Dog or cat?
The first was domesticated before the birth of agriculture: its survival was, and is linked to our presence.
The second is a friend of man since the invention of agriculture: defending the house and barns from mice and other intruders, and is, therefore, more territorial and tied to the house in a physical sense.
Both have amazing cognitive and social skills skills (here a comparison between dogs and cats in various fields).
Certainly, the presence of both is beneficial to physical and mental health.
Who owns a pet has more solid social relationships and altruistic behavior.
And children who grow up next to a dog are more protected against infection.
Single or in pairs?
Okay, we are often not the ones to choose from.
But both situations there are pros and cons from a scientific point of view.
Numerous research associate with being married to a lower risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and respiratory problems (especially for men).
A better economic situation (given by the double salary) and a stronger network of social relationships can provide for those making a couple a long time better health.
At the same time stressful relationships are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular problems; stay in couple makes you fat (because you are cooking more and do less movement); and who is single, has a good job and it is surrounded by friends he has nothing to envy to those who sports a wedding ring.
Children yes, or no children?
Again, it is not always a decision for us to take.
But scientifically speaking, couples with or without children are happier?
According to research by the Open University (UK), the happiest ties are, surprisingly, those without children.
Couples without children avoid voltage land and have more time to focus on common interests and leisure.
Regardless of the success of the relationship, however, the most happy and contented women are those with children (while fathers than men without children, say they are a bit 'less satisfied by the sexual point of view).
Vegetarians (or vegan) or carnivores?
There is no doubt about which is the best option from an environmental perspective: 32% of greenhouse gas emissions come from animal farms, and it takes 15,500 liters of water to produce 1 kg of beef.
There are, however, large portions of land used as pastures, but not as fields; and growing livestock industries are working to become more sustainable.
As for health, several studies link the consumption of large amounts of red meat and processed at the risk of tumors.
Not worth the same, however, for white meat or fish.
A possible intermediate solution lies in reducing the consumption of meat and prioritize those skinny, white or fish; and maybe, become a vegetarian for at least one day a week.
Spend or save?
Scrape together every penny, because you never know, or indulge a whim every now and then?
The money really buy happiness?
A Princeton University study, led by none other than Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002), states that yes, the level of happiness increases along with income (and with the level of quality of life), but only up to a ceiling of 60,000 Euros per year.
After that amount, increase stress and sadness.
A Canadian study found that spending for others provides greater happiness than spending the same amount for himself.
Similarly, delaying the moments when you spend makes doing so is considered a "small defect" that we treat ourselves, and it is therefore more enjoyable.
Last rule: spend time and experience is more satisfying than spending on material objects.
City or country?
What is a national park or a field of fruit trees not matter: many studies linking the elapsed time outdoors with greater physical and mental wellbeing.
Those who live in the city is more prone to developing anxiety and mood disorders, but has a brain that tolerate stress better.
It may be more prone to lung disease, but more available cognitive stimuli and situations to satisfy their social life.
From an environmental point of view, the comparison between town and country is anything but obvious
Social, yes or no?
On the fact that a long session on Facebook is preferable to a chat face to face we all agree.
But what does science say about the use of social media?
On the one hand, there are benefits as stay in touch with distant friends, and be updated on events to attend in person.
On the other hand, a massive and "passive use" of the company (just looking at the photos and others' status, without posting anything about ours) can lead to a sense of inadequacy and loneliness (since others generally tend to post positive information) .
A study at the University of Michigan argues that veer to the active use of social media can cancel this unpleasant feeling.
While it may encourage narcissistic behavior.

From Focus