Close
today i learned (til)

Your All In One Companion

April 26, 2026

Regardless of time or location, entertainment has always thrived because people instinctively seek ways to take care of their mental well-being. Unlike robots, humans need to rest. It’s not just about physical relaxation, but also emotional recovery. Some people empty their minds through sports. Others escape into alternative reality in books, movies, or games. Some enjoy spending their time alone, while others seek kinship and companionship. However, what happens when other people (even family and friends) are the sources of their problems?

For many, the answer is pets! Pets offer different types of comfort through companionship. But how did this relationship start?

 

The First Pets

According to National Geographic, domestication first started around 10,000-12,000 years ago in the Middle East; humans started to grow wild plants that are useful for food and clothing (‘National Geographic”, n.d). As the idea spread across Europe, Africa, and other continents, useful animals were chosen to be bred and domesticated. Dogs and horses helped in hunting and transportation. Sheep, goats, and cows provide high-valued products. Domestication makes life easier – and not so long later, survival is no longer the only goal.

As civilization advanced, the relationship between humans and animals shifted. Aside from those still used in wars like horses and elephants, domesticated animals such as dogs moved from hunting tasks to guarding home. Cats, interestingly, might have chosen humans first. Around 7,500 years ago, cats moved into human villages because they liked the good source of rodents. Eventually, humans embraced the idea because they found cats less destructive than previous pest control animals such as weasels or stoats (Holz, 2021). In some cultures such as ancient Egypt, cats (and their relatives) were even associated with divinity, royalty, or nobility. In a way, it feels like cats domesticated humans, not the other way around. 

 

Pets in Recent Decades

With urbanization and advanced technology, humans no longer need animals for survival tasks. We have security technology instead of dogs, traps against rodents work as efficiently as cats, and mail delivery which works with more accuracy than messenger birds. Yet, why would pets still be found around the neighborhood and inside houses? Pets remain for their companionship and emotional support.

In general, continuity plays a role. If someone’s great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents have been growing up with pets, they likely will too. The descendants of those pets likely become that person’s siblings. In a study done by Leora Lawton, a researcher from University of California, 97% of pet owners in the United States see their pets as family members (2025). Humans have lived with them for way too long to part ways. After thousands of years together, pets are now part of the family.

 

Pets in 20th Century and Beyond

Today, pets can fill in the absence of household members. They can substitute for the lack of a partner, children, siblings, or guardians as social companions and emotional support (Lawton, 2025). This is rather important as different types of households only get more diverse over time. Among pet owners, many of them are families with children where pets can comfort, protect, and teach them just like an older sibling or a guardian. However, when raising children has become an expensive luxury, pets are the affordable substitutions (but not exactly without parenthood duties!). In particular, households without children such as single adults or couples cannot have children treat pets as children or an understanding companion (Lawton, 2025). The boundary between human and pet is now blurry.

As more humans view pets as family, the concern about their wellness has grown. Surprisingly, this idea has been going around for a while. Just like humans, there are clinics, shelters, and adoption centers for pets. There were an increasing number of spaces designated for pets, such as streets and dog parks (Lawton, 2025). Grocery stores and even restaurants now allow pets to be inside and offer healthy food options. Pet (usually cat) cafes are also gaining popularity. First store opened in Taiwan in 1998, then to Japan, other Asian countries and spread to the rest of the world (Lawton, 2025). They are cafes that provide interactions with pets, and for some, work as an adoption center. Pets’ health is being taken care of by those that love them, and their presence always has a place in society.

 

Pets and Their Owners

Research also suggests that pets improve physical and mental health. Martins and colleagues from Portugal researched how pets improve quality of life. Data from 49 of their studies conclude that pets influence their owners’ physical activity. In particular, owners show a higher frequency of physical activity than non-owners (Martins et al., 2023). Increasing physical activities are strongly linked with improving the owners’ mental wellness.

Different pets have different lifestyles. Dogs are social animals, so they fit well in families with children or individuals who participate in regular activities. Most cats are independent and like to be indoors, leaving owners with flexible career choices (Lawton, 2025). Mixed-pet households (most common is cat and dog), usually happen when two households with pets become one family. These pets and their interaction bring enormous joy to other family members.

Unfortunately, many people cannot own pets due to career, finance, housing, or not having energy to take care of another living being. Much like children, pets cannot take care of themselves and require a fitting environment. Pets have personalities and preferences too! For these people, they can cope by different means. Alternative choices are pet cafes, caring for stray animals, or even watching animal videos. Some studies suggest that pet videos and images may influence mental health via modulation of emotion processing (Zhu et al., 2026). In fact, there are many young people who were inspired by these contents to adopt pets. Fortunately, educational videos help introduce responsibilities of pet owners, reducing the risk of pet negligence and abandonment.

 

Afterthought

Every semester, Georgia Tech hosts a pet therapy event in collaboration with GT parents and their pups. That was a very considerate gesture to students with stressful academic life who cannot keep pets in dorms. These events highlight how pets are powerful contributors to mental wellness.

Though dogs and cats are the most common companions, nowadays pets can be any legal animals – birds, reptiles (snake, lizards), fish, horse, or even spiders! The list went on and there’s always at least one that would surprise you. The bonding between the human and that animal can be formed not just based on their species, but rather their connection and understanding of one another. If you ever own a pet, or if a pet chooses you, which one do you imagine it would be?

 

References:

Holz, S. (2021, March 23). Animal House: Pets of the ancient world. Sarah Holz. https://sarahholz.com/2021/03/23/animal-house-pets-of-the-ancient-world/

Lawton, L. E. (2025). All in the family: Pets and family structure. Populations, 1(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/populations1020008

Martins, C. F., Soares, J. P., Cortinhas, A., Silva, L., Cardoso, L., Pires, M. A., & Mota, M. P. (2023). Pet’s influence on humans’ daily physical activity and Mental Health: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1196199

National Geographic. (n.d.). Domestication origins. Education. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/domestication-origins/

YukiKoKo. (2010). Dog and Cat. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dog_and_cat_(4985392932).jpg.

Zhu, X., Shi, X., Liang, J., Sun, B., Lin, W., & Lin, J. (2026). The impact of pet videos on emotional face processing. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 16(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe16020021

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The Cost of Cutting Your Crusts
today i learned (til)
Venomous Viperidae
today i learned (til)
What’s Making That Smell? The Chemistry Behind Common Scents
today i learned (til)
Illegal Substances vs. Neurological Disorders: The Showdown

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.