Skip to comments.Are Pets Replacing Children in South Korea?
Posted on 06/06/2013 6:53:52 PM PDT by TexGrill
When Shin Ye-eun, 33, is not working at her job at an international clothing company, she spends much of her time with Betty, her three-year-old English bulldog. The unmarried, childless Ms. Shin feels a maternal sort of love for her dog.
I love her like my child. She is my child, and I know she knows that, she said.
The number of pet owners in South Korea recently passed 10 million, or about one in five people, for the first time. The increase in pet ownership is taking place while fewer South Koreans are getting married and having children, and some analysts suggest the two phenomena are related.
In South Korea, factors such as the high cost of raising and educating children and intense competition for top white-collar jobs have resulted in more adults staying single for longer and having fewer children when they do wed. More South Koreans of child-rearing age appear to be turning their nurturing instincts towards pets.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Ever watch HGTV? A good percentage of younger couples in the market for a new home are buying so their dog/dogs have a nice yard....no kids, of course. Do they think those dogs are going to take care of them in their old age?
ObamaCare Death Panelists will take care of that.
If I had never met the wife, I can imagine myself as a single man and I know that in that instance I would have a dog or two for companionship. So, sue me.
Re your post #2, have you considered the possibility that one could save and invest enough money to have no need for someone to take care of you in your old age?
I’ve never understood that plan to use your offspring to care for you. It’s using them for your own selfish good.
Modern society makes it hard to find and keep a spouse and animals are the substitute for human relationships. At one time, a woman would be called a spinster or a lesbian for not marrying, unmarried men were considered good time guys who had no sense of responsibility. With that “judgmentalism” gone, we now end up with pathetic people wanting to marry their cat.
In many cases replacing a child with a pet would probably be a step up for the parents!
I guess you think doing what families have done for thousands of years is “selfish”. Maybe you think excluding gays from marriage is also selfish?
I feel it is my duty as an American and a heterosexual to assist SoKorea in reversing this trend.
Come on - half the Democrats in America have had make-up sex with a dog. :)
Childless couples, those who can’t afford the grueling process of medical assisted parenthood, single people, who remain so for one reason or another..not always homosexuality, often need an outlet for the very real need of someone, something to care for, someone or something to love beyond themselves.
I do not judge them harshly at all.
From the Look so Many of those Girls, you would not be the first American to assist the Koreans in reversing that trend.
60 Years of American Genetic Influence is significant.
Don’t try to dissuade me...my mind id set. I WILL reverse the trend! I may not be the Neil Armstrong of the situation, but I can do my part to plant the flag ;)
And the other half ‘were’ the dog.
And who is to say those kids would take care of you?
One of my mother’s friends was dying of breast cancer. Her son rarely visited her and she had to rely on friends for help. After she died, her son moved into her home, moved her ex-husband into her home and blew through everything she spent her life earning and accumulating within a few years.
Paid strangers generally won’t take care of you with the same love and tenderness that your kids and grandkids will.
All manner of things to lift and tote, mostly simple stuff, but the stuff of life and family. My father was a great shopper and taught each of my children how to coupon and how to select the best meats, fruits and vegetables. How to tell if a cantelope or watermelon was ripe.
Went with my son for haircuts and ice cream. How to select flowers for wimmin. The best way to load the dishwasher. How to make a bed with precision.
Money doesn’t buy that.
Although, maybe this interracial breading will help to prevent Balkanization.
When Europe needed us, Patton was there. I merely carry on his tradition as an American concerned with bringing goodness to the world wherever it is needed...
Team America...F’ YEA! ;)
That it’s been done for thousands of years is immaterial to my argument that it’s a selfish act.
I have never supported homosexual marriage. And I see nothing selfish about that stance. Maybe you do.
BTW, what if you do plan on using your kids to support you in your old age and they die before you do. Then what do you do? Is there a Plan B?
Re post 18, correct. I have personally seen instances of “ungrateful” children completely neglecting their parents in the latter’s old age. It’s a roll of the dice, isn’t it?
I have a term for Koreans who have pets: Vegetarian.
Fine, whatever lifts your boat.
I will go with guaranteed, professional care, even if it’s by “strangers.”
As I pointed out, I find a moral objection to breeding and raising your future help.
this has already happened in the liberal bastion of Seattle.
That always makes me shudder when they say”oh,the dogs will love this”.
I have a big back yard and the dog spends most of the time in his bed or taking the over the lounge chair when I get up.
So much for the big back yard that he loves.
in the North they ate all their pets.
Man are you ever in the wrong place. Who knew traditional family values warranted moral objections by ‘conservatives??
This is right up there with some freat conservative ideas like Obama not taking part in Cloward Piven, lesser evils and other recent bastions of conservative thought.
yup that’s why i had kids, so they could take care of me when i was old. yuppers.
i thnk if people don’t want to get married, they probably should not get married.
i think if they want to take care of pets, fine. lots of abandoned, perfectly fine animals could’use someone to take care of them.
i think if they want to get married and not have kids, fine. or kids, fine. or kids and pets, fine. or’pets first, then kids, fine.
there’s plenty of combinations that are perfectly fine. if people believe they arent’ ready for something, they probably are not. rather have everyone do well at things they feel they can commit to, rather than doing stuff they are unsure about and doing a terrible job, impacting others because of it.
and some ate their children.
PETS NORTH KOREA
I think if one is short a friend or something/someone to care for, they can find plenty to do at a retirement home or Veterans hospital. Animals are lovely, but shouldn’t be a substitute for another human being, only a plus.
That’s all fina and well, but what happens when a majority of people would rather raise pets instead of children?
My neighborhood is full of nice houses, where the DINK couple works, and leaves the dog home during the day.
In sum, two people are working all day, to provide a beautiful home for their dog to live in.
and point to me anytime in history this has occurred?
the global population continues to rise - mankind is not in danger of extinction. we are increasing in number, not going down.
there is room for both. both are God’s creatures.
One cannot compare subsistence living or even starvation, which was the lot of humankind for millenia, with the world we have today. The world population is predicted to rise to 9 billion and then fall off. The bigger problem is where the population fall off is happening, and that’s in all the major economies of the world, which are also those countries that have democratic, humane regimes. The population’s of many autocratic and theocratic countries are growing at a very fast pace compared to the former.
Of course, I never said otherwise. My point is that taken to extremes, a preference for animals over humans isn’t normal.
you are getting off into tangents.
you pose an impossible hypothetical. you claim this will cause problems despite the population rising throughout history, and still doing so. then claim it is estimated to rise more, then fall. so based on impossible hypotheticals and “experts” predicting with their models population dips sometime in the future, after 2 billion more people are living than now, that it’s a bad thing some people decide to have pets, but not kids. this is the thing that brings down the entire human race.
unless they are on public welfare, i think it is immoral to tell people they can have no kids, or a certain number but not more, or that they must have kids. i think the best people to determine if and how many kids they have are the two people involved.
you also make the asumption that adults that have pets and love them like kids, will never have kids in the future. many people only first have pets and learn to care and be responsible for another bondable pet - dog, cat, rabbit, etc - as adults. they may not be ready for kids right off the bat. they are the best ones to make their own determination if they are ready for kids, or not.
why is someone else’s companionship preferences, animal or person, your personal concern? must we all conform to your worldview?
some people relate to animals better. some people,’by their animals, have learned to relate to people better. some people have no other person in their lives - elderly especially - and benefit from animals. some have adopted animals that were abused or slated to be put down as their shelter time was running out.
i just don’t think you can make blanket value judgments on this.
I take it you didn’t read my last post.
you would be wrong assuming that.
There is no plan B when children die before their parents. That my FRiend would be a disaster. Older parents need their children to support them and I am not in any way talking only in financial terms.
A society which has a government that cares for its elderly citizens is a society not long for this world. Anyone who understands the perversity of socialism and its unintended consequences can see that.
Re your post 29, I do think I am in the right place. I strongly believe in the conservative philosophy of limited government, individual liberties, belief in God, etc. That is why I am so comfortable with Free Republic’s stances on almost all issues.
I think that the family unit is the centerpiece of civilization and should not toyed with; consequently, I strongly disagree with homosexual marriage.. I just don’t wish to participate in the traditional family. I never was interested in being a father and I made sure that didn’t happen. I have my reasons for that.
Perhaps you did not notice that I was not arguing against the family. Not at all. I just don’t really care for the family “value” (if that’s what you want to call it) that accents making sure that one has children for the purpose of taking care of himself in his old age. It just seems to me that one should take that responsibility upon himself. That is my “moral objection.” I guess you disagree. Tough. Disagree.
Hey, you wanna argue against something that helped drive human evolution, to say nothing of the family unit being a family unit, knock yourself out. Hire your state trained aides to drop you in the bath tub for all I care.
I think not, or you wouldn’t have been so snarky in your comments.
fine, believe what you want.