior, even if Fido turns out to be a money pit. I remember once talking to a co-worker about a friend who had just paid a vet bill of $5,000. She huffed and responded, “That’s nothing. I spent $10,000 on my dog last year!” Obviously, she had failed to apply a cost-benefit analysis to the situation, but I though it prudent not to raise that issue. Given the inflation that has occurred since that conversation, the sums mentioned above would probably be double today. So I am not surprised to find out that it is now possible to buy health insurance for your dog. I suppose it’s just a matter of time before the left takes notice of this issue and proclaims that pet health insurance is a human right and government-administered, single-payer pet insurance must be instituted.
This is not to say that children aren’t expensive, but at least one day they will probably pay taxes and contribute to Social Security and Medicare. If you treat them right, they might even take care of you in your old age. No guarantee, of course, but it is a possibility. Fido, of course, will never pay taxes or contribute to Social Security and Medicare. If he’s still around when you are in your dotage, he might be a faithful friend, but he won’t be able to feed you, change your diapers or drive you to your doctor appointments.
Fido won’t like to hear this, but he and his ilk have never had it better. The canine sense of entitlement has never been greater. Forty years ago bringing one’s dog to the office was unthinkable. The same was true of public transit, restaurants, and bars. Fido is no longer canis non grata. You can even take him to the ballpark on select dates. It will probably take a kennel cough pandemic to turn back the clock on this trend.
In days of yore if you took your dog everywhere you went, you’d darn well better be wearing dark glasses and have a white cane. I readily admit that a well-trained German shepherd who can keep a blind person from getting hit by a car is a big plus. But an emotional support chihuahua? Little children make do with stuffed animals. Couldn’t adults do likewise?
When you watch people interacting with dogs it is readily apparent that they are substitute human beings. A man’s wife may never bear him a son, but at least he has a dog to play catch with. Of course, he can never teach a Newfoundland to throw a curve ball.
Women are particularly fond of what we used to call lapdogs (c.f., neoteny or the infant schema), roughly the same size as a human infant…just as noisy and smelly, come to think of it. Childless women lavish love and attention on the diminutive mutts that mothers typically expend on their infants. A human infant will eventually mature, but no matter how old the little dogs get, they will always be childlike. I predict that women denied the companionship of these pseudo-children would turn to bearing real children to satisfy their nurturing instincts. Either that or develop a dwarf fetish.
Now when I recommend banning dogs, I would of course exempt the aforementioned seeing-eye dogs, K-9 patrol dogs, and any other dog who performs a service. I once knew a diabetic whose dog could sense when her blood sugar was going haywire and would alert her. Such dogs are not substitute children; they have a purpose in life, and that’s more than you can say for a lot of human beings.
Like dogs, horses used to be a fixture in civilization. They were essential as beasts or burden or for transportation. Today horses are obsolete thanks to automation and the automobile. Their utility has ebbed greatly. They are of use to mounted police and ranchers, but otherwise they are an indulgence for those who have enough space and money to maintain them. Dogs have the good fortune to be much smaller, making them suitable for urban and suburban companionship. Hence the popularity of dogs as companions for the childless.
So how to bring about a ban on dogs? I don’t think there are any legal barriers to doing so. Even the most adept practitioner of shyster sophistry would be hard-pressed to assert that there is a constitutional right to own dogs! On the contrary, the Tenth Amendment would allow for any state to ban dogs if it chose to do so.
Now I readily admit that banning dogs nationwide would be federal tyranny; that’s why it should start locally. Try it first with a small legislative body, a city council for example. Then try a county-wide ban. Then take it up in the state legislature. If one state takes the step and bans dogs and birth rates start to rise in that state, then other states would take note. As a bonus, the imposition of fines on illegal dog owners would be a bountiful source of revenue. States would also note that and start drafting their own legislation.
Now if banning dogs is too radical for you, perhaps rationing dogs would be more practicable. No dogs for single people or childless couples, but if a couple has two children, then they qualify for a pooch. The number of dogs and children could be varied according to state. At the same time, the best specimens of each breed of dog can be kept in zoos for future humans to study and enjoy.
The messy part of outlawing dogs would be what to do with the dogs still in existence. Admittedly, Fidocide would be messy and politically unfeasible. But thanks to the relatively short lives of dogs, we can outlaw them by attrition. Dogs who die will not be replaced. Needless to say, the neutering of all dogs in existence will be compulsory.
Of course, numerous special interest groups will be outraged – veterinarians, for one. Dog groomers for another. But professions come and go regularly. Old skills can be transferred to new fields and new skills can be learned. Surely, learning to code is still a plus in the job market.
Perhaps the loudest squealers of all would be the pet food manufacturers. I’m sure Alpo, Iams, et al would fight any attempt to outlaw dogs. Actually, they would be just fine, as were the brewers who remained in business during Prohibition by brewing near beer and bottling soda pop. As inflation ravages the economy and grocery bills go higher and higher, the dog food processers could merely re-package their dog food for human consumption.
Now I can hear some dog lovers saying what about cats? Sorry, but cats and dogs are like apples and oranges. It’s hard to estimate the cat population because people don’t take them out in public. But out of sight does not mean out of mind. As the number of cat ladies grows, it stands to reason that the cat population is growing in proportion. But the cat population has no effect on the plunging human birth rate. Rather, it is a symptom of the birth dearth.
Cats are pretty self-sufficient; given enough food and water and someone to clean out their cat box and gather up their furballs, they can otherwise do without human company. So I don’t think the female nurturing drive is visited upon felines, at least not beyond the kitten stage. Rather, the cat is a cohort, a companion for females who have hit the wall. The cat will remain so throughout menopause, old age, and unto death. In short, their presence does not abet the low human birth rate. So I would leave cats alone.
After all, the dog, not the cat, is man’s best friend. There are numerous tales of dogs going to great lengths, sometimes even sacrificing their lives in service to their masters. Now the stakes are higher. The future of humanity is at stake, and the dog as ersatz child is a luxury we can tolerate no more. That’s why the dog’s greatest achievement may be to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of man.
Now I readily admit that my proposal smacks of speciesism. In addition, feminists might assert that it is really just a backhanded form of misogyny. Compared to the future of mankind, these are petty concerns. We cannot go dog-whistling past the pet cemetery any longer.
Greater love hath no species than to die in service to humanity. It is a far, far better thing they do then they have ever done — far greater than anything Lassie or Rin-Tin-Tin ever did.
Like all legislation, the statutory ban on dogs can be rescinded. If women come to their senses – and that’s a mighty big “if” – we will have our representative dog breeds in the zoos ready to produce litters of puppies for adoption.
There’s no question we have the political means to enact such legislation. It will not be easy, but eventually dogged determination will win the day!
