Q&A 8, Answer

My question is: What are some situations in which a human would not benefit from a relationship with a companion animal?

I think there are many such situations.  Firstly, a human could simply be allergic to a particular species of animal, and so would be harmed or at least inconvenienced by a relationship with a companion of that species.  Someone could also have had a traumatic experience with a type of animal, and so could have PTSD-like symptoms when exposed to animals of that type.  Someone could also simply dislike some of the personality traits typically found within one species of animal, and so would be unlikely to find a fulfilling relationship with a member of that species.

This last point brings up an issue, however, that I have been thinking about.  It is clear enough that different humans have radically different personalities.  It is further clear that many non-human animals are quite capable of having individual personalities - one cat may be almost nothing like another.  Thus, why is it that people consistently stereotype species?  'Cats are aloof.'  'Dogs are loyal.'  It may be true that most cats, at least when compared to other types of animal, are aloof; yet this is hardly true of all cats.  I lived for several years with a cat who would routinely crawl up my chest as I read a book and shove her nose into my eyes until I scratched her behind the ears.  She would also lie around near people, and if no one had associated with her for a while, she would walk about meowing mournfully until someone picked her up or played with her.  It is no more true that all dogs are loyal.  Most dogs are probably loyal, but some are actually quite aloof, or will wander off and not return - while I have not personally known any dogs who did this, I have known people who have lost dogs in just this way.

So, with all these individual personalities, non-humans are not much easier to generalise about accurately than humans.  Is it some sort of 'ism' which causes us to stereotype them like this?