The Science of Why Cats are Better than Dogs

The Science of Why Cats are Better than Dogs
March 30th, 2010

A brave ailurophile speaks out: History, art, science, and language all look down on dogs

Our editor here at Utah Stories Magazine is an incredible, industrious, and talented man. But let's face it: he has a pretty twisted and embarrassing fetish.

We all try to smile and nod when it comes up around the office, but it always leads to awkward moments where we look down nervously at the floor waiting for the pain to pass. To be perfectly honest, I feel sorry for him, since it doesn't seem like he can help it. I suppose some people are just born with defects that lead them to this type of awful, incurable dementia.

Richard prefers dogs to cats, and I'm very sad to report that his prognosis. . . is terminal.

Our resident felines muse contemplatively near a photo
of their noble ancestor

When he asked me to write an entry for this month's "pet column," I told him I'd only do it on the condition that I would be free to speak the truth.

In the 21st century, claiming the superiority of canines is like claiming that the earth is flat. History, art, science, and even the very language we speak is overwhelmingly on the side of cats. I myself am privileged to enjoy the sophisticated company of two feline roommates and could spend all day telling you of the superlative pleasures of their dignified company, but let us briefly examine some more dramatic examples:

How can one forget that the Egyptians worshiped cats as gods and then marvel at how amazing and productive their civilization was? Contrast this to the barbaric savages in Europe who called cats witches and then slaughtered them for sport. Is it any wonder they were overrun by plague-ridden vermin that sent them spinning into a millennia-long Dark Age?

Even the Bible uses "cur" as profanity and makes frequent reference to the disgusting practice of dogs devouring their own vomit. Dare you argue against divine condemnation? Likewise, we all know what it means when someone uses the unsavory epithet that denotes a female dog--it's definitely not a compliment!

Still not convinced? The scientists at the University of Texas at Austin have proven that dog people are weird:

"To love cats," one researcher writes about his latest findings, "you have to be able to love things for themselves; they have their own life, they aren't necessarily dependent on you. Your dog kind of lives for you."

The definitive argument on this subject was written in 1926 by the brilliant author, philosopher, and passionate ailurophile H.P. Lovecraft, who is arguably the most prolific writer in American history.

Lovecraft writes,

We own a dog -- he is with us as a slave and inferior because we wish him to be. But we entertain a cat -- he adorns our hearth as a guest, fellow-lodger, and equal because he wishes to be there. It is no compliment to be the stupidly idolised master of a dog whose instinct it is to idolise, but it is a very distinct tribute to be chosen as the friend and confidant of a philosophic cat who is wholly his own master and could easily choose another companion if he found such a one more agreeable and interesting.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts. At this point, though, I don't think there is much left to say.