It seems that the recent popularity of "forms" of dogs, cats, small pigs and other pets suggests that the acquisition of pets is nothing more than a hobby or a kind of luxury and in fact it is often assumed that the acquisition of pets is a Western effect of the remains of working animals that were raised Communities in the past. About half of British households have a pet, with dogs about 10m in length and 10m in other cats. While pets cost time and money but bring little financial benefit these days, during the 2008 financial crisis, spending on pets remained almost unaffected, suggesting that most pet owners do not buy them a luxury but consider it an integral part of the family. But you may find that some people tend to pets while others simply are not interested. I wonder why this situation occurs? It is very likely that our desire to accompany animals actually dates back tens of thousands of years and has played an important role in our development. As long as that is so, the heirs' knowledge may help us explain why animal love is something that some people do not like. Recently, a great deal of attention has been paid to the idea that owning a dog, and possibly never, can affect the owner's health in many ways - Heart, anti-loneliness, depression, symptoms, mental illness, etc. JOHN BRADSHAW explains in his book "The Animals Among Us" that there are two problems with these claims. First, there is a similar number of studies indicating that pets do not have a negative or even a negative effect on health. Second - pet owners no longer live more than those who are not welcomed in the idea of an animal in the house, which should be if the claims are true. Even if they are true, these supposed health benefits do not apply to urban dwellers today or even to their predecessors, so they can not be considered the reason we started to acquire animals for the first time. The urge to bring animals into our homes is so widespread that it is tempting to think of them as a universal feature of human nature, but not all societies have a habit of buying pets. Even in the West there are many people who do not feel any affinity or special connection with animals, whether pets or not. Usually pets are usually kept in captivity: this is due to the time when coming children imitate their parents' lifestyles when they leave home , But recent research has suggested there is also a genetic basis. Since some people, regardless of their development, seem inclined to want to accompany animals, while others do not. So genes that promote pet acquisition may be limited to some humans, that is, they are not universal, suggesting that some or not all societies have flourished because of an innate relationship with animals. The DNA of domestic animals today reveals that each species was separated from its wild counterpart between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, between the late Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. This was when we started raising livestock. But it is not easy to see how this was achieved if these dogs, cats, cows and first pigs were treated as nothing else. As long as this is the case, the available technology will not be sufficient to prevent the unwanted hybridization of local and wild stocks, which were in their early stages and have access to each other, resulting in the synthesis of endogenous genes for "tailoring" and thus slowing the process of Progress - or even reverse. Famine periods also encouraged the slaughter of domestic stocks of livestock and the elimination of "completely" genes. But if some of these domestic animals were treated as pets, physical containment within human dwellings would have prevented wild males from making their way to hybrid females. So, as with some pets in hunting and gathering, To prevent their consumption as food. As these animals were isolated in these ways the new semi-domesticated animals could have evolved away from the ways of their wild ancestors, and become the monsters that we know today. The same genes that make some people today ready to adopt the first cat or dog may spread among these early farmers. Groups with people who have sympathy for and understanding of animal husbandry have prospered at the expense of those who can not continue to rely on hunting for meat. So why not everyone feel the same way? Perhaps at a point in history there have been alternative strategies to steal domestic animals or enslave their human caregivers. But there is a final twist to this story: recent studies have shown that the tendency for pets is coupled with concern for the natural world. It seems that people can be divided almost into those who feel a bit closer to animals or the environment, and those who tend to rapprochement between both. Today, pet adoption is one of the few outlets available in civilized society, so these animals may help us reconnect with the natural world we have developed.
