nowadays i have been seeing commercials about helping sad dogs and cats but what about helping starving humans beings that could one day change the third world country that they live in
What are your thoughts, would you help the animals or your fellow humans?
nowadays i have been seeing commercials about helping sad dogs and cats but what about helping starving humans beings that could one day change the third world country that they live in
Considering that whenever I watch TV I usually see commercials for both, I don't see the issue here.
I don't discriminate... I donate to neither.
^lol.
the problem with helping both is that we already do that and its getting no where
No, the problem is that when you "help" you're bailing water instead of patching the hole in the ship. In order to fix something you must first fix the cause, then the implications it made.
For example, a highly contagious disease appears in a part of the world. The VERY FIRST thing any government does is not help to cure the people (Although they do that as well) but to focus on preventing the spread of it. This is because you can spend eternity cleaning up after the mess, instead of just heading it off.
The real problem isn't the fact that dogs and cats are hurt, or that people are starving, but the causes behind these, which is human nature itself. No amount of money spent will change human nature.
I mean, honestly I'm not sure how much we're really helping. Donating to people from other countires is not really something I think we can afford to do right now. And I'm not sure how it helps them out in the long run. As for animals, we are also animals. And there are many of us suffering. I think we should focus mainly on us and have the other animals on the side as they also affect us. I mean, if I had the choice to keep a child alive, or keep a baby puppy around, I'm going with the child everytime.
but what about helping starving humans beings that could one day change the third world country that they live in
Those donations don't work most of the time. The governments are corrupt and will burn/destroy foreign aid. Accepting stuff from outside of their nation detracts from their control of the people.
I mean, if I had the choice to keep a child alive, or keep a baby puppy around, I'm going with the child everytime.
Same. When I was in elementary school, there was a fundraiser to pay for eye replacement for an abused dog. It cost $100,000. The surgery was successful, but the dog died in less than a year anyway. The whole time I was wondering, "Why didn't we donate to help a blind person?"
Those donations don't work most of the time. The governments are corrupt and will burn/destroy foreign aid. Accepting stuff from outside of their nation detracts from their control of the people.
If you really want to help, go there yourself and help the people directly. If you have the time and money for it. Or you trust an organization enough to know they're going there themselves and helping at the root of the problem. If the money is just sent there, you don't know where it ends up.
If you want to help animals, just call Brigitte Bardot for help. She hates humans and, as she said, would have preferred to have given birth to a dog than to her son...
If you really want to help, go there yourself and help the people directly. If you have the time and money for it. Or you trust an organization enough to know they're going there themselves and helping at the root of the problem. If the money is just sent there, you don't know where it ends up.
Those donations don't work most of the time. The governments are corrupt and will burn/destroy foreign aid. Accepting stuff from outside of their nation detracts from their control of the people. the problem with helping both is that we already do that and its getting no where
the donations are not used how they should be. why do you think are the companys that "helps" other are so big and rich?
I always thought Sam Kinison was on to something when he said to stop sending starving children money and food but instead to send them a uhaul and luggage so they can move to where the food is. Honestly, I'm pretty apathetic towards animals and humans alike.
i'll slaughter a starving goat to feed a starving human, tada suffering eliminated
Except goats eat everything so you'll never find a starving goat, Id teach the man to milk it myself and feed himself. I feel that is the problem with these organizations is that they kill a cow and give the meat to the third world nations when they could give them the whole cow and use it to produce milk. Heck give them a herd so they can have beef and milk when they want it.
What are your thoughts, would you help the animals or your fellow humans?
I wonder if a better question would be to consider the moral obligations of each. Maybe we have an obligation to reduce the suffering of other species because their suffering is, to a large extent, our doing. But helping preserve our own species seems like a prima facie good. I dunno - are these two different kinds of ethical obligation?
Look at you, Moe! Trying to strike up some intellectual conversations in the WEPR. If you can manage it, kudos to you. I've tried many a time before having to walk away from it all. It's sad, really. I've (begrudgingly) come to terms with the fact that where great debates, discussions and hypothetical situations created to look deep into yourself used to prance, only belligerent skullduggery and incompetence roams.
Oh well.
Right, there was a topic at hand!
Animal. We owe it to them. For thousands of year of extinctions caused by our invasion of natural habitats for greedy reasons. Besides, I know no matter what I do, 4 little pink, squealing things are going to be popped into this world and further put a strain on our finite resources. Every. Two. Seconds.
There was a post that was JUST THERE, except when I log in, it's gone. I blame Voidy.
Despite animals not being as intelligent as us humans, it does not imply that they are less significant in the biosphere. We are all part of the food web(or food domino. It sounds more fun). If one species goes endangered or extinct, that puts a strain on one or more species. The strain may be so great that part of the net just...snaps (or if you're still on the domino analogy, the domino tips over, knocks into other dominos and before you know it, you have a fast-paced version of how life will be snuffed out).
So while we have nearly 6 billion people and roughly half a billion are directly causing progression (or will be), there are thousands upon thousands of species that must be preserved in order to continue to bring balance to the force. Of nature.
