« Don't be tricked by the biases of fiction | Main | Mental Accounting for Dummies »
The economics of cats
Many people have been clamoring for this topic over at the secret blog.
My views are simple: we have too few cats in the world, relative to dogs. Dogs, for reasons of temperament, can in essence precommit to being our slaves. (As long as they are not Irish Setters.) That makes us more willing to create or support an additional dog. The quantity of dogs is nearly Pareto optimal, although their emotional slavery to us raises ethical questions about the distribution of power in the relationship.
A cat cannot "promise," genetically or otherwise, that her kittens will become your (or anyone's) slaves, if only you don't neuter her. The kittens never come about, or they meet a cruel fate rather quickly.
If you must support the life of either a cat or a dog, choose the undervalued cat. This argument requires only that the cat gets some value out of being alive, and that value should carry some weight in our all-things-considered moral calculations.
More generally, you should go around helping the (undervalued) people who insult you, or the people who otherwise signal their independence from you. The craven are already being served quite a bit.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 12, 2007 at 10:31 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Hmm. Not sure which way slavery runs with dogs. I mean, you'll never see a cat owner being forced out of bed at ungodly hours to follow it around outside, carrying a steaming plastic bag. Your argument suggests that our selfishness induces us to have more dogs than cats. My selfishness induces me to have only a cat.
If the utility a dog or cat experiences is independent of the number of other cats or dogs in existence, and if either is of approximately equivalent moral weight, why ought we care about the particular mix?
Posted by: Eric Crampton at Jul 12, 2007 11:03:23 PM
'although their emotional slavery to us raises ethical questions about the distribution of power in the relationship.'
Been reading some PETA info have we?
Posted by: dave at Jul 12, 2007 11:21:50 PM
"If you must support the life of either a cat or a dog, choose the undervalued cat. This argument requires only that the cat gets some value out of being alive, and that value should carry some weight in our all-things-considered moral calculations."
I don't follow. Please elaborate.
For one thing, why don't these two requirements also prove that we should have as many dogs as possible, or (human) babies for that matter?
Posted by: zlguocius at Jul 12, 2007 11:35:56 PM
zlguocius: "some" weight is different from "infinite" weight. The premise here is that, in the case of cats in particular, that has been undercounted up until now, but raising it to "some" doesn't imply an infinite number of kitties, just more than "none" does.
Posted by: dWj at Jul 13, 2007 12:43:11 AM
Isn't there some scientic work that toxoplasmosis that is passed from cats to humans, changes human nature and reproductive patterns to further its ability to reproduce? Perhaps the longstanding suspicion of cats and their intentions is justified.
Posted by: mkelohi at Jul 13, 2007 2:03:55 AM
I'm not generally allergic to undervalued people. I am, however, allergic to the "undervalued" cats. I think that twice as many people are allergic to cats than to dogs might go a long way to explain why dogs are the more common pet.
Posted by: at Jul 13, 2007 2:31:42 AM
An economist was walking down a street and decides to buy a cat because there were too few in the world. His colleague stops him and says, "if there really were too few cats in the world, someone would already have started breeding them."
Posted by: Mr. Efficient Markets at Jul 13, 2007 6:22:19 AM
Two things: recent trends have favored cats over dogs due to smaller yards relative to houses and the rise of single apartment living over married detached housing. So your argument misses some data.
Second, value is of course in the eye of the beholder, so I'm not sure you can argue that there is really a deficit, especially if the kittens who would value their lives are never born due to neutering. But I can think of no argument that requires me as a market actor to take the cat's feelings into account as opposed to the guaranteed pleasure I receive from a dog. A pet is after all foremost an acquisition of companionship, not moral certitude.
Posted by: Sandy at Jul 13, 2007 8:20:52 AM
The obvious answer is to lock the cat and the dog in the bathroom, and let the market correct itself. Five minutes later, Atlas, a great dane, shrugs.
Posted by: Garrett at Jul 13, 2007 8:56:46 AM
I think it is the opposite - my local SPCA has about 200 cats and maybe a dozen dogs.
Posted by: Steve R at Jul 13, 2007 8:58:38 AM
The best thing about cats is that you can train them to use the toilet:
http://www.karawynn.net/mishacat/toilet.html
No dog could ever accomplish that feat!
Posted by: DerekChang at Jul 13, 2007 9:27:16 AM
Eric Crampton reminded me of this Jerry Seinfeld quote:
Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge?
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Jul 13, 2007 9:32:55 AM
Steve R, that SPCA experience is why I think the recent demand by "animal rights" activists for laws sterilizing all non-breeding dogs isn't about saving dogs from the street, it's about eliminating dogs as pets. Many subscribe to the IMO wacky idea that people shouldn't own animals.
Posted by: Bob Smith at Jul 13, 2007 9:33:02 AM
The choice in pet is IMO rarely framed in terms of "What will be most subservient?"
Cats are different from dogs in the way that the beach is different from the mountains. I used to be a mountains person but am turning into a beach person. I'll just never be a cat person.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jul 13, 2007 9:34:57 AM
Tyler, you're an idiot.
Now gimme $100,000.
Posted by: hanmeng at Jul 13, 2007 10:13:30 AM
"Undervalued" to who? pet owners, society, mother earth?
Posted by: zubin at Jul 13, 2007 10:52:27 AM
Now that mice are no longer a major pest, cats are reduced to the status of pest for many, if not most, of us. Perhaps we should eliminate them all.
Posted by: am at Jul 13, 2007 11:00:05 AM
This applies to spouses as well. Marry the least valuable person you can find.
Wait, I'm selfish. Must be why I married a babe and got a dog.
Posted by: jim at Jul 13, 2007 11:21:59 AM
Dogs are better friends. They will watch your back and protect you from trouble, they don't mind keeping you company on car trips and they are fantastic wing-men with the ladies. They also attend to and participate in conversation to a much greater degree.
Posted by: false_cause at Jul 13, 2007 11:49:04 AM
Long ago my niece had a pet dog of local breed.One day, around midnight a thief entered her house.He gave food lavishly to the dog and the dog forgot about his master and became a "slave" of the thief and led him to the almirah where valuables were kept.After stealing gold and money,the thief went out and the dog promptly accompanied him and never returned.Does this mean that dog's slavish character is opportunistic?
On another occasion, one of my friend at midnight woke up and saw his cat (with little loyalty to him usually except during the meal time)fighting with a cobra,biting and killing it and ultimately saving his and his family's life.Now the right behaviour of the cat at the right time can be valued at a higher level than the opportunistic behaviour of the dog who is normally a good slave.
Posted by: GVV at Jul 13, 2007 12:02:43 PM
Cats have been shown to be an inferior addition to one's diet. They make lousy egg rolls.
They are overvalued.
Posted by: gfd at Jul 13, 2007 1:59:59 PM
Assuming dogs value our love and affection much more than cats, shouldn't we be caring for more dogs?
Posted by: Gart at Jul 13, 2007 3:40:59 PM
This argument requires only that the cat gets some value out of being alive, and that value should carry some weight in our all-things-considered moral calculations.
I don't think this holds.
If a cat's feelings about being alive carry weight in our moral calculus then shouldn't we also consider potential dog existence value. For example, knowing that there is a happy healthy dog in the world makes me smile, the same cannot be said for cats.
Therefore, it is at least possible that the non-owner externalities from helping dogs exceeds that of helping cats.
Posted by: Karl Smith at Jul 13, 2007 3:54:43 PM
Follow - up.
There is also the issue that cats can commit to cleanliness and lower threshold maintenance than dogs can.
This in my opinion accounts for much of the reason cats are chosen as pets and may even suggest that there is an over-supply of cats.
There are perhaps many wonderful dogs who give anything to promise to always be clean and take care of themselves but cannot.
Posted by: Karl Smith at Jul 13, 2007 3:58:02 PM
"Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge?"
The one that can have the other's testicles lopped off at will.
Posted by: Greg at Jul 13, 2007 9:19:11 PM
