We must distinguish between being a responsible pet-owner and an irresponsible one the same way we distinguish between responsibility and irresponsibility in all other aspects of our life.

For example, driving a highly fuel-efficient car as little as possible is obviously much more responsible and sustainable than driving a huge pickup truck everywhere you need to go and then some.

Owning one or two neutered/spayed shelter pets and making pet food for them from local, organic food sources is a lot more sustainable and socially responsible than owning an intact dog or cat (or several) that breeds several times over the course of its lifetime and eats packaged, antibiotic-filled crap that gets shipped here from overseas. And it is far more responsible than actually intentionally breeding dogs or cats.

So rather than eating our pets, the solution is obviously to make our pets more like Priuses and less like Ford F-350s.

Oh really?

Dogs do not self-propagate in the numbers that they do without unnatural (ie human) assistance.

But the human population continues to skyrocket without any help whatsoever from outside forces.

The whole idea of my comment is that if these people are "true" enough environmentalists to really advocate that we abolish the practice of keeping pets and instead use them for food, they ought to have the courage to take this idea to its logical conclusion and also argue that we ought to abolish the practice of having children. These book authors don't take into account the sentimental, psychological, or emotional value of pets, so why should we use sentimentality or emotion to dictate any other part of our environmental concerns? The environment would be much better off if we just stopped reproducing altogether and died out as a species. As long as we're being "painfully honest" about our pets we ought to be painfully honest about ourselves as well.

So the real question is not how we protect the environment, but why. As a person who derives a great deal of life meaning and true joy from being a companion and care provider for domesticated animals, I am not willing to sacrifice that part of my self interest for the abstract and sentimentality-free vision of "environmentalism" that the authors seem to be alluding to. Likewise this same appeal to selfless environmentalism will not persuade anyone who wants to, or has, kids. I am willing to make some great sacrifices in order to ensure that others have the opportunity to live, but those sacrifices do not include the things that make my life worth living to begin with.

So you are right. The comparison is stupid. It was meant to be. A world in which loving pet-owners put Rover on the menu in order to "save the world" makes no more sense than one in which Mom puts Baby on the menu for the same purpose.

"This criticism of keeping big, unnecessary mammals at home sparks only outrage."

When you have the guts to tell parents, to their face, this same thing about their children, then maybe rational people will pay attention to you.

I live off of $100 worth of groceries per month, most of which comes from my local organic co-op. I drive my car, a fuel-efficient compact, maybe once a week, and walk to work every day. I take the bus whenever possible. Between the five adults living in my house we have two small cars which we seldom use.

My household uses biodegradable soaps and cleaners so that we can recycle our gray water by watering our garden and indoor plants. We have a "mellow yellow" bathroom policy and use leftover gray water to flush the toilet. We only wash laundry with cold water, and hang dry what we can. Every shower I take is a maximum of three minutes in length.

We have worm compost inside and normal compost outside. We keep our temperature set at 62 or below through Minnesota's entire 9-month winter. We make the vast majority of our food from scratch, including things like apple sauce, granola, and bread. Although we aren't strict vegetarians, my household has consumed meat maybe a half dozen times over the past several months.

And I own a dog.

And I don't say all that above stuff to brag. Living simply and sustainably is a lot easier than people like to make it seem in books and on television, which I guess just makes people feel better for not doing it.

So why don't you get off your own damned high horse and get a clue. Some of us have made major lifestyle changes for the better, and we still see the value of animal companionship, especially in a world where so many animals, created solely for human profit, must suffer and die because no one is willing to make room for them in their homes.

The same way walking to work instead of driving, eating unprocessed, locally-grown foods, and living in intentional community with those around me all improve my life, so does owning a dog. And by adopting a shelter pet, I prevent the needless suffering of one of my fellow creatures, a creature which is already alive and in need of care regardless of what I do.

And unlike, say, children (the ultimate egotistical carbon footprint-creator), my dog will not grow up to generate 1,600 lbs of waste a year and spawn further offspring that will also do so.

Why is it these authors find it clever and witty to attack the carbon footprint of a dog instead of considering the fact that human reproduction is a far more serious threat to the global ecosystem? Maybe they have children of their own, precious gifts from God or some bullshit, and they're happy to poke fun at what some people find precious (pets) but not what they themselves do.

Why the hell are you advertising for her book release this way?