Run, Spot, Run: The Ethics of Keeping Pets

by Jessica Pierce

“A thoughtful book” about how to ensure that the animals we love benefit from the relationship as much as we do (Kirkus Reviews).   We feel love for our companions, and happiness that we’re providing them with a safe, healthy life. But sometimes we also feel guilt. When we see our cats gazing wistfully out the window, or watch a goldfish swim lazy circles in a bowl, we can’t help but Are we doing the right thing, keeping these independent beings locked up, subject to our control? Is keeping pets actually good for the pets themselves? That’s the question that animates Jessica Pierce’s powerful Run, Spot, Run. A bioethicist and a lover of pets herself (including, over the years, dogs, cats, fish, rats, hermit crabs, and more), Pierce explores the ambiguous ethics at the heart of this relationship, and through a mix of personal stories, philosophical reflections, and scientifically informed analyses of animal behavior and natural history, she puts pet-keeping to the test. Is it ethical to keep pets at all? Are some species more suited to the relationship than others? Are there species one should never attempt to own? And are there ways that we can improve our pets’ lives, so that we can be confident that we are giving them as much as they give us? “With gentle humor, clear compelling language, and always in search of the physically and emotionally healthiest lives possible for our animal companions, Run, Spot, Run moved me all the more because it’s written from the inside looking out. Pierce herself lives with three pets and understands the deep urge so many of us feel to connect across species lines.”—Barbara King, author of How Animals Grieve

Genres: Nonfiction, Animals, Philosophy, Dogs, School

306 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 5, 2016

About the author

Bioethicist Jessica Pierce, Ph.D., is the author of the book The Last Walk: Reflections on Our Pets at the Ends of Their Lives (University of Chicago, 2012). Some of the questions she explores are: Do animals have death awareness? Why is euthanasia almost always considered the compassionate end point for our animals, but not for our human companions? Is there ever a good reason to euthanize a healthy dog? Why do people often grieve more deeply for their pets than they do for people? What is animal hospice?

Her other books include Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, Morality Play, Contemporary Bioethics: A Reader with Cases and The Ethics of Environmentally Responsible Health Care.

Reviews

[Mallory · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting overall but gosh she had some weird and inconsistent arguments. Like "euthanasia in shelters is TERRIBLE MURDER but maybe it's immoral to spay and neuter our pets." Also her constant comparisons to slavery and the Holocaust struck me as super unnecessary.

[Mehtap exotiquetv · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kann man tierlieb sein, wenn man Haustiere hält?
Darf man sich gut fühlen weil man ein domestiziertes Tier wie Hund und Katz daheim ein zuhause gibt? Hat man sie wirklich gerettet, vor dem Leben auf der Straße? Oder verwehrt man ihnen das Leben in Freiheit? Was ist artgerecht?
Schaut man genau hin, dann sieht man dass die Haustierindustrie alles andere als Tierlieb ist. Das Zahnrad dreht sich nach menschlichen Bedürfnissen und nach lukrativen Geschäften, die man nicht nur mit umweltunfreundlichen Lebensmitteln und Gadgets für Haustiere macht, sondern eben auch mit dem Leben der Tiere, dessen "stumm-sein" oder tierische Geräusche wir häufig mit Wohlbefinden und Dankbarkeit assoziieren.
Jessica Pierce trifft einen Nerv, der tief ins Herz geht weil die Ethik der Tierhaltung einen bitteren Beigeschmack durch den Wahrheitsgehalt bekommt.
Gerade was die Beweggründe betrifft, warum man sich für ein Haustier entscheidet. Man will Gesellschaft, einen Grund sich zu bewegen, Liebe und Zuneigung, einen Hund der hört. Alles egozentrische Gründe. Aber die wenigsten wollen ein Tier, dass autonom ist und die Bedürfnisse nach eigenem Zeitplan zum Ausdruck bringt. Wuffi ist dann nicht mehr cool, wenn die Arztrechnung vierstellig wird oder das ach so geliebte Familienmitglied einfach nicht mehr in die Lebensplanung passt weil es klein Matilda gebissen hat (weil Matilda vielleicht den Hund getriggert hat). Und prompt wird es wie 300.000 andere Haustiere jährlich in Deutschland am Wegesrand der Autobahn in die Freiheit gelassen. Wohlwissend, dass diese Tiere häufig durch die Haltung nicht mehr in der Lage sind alleine zu überleben. Und so schäumen Tierheime über. Und trotzdem kommt die neue LKW Ladung neu gefundener rumänischer Tiere in klein gepferchten Käfigen nach Deutschland. Und dann wandern die Tiere von einer Pflegefamilie zur nächsten bis sie schließlich auf dem Euthanasie Tisch in den Hinterhöfen sediert und zur letzten Ruhe gebeten werden. So sieht die Realität für viele individuelle Tiere aus. Manchen gehts gut aber manchen sehr schlecht.

Nicht jedem Haustier geht es schlecht aber auch nicht immer sehr gut. Denn wie gut kann es einem Rudeltier gehen, dass ab sofort von Sozialisation ausgeschlossen wird? Denn nur die wenigsten Tiere haben adäquaten Kontakt zu Ihresgleichen. Dessen Highlight die 5 Minuten Gassi Gänge oder der 1 Stunden Park Spaziergang ist oder für den Kakadu der 1 Meter Käfig mit Futter. Wahrscheinlich besser als Massentier gehaltenen Tieren, deren Lebenssinn am Ende nur das geschlachtet werden ist.

Das Buch ist wahnsinnig lesenswert & hat mir in einigen Bereichen der Haustierhaltung echt die Augen geöffnet.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This covers a lot of ground... from the domesticated animals that share our homes to keeping exotics, animal abuse, euthanasia in shelters & as a means of convenience killing, animal breeding, pet sales & the pet industry, trade in exotic pets & captive breeding/wild caught animals, starter pets for children (those words make me cringe :o( ) feeding our carnivorous pets, what animals are suitable for keeping & what do the kept pets get out of our relationships? Is it fair to keep pocket pets, fish & reptiles? Can we provide them with a suitable environment, proper enrichment, the ability to perform proper behaviours and a life worth living?

The more I read, the more I'm uncomfortable with keeping small 'pocket' pets, birds, fish & reptiles. I don't think the majority are living very fulfilled lives

I came away believing -that for most of us- only truly domesticated animals (dogs, cats, rabbits under very specific circumstances) should be kept as pets, and we (and I) humans need to do better by them in terms of enrichment, activity and allowing them problem solving /ability to make some of their own choices / not have their entire lives dictated by their person

[Samantha Evert · Rating 1 out of 5]

I believe that Jessica Pierce’s heart was in the right place when she wrote this book. The issue is she had plenty of logical fallacies and cognitive biases that showed up in the book making her argument weaker. The biggest offender in my opinion is her confirmation bias she has in the book. Confirmation bias is when you research something and you only look for evidence that agrees with you, without exploring the other side of the argument. On page 77 she writes “I want a veterinarian to tell me that home-cooked is better, because this is where my intuition and the bulk of my reading strongly leads.” I just have one question to ask Ms. Pierce, if multiple vets are telling you that you are wrong, have you ever stopped to think maybe you are? I would have liked this book a lot better if she had explored more positions on each topic and then come to a conclusion.

Official rating: skip it

[Sara Jane Barisic · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you want me to tell you about this book quickly: Ms. Pierce comes across as having a more lenient attitude towards "responsible" bestiality than responsible breeding. Despite acknowledging the success' of the spay and neuter programs she thinks it is time to consider other options, because "animals like sex." Honestly, Ms. Pierce was completely unqualified to write this book - a bulldozer could not have moved her from any of her opinions. It will be great reading for other people who have already made up their minds, and just want to confirm their biases. I have not read any of her other books, but she comes across less as a bioethicist and more as a lady who writes stuff from home.
It is obviously an interesting and timely topic, one that should have been (and could still be) explored by somebody else (a proper journalist, perhaps?). I will fully admit that there was one chapter I thought she did a good job on, and that was where she talks about the euthanasia classes she attended in Denver. Of course, even in the one chapter she did well in, she complained loudly and often from her high horse.
Ms. Pierce actually suggested to look things up online multiple times (puppy mills, gestation crates, etc). I also fully admit that, as somebody working in the dairy industry, I got tired of her numerous negative references to animal agriculture; that seems to be yet another topic she researched with shoddy sources and propaganda videos. The book could have been a successful exploration into this topic if she approached the whole thing like she did the euthanasia chapter, and experienced all the things she grumbled about. Go to a puppy mill and tell us about the horrors, don't tell us to google some video (we are reading a book for crying out loud, why would you tell us to stop?). Have a formal conversation with a few veterinarians instead of quoting flippant remarks. Talk to someone passionately involved with the AKC, I'm sure she would have had her mind already made up with that one, but don't assume all your readers are the same kind of biased person you are.
Overall, an absolute waste of my time. I do not recommend this book at all.

[Colette · Rating 4 out of 5]

I heard about this book on NPR and thought it sounded good, but when it came in from the library, I worried it would be too radical. It was not. There are so very few laws protecting animals from violent and often deviant owners. This book offers some very reasonable solutions to big problems animals encounter. I highly recommend it.

[Bethany · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected to have some real eye-opening experiences as a result of having read this book and I didn't get any. I feel like she touched on many arguments, but didn't delve into any of them in a meaningful way. I'm really disappointed.

[Johnny Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Slap in the face with ethics and facts that build off (what I believe are common) principles about pets and what we consider when we think of them. And then to see the shortcomings of the pet industry and the lack of attention given to animal companions' wellness. A great, illuminating, provocative book.

[Tatiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

It gave me a lot of think about. Like the sheer amount of abuse that companion animals experience and the existence of people who actively seek out animals to have sex with.

I think the moral questions of pet keeping as a hobby and the pet industry as a whole are worth thinking about seriously. And I hadnt considered the incentive, by a massive lobbying group, to keep people *wanting* pets. It just makes me think so much about how so much of what we consider normal was put there by a corporation/industry/lobbying group.

I attended a workshop type thing with a Wiccan High Priestess in college and she basically said it was unethical to keep animals in cages. I have thought this a lot since then.

The three stars are for the white liberal lens the book often deviates into especially when trying to link animal exploitation with social justice causes. I didnt like this and it often came across as immature and clumsy. There is a part where she compares mutts to mixed race people (and why we should accept the former and not the latter in a section of Pitt Bulls in shelters) and that felt like it was out of peft field.

I think this book is by and large introductory material animal rights with a specific focus on pets. She has a massive section in the back devoted to referencing what books she mentioned in her own work etc. So more titles to check out.

[Duncan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This feels like a collection of blog posts, but that isn't really a bad thing. The writing is still backed up by facts and figures. It's conversational in tone and very easy to engage with. While I already understood most of what the author presents, it has definitely opened my mind a little more to the pet industrial complex. Basically, is it ethical to have an 'animal companion'? Well first up, as I would have guessed intuitively, the author concludes that dogs are the most ethical (presuming you do everything for them correctly). But it goes very deeply into every aspect, from food to sheltering to the fact that pets are cheap but the items we buy for them are where the cost comes in. If you've never thought about pet ownership (and even if you have and want a deeper discussion) then this book is perfect to make you think twice before you buy your next goldfish.

On the downside, the author has some clear biases showing (she seems the anti-GMO anti-chemicals type), and uses the word "problematic" too much which is a red flag for me, but overall shes speaks sense. I do wonder, after all this talk about keeping pets, whether she is vegan...

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a non-fiction book about the ethics of keeping pets by American writer and bioethicist Jessica Pierce. In 48 bite-sized chapters, she covers a wide range of issues that range from the loving care of the most empathic pet owner to the cruel practices of the worst animal abusers, the financial incentives of the pet industry and everything in between. The author is not an animal activist in the traditional sense but is a pet owner herself who has wrestled with some of the questions she poses the reader and brings her own feelings and experiences to the table, alongside the science of animal behaviour coupled with a thoughtful philosophical discussion. In the last paragraph, she laments that our society at large still doesn’t take animal abuse, neglect, and abandonment seriously, and makes a call to action to correct this problem.

Pierce writes well, relating to both animals and readers, and I was fully engaged as she explored her topic. The call to action at the end is definitely the best place to end the text but it needs a little more oomph to have even a ripple effect. But it’s a good start. I read the book because I’ve had pets at various times over the years, and was interested in the deeper meaning of living with animals. I found it a fascinating, charming and disturbing book that should be read by everyone, whether they have a pet or not.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you have an animal as a pet or not, we should listen to what Pierce has to say. At the heart of the book is Pierce's challenge to the current status quo of our anthropocentric perspective towards animals as she raises significant questions towards the multi-faceted and complex moral quandary that we are in by turning animals into pets and choosing to "own" them. Her work does much to raise awareness of the issue, and should be something that we all need to consider seriously as creatures who share the planet with so many other sentient beings.

[Valerie · Rating 5 out of 5]

The ethics of companion animals is very complex!

[Lauren · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book, unfortunately, is total trash. I stopped reading it after the author decided to quote a Rage Against the Machine song (Killing in the Name) about police violence against Black people at the beginning of a chapter about euthanasia. I wish I could say that was the only racist thing the author said, but it wasn't.

Other than the casual racism, this book contains absolutely no analysis. Honestly, I was shocked to learn that the author is an actual bioethicist. She doesn't make any arguments, she just writes her thoughts about pet ownership in a blog-style format, slaps it all together, and calls it a book. It reads like she's writing down her stream of consciousness, trying to make herself feel better about having mistreated some animals in the past.

One star for writing down some half decent things to think about, but otherwise, zero stars, 0/10, and the publisher should stop printing new copies of this.

[Kathleen O'Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books which put into words many thoughts and feelings that had been germinating within my heart and mind for quite a long time. This work of practical ethics is not at all afraid to buck traditional wisdom on topics such as allowing cats some freedom to roam outside of the home, the ostensible necessity of spaying and neutering all companion animals, and the suitability of keeping reptiles, amphibians, birds, and small mammals as pets. Everyone who owns an animal or is thinking of acquiring one should read this book.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book made me think in the best way.
I felt uncomfortable reading a lot of this because it was things I had never known before or never thought of. I think this is an important book to read if you like animals or call yourself an animal activist

[carolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought-provoking but certainly biased.

[Bianca · Rating 5 out of 5]

An honest look at the ethical questions raised by pet keeping. Should be required reading for anyone living with companion animals.

[Paige · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are good points raised in this book, but unfortunately they don't get explored very deeply. This reads like a collection of personal musings by the author rather than a book. Right when you think Pierce might be going somewhere in a section, it ends abruptly. The overall theme explored - that we should take pet ownership less casually, that some animals have no business being pets at all, and that there should be stronger protections for companion animals in an economy that treats them as an entire industry and consumer goods - I agree with, but this book does a sloppy job of outlining it. Pierce has numerous instances of begging the question. For instance, she asserts that other cultures don't use euthanasia. But she doesn't tell you which cultures or the context. She asserts that the shelter system makes us feel less guilty for abandoning our animals and feel that it's no big deal, but provides no sources or survey data to support that; it's mostly her personal feelings. Other reviews have pointed out her heavy confirmation bias, and I agree. She cites how every veterinarian she's asked told her they recommend commercial pet food over homemade, and then dismisses their expertise and says she's still looking for a vet that agrees with her personal feeling that it's better for her to cook her pets food at home. She later, without any irony, writes about how her dog is overweight. She heavily implies it's better for cats to be outdoor cats than indoor cats, while noting that many cat behaviorists disagree, and noting that indoor cats live longer. So, cats live longer indoors, experts in their behavior say it's better they're indoors, but Pierce personally feels her cat is deprived of enrichment living an indoor life, so, disregard all that. (She also does not touch on the fact that outdoor cats are incredibly damaging to the local ecosystem and local bird populations.) She goes so far as to suggest that cats may gladly trade off a longer life with the freedom that comes with being allowed outside. This contradicts a lot of her points on euthanasia, where she basically says we can't decide if preventing suffering means we are doing the best thing for an animal. Her sections on euthanasia and spaying and neutering are, frankly, the bizarrest and worst parts. She says she would love euthanasia techs in shelters to simply refuse to do it, while also questioning the necessity of spaying and neutering our dogs and cats. No likes that animals get euthanized for space and behavior; the answer is to treat the underlying problems leading to the space crunch, not just a mass refusal of shelter workers to euthanize animals. The spaying and neutering section seemed, honestly, irresponsible to write. She cites some of the Scandinavian countries where it is uncommon to spay or neuter and points out they don't have stray and overpopulation problems. She doesn't elaborate much on this though, and it ignores the point that implementing all of the regulations in countries like Sweden that basically force you to be a responsible pet owner do not solve the immediate problem and means you'd still have to do a lot of spay/neuter in the short term. She also ignores that a) the Scandinavian countries appear to be an exception, not a rule, so you shouldn't generalize them as alternatives, b) In countries like Sweden, the number of dogs per capita is substantially smaller than in the US and other countries; it's a lot easier to not neuter your dog when you're simply less likely to run into another one and finally, c) the climate of Scandinavian countries in the winter is a lot more hostile to stray animals than the climate of say, Florida. A stray dog is much more likely to freeze to death. She also frames spay/neuter as a "tradeoff," while citing increased cancer risks in spayed and neutered animals, only to a few sentences later cite that spaying and neutering reduces reproductive cancers, and that spayed or neutered animals live longer. If spaying and neutering is leading to animals living longer, it's not a complicated tradeoff. It sure sounds like it's better for the animal. Finally, some of the rhetoric Pierce employs is just gross. Euthanasia of animals in shelters is not comparable to genocide and it's offensive to say it is. Animal-based insults are also not comparable to racial slurs, another assertion she makes completely seriously, and even includes them as examples, as if it was necessary to type out the n-word to make the point clear.

[Jules · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was thought-provoking, but only in a superficial sense. Pierce gave an incredibly basic overview of the current pet industry, with little new information or analysis. It was a light, surface-level read, which is not what I was expecting from a professional bioethicist.

Furthermore, this book was very much about and for white, upper-middle class Americans. Pierce admits that she restricts her analysis to the US, but she then assumes that all Americans think just like her. She approaches the issues from a white, upper-middle class mindset, and she never meaningfully discusses the diverse ideas, backgrounds, and opinions that exist in the US or how economics plays into many of these issues. It seems like, to Pierce, good pet owners already think like her and just need to be better informed, whereas bad pet owners are sadistic child abusers or sickos who have sex with their dogs. This dichotomy is obviously overly simplistic, collapsing a complex issue into a black-and-white caricature.

I read this book because I wanted to know why some people think it's OK to abuse animals, what kinds of evidence people use to argue in favor of puppy mills, what motivates someone to get a cobra, and what could motivate someone to stop buying exotic animals. I wanted to know how I could combat such beliefs in me and in others so that we could rally to change laws and regulations. Instead, the book is superficial and a little self-righteous.

[Clem Paulsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the information here is truly eye-opening. Particularly about sexual and other sadistic cruelty in such quantity and despicable quality, particularly in the US. This is crazy stuff, and is worth a book unto itself.

Additional chapters outline some of the additional horrors. Of feces and food, of abuse and abandonment. Serious and worth a read.

I'm no philosopher, but I do think the essential part of this book is a discussion of justice and cruelty in the average cases of the average dogs and cats -- really the heart of it is missing here. To change specializations wildly, there's never a solid, central proposal of which Maslow levels are available to pets. The idea of 'agency' the ability to explore, to investigate the way dogs, say, do is not the equivalent of the revelatory tip of the pyramid to correspond with the human version. How this corresponds to actual people is not discussed.

Also, it seems more than a little like an expanded book proposal. This might have been explored as a more personal way. Many of the chapters are of the 'whew I'm glad I'm over writing that' flavor.
Not to be cruel, but it seems as if written from a book proposal.

Worth it, though, if you're interested in the many -- and serious -- problems.

[Zed Lambrecht · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disturbing

Some people hate this book because Jessica Pierce presents humans' self-centered thought and behavior, cruelty, and cognitive dissonance regarding other species. Everyone I’ve given or recommended this book to has reacted negatively. Most failed to read past the blurb and beginning pages. 

This experience reminds me of discovering friends and family that are Trump supporters. I’m appalled that they refuse to consider and recognize that other species love, suffer, and possess some degree of sentience. BTW, all the people I introduced to this book own pets. 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Run, Spot, Run. The author has ethics expertise and references assertions. She vividly describes ways we fail to recognize, mistreat, slaughter, and make other species (other lives) mass-produced commodities. The different angles used in chapters promote critical introspection and shows our entanglement in a nightmare of practices. 

This book influenced me to change my behavior. It is a must-read that should become a classic, like Rachel Carson‘s Silent Spring. The only con, and it is minor, was a woo-woo part on psychic communication. Pseudoscience doesn’t fit in this scholarly work.

[Jennifer Stark · Rating 1 out of 5]

1) What did I just read.
2) I was recommended this book, under the impression that it would give me insight in later chapters on ways to improve my dogs ways of living, i.e. ways to keep them entertained, ways to stimulate their brain, etc. But, instead I found myself reading a book that covered wild topics such as, "Euthanasia is bad and not even done by professionals most of the time because I attended a class on how to euthanize animals once and we put down a chihuahua," "Spaying and neutering your dogs is equivalent to eugenics and its letting big breeder corporations win." As well as such impressive takes as, Animal insults -B!tch- are equivalent to racial slurs, in which she proceeded to use a racial slur for Jewish people and a racial slur for black people completely unprompted. These lovely takes, along with an entire chapter covering Zoophiles, and the numerous comparisons to animal treatment to the holocaust made for an interesting book.

Wouldn't recommend.

[James Midkiff · Rating 4 out of 5]

The format of this book irked me: many small chapters with as few as three pages that did not produce a cohesive book of ethics. Nonetheless, the author does bring up important considerations regarding pet keeping that have changed how I look at pet owning and the pet industry.

The pet system is build for humans' emotional benefit (as pet owners) and financial benefit (as capitalists); there has been little consideration for what our pet wants. How much of your home space is built specifically for your pet - 5%? Do you think about the animals that are killed to feed your pet? Is your pet so bored/lonely/sad that it sits around all day staring into the void or emotionally eating? Did you know half of all shelters will kill a pet to make room for a more adoptable one?

Animals are sentient being that have their own desires, social hierarchy, feelings, and autonomy - we must respect that. The most ethical choice may be to not actually own a pet.

[Eva-Marie Nevarez · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is going to take ages for me to properly review to even begin an attempt at mentioning everything I want to say. I'll still fail but my book is absolutely riddled with check marks, highlighted sentences, quickly jotted notes, etc.
For now, until I have more time, I'll just say this - READ IT.
(There are a lot of parts that are downright brutal to make it through. I almost skipped past a couple myself but I kept telling myself I'm reading these words while Jessica Pierce not only wrote and I'm sure read and reread them herself but did the research (and many times went farther than that even!) behind the words. Also I had to keep reminding myself that knowledge is power. Nothing can be changed with ignorance. So I kept on and while I'm happy I did, it's so, so, so disheartening knowing what I know now also.
READ IT. IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU KNOW.

[Endora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opening

Pierce poses a moral question: should humans keep pets and if so what should their lives be like? The pet industry is the blooming business built on the idea that everyone should own a pet; many are sold as cheap trinkets for human amusement and end up suffering terribly from neglect and abuse. She also highlights the joys and deep discoveries people make with their animal companions, presenting both sides of the argument well. This book is at times difficult to read because of the dark subject matter covered in some chapters, but should be read by anyone who longs for a better world and wonders how to go about it.

[K · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Keeping a creature as a pet is an act of domination…but because it takes place within the realm of play and pleasure and because it is cloaked in affection, this form of pathology has flown under the radar of our attention.”

This book was, at least personally, a validating and comprehensive critique of animal ownership and its moral discomforts. I think she could have been kinder towards those who work in animal-related fields (we are not all ignorant terrible murder machines) but overall I found it a helpful read.

[Ck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful book. I would recommend this to all pet parents/owners/companions as well as anyone interested specifically in animal rights, welfare, and ethics. If you're new to the topic, get ready to feel uncomfortable. If you're not new, there is likely still some new information in here for you, or aspects you may not have considered. You'll likely still feel uncomfortable from time to time. This is not a "how-to" book, though Pierce does offer and/or list some suggestions and ideas for how we can do better.

[Ben · Rating 1 out of 5]

If LLMs can produce slop, it is because works like this exist.

No depth or substance. This book took a bloviating 219 pages (excluding bibliography) to say what could be said in 10: Pet ownership is ethically ambiguous. Much of the book is dedicated to enumerating a litany of abuses and putatively benign practices that beset pets, but the author applies no depth or rigor (or consistency thereof) to this endeavor. We are left with odd anecdotes, scant evidence ("you can look it up yourself"), empty arguments, and wasted time.

[Joline · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting read. While I really appreciated the short chapters, I was left wanting more from each chapter. The writing was both easy, but lacking. I appreciate that it wasn't dense and I read it quickly compared to other nonfiction books I take a long time to get through, yes full of information and things for me to ponder and chew over. Definitely changed my future behavior as someone who participates in this industry.