Anyone else find equating pets and animals with humans to be rather strange?

[quinnox]

To me, humans are above our pets, or animals in general. I think PETA and other animal rights organizations that try and put all of this on the same level is well, really goofy. I mean, if a human child was drowning, and your dog Fido, would you really go after and save Fido, instead of the human, even if it was a stranger's child? That kind of thinking is alien to me.

[JaneyVee]

1. Depends on which human is drowning. Child yes, Limbaugh no.

[Go Vols]

2. Yes

I find it quite strange.

[CJCRANE]

3. Some religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism

put humans and animals on the same level.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Humans are merely one species of animal among many.

And quite possibly will end up being just another evolutionary dead-end if we don't start putting our environmental house in order.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Yeah, but then PETA also protested Manhattan's attempt to get rid of rats.

It's extremism, AFAIAC.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Depends on the type of pet and whether it was mine.

I'd save my dogs, but not somebody else's lizard, for instance. And if it was 'save my dog' or 'save Dick Cheney', for instance, there wouldn't even be a hesitation. Cheney would be on his own.

My dogs are essentially my foster children as far as I'm concerned. I'd run back into my house to try and save them if it was on fire. I prioritize money for vet bills over money for my own medical treatment. I've needed a crown on a molar for over a year now, but keep ending up having to pay for expenses for the furkids, so I've still got a gaping hole in that tooth where a large filling disintegrated.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. You'd save one of your pets in preference to drowning child? Really?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. As far as I'm concerned

my dogs are my children. So it would be 'my child' against 'someone else's child'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. You do know that you're objectively wrong, don't you?

"As far as I'm concerned" doesn't cut it. Your dogs are *not* your children, they matter less than children, and letting a child die to save one would be unforgivably selfish and evil.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Shrug.

You have your moral hierarchies, I have mine. I'll save humans where I can, as I can (and have spent a number of years of my life training specifically to do so), but I don't pretend to believe that being human makes any human automatically 'better' or 'more important' than other species. We're simply more flexible predators who can outperform other species.

Human-centrism ranks right up there with 'the earth is the center of the universe' thinking.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Mind-centrism, not human-centrism.

The reasons humans matter and have rights is because of our minds.

If we ever meet aliens with minds on a par with ours, they will have the same rights as us.

Animal minds are not sufficient to justify giving them rights.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. That's a matter of choosing your defining line.

'on a par with ours'. A number of non-human species have minds 'on a par' with toddler humans. Or don't you consider human toddlers worth saving either?

[sabrina 1]

76. How do you feel about our policy of droning human beings, then?

Essentially while I love my animals, I would save a child over even my most beloved animal, which is why I find our Drone Wars to be absolutely unconscienable, and the term 'collateral damage' referring to all the children we kill with our drones, as so despicable I cannot find words to describe my feelings about those who otoh, claim to care about human life, yet will support anything their government does on the other, incucluding the killing of other human beings.

[AnalystInParadise]

117. LOL

who could not have predicted this response..............To quote Red Leader........Stay on Target

[ronnie624]

133. And who couldn't have predicted your non-response?

To quote the fake patriot: "USA! USA! USA!"

[closeupready]

174. Excellent point, Sabrina.

[Lizzie Poppet]

90. That standard is entirely arbitrary.

Relative mental complexity may well be a valid measure of what "matters more" and what creatures have rights to you, but that's your subjective and arbitrary standard for ascribing those values. It's perfectly valid...for you. That standard might be meaningless to someone else.

[hfojvt]

74. you do know that is what we all do?

All pet owners.

I have three dogs. Thus, I spend about $400 a year to feed them, another $100 a year for vet bills and another $50 a year to register them with the city, and even more if they get sick.

In theory, I could donate that money to the Eliminate project, with $1.80 that project will provide three shots to save a life from neo-natal tetanus. Instead of saving those 250 lives, I feed and care for my dogs. Some 2.6 million children die of hunger each year. I could be donating that $450 to help save some of those lives.

Although I might cynically note that the CEO of "Feeding America" (for example) makes some $524,000 a year. So my $550 would barely pay for two hours of her salary. Supposedly less than 3% of their money goes to administration and promotion, but it still seems to me that the CEO could feed a lot of hungry people by taking a $200,000 pay cut.

Maybe she feels like she already has, and that she SHOULD be making $700,000 a year. But heck, I would consider $300,000 to STILL be too much money.

Anyway, feeding my dogs versus feeding starving children is the natural course of pet ownership. Does that make pet owners awful people? Worse than people who take vacations or buy video games instead of donating that money to feed starving humans?

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. Objectively?

[avebury]

87. You equate all people on the same level but not

all people are equal. Would you save Adolph Hitler has a child (knowing that he would grow up to send millions of people to death camps?) Or Stalin knowing that he would send millions to the gulags? Or Bin Laden knowing that he would be the architect of 9-11?

You cannot predict that a child would grow up to be a force for good or a force for evil.

[HangOnKids]

25. Lots of education it appears

Yet dogs are your children? Get back to me when you parent a human one.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I never will.

There are already far too many humans on the planet as it is. Increasing the human headcount at this point in time is irresponsible.

[HangOnKids]

33. But you call your dogs your children

You are very silly.

[tabasco]

81. It is very stupid to denigrate another person

for having a different opinion.

[Feral Child]

146. Judgmental nonsense.

Do you want to make other decisions for the rest of us? Perhaps you'd like to make all of our decisions.

[OwnedByCats]

148. Most pet owners

Consider their pets like their children. This is not an unusual thing. It's not weird, it's an extremely popular point of view. They are taken care of like small children, and some would argue that dogs and cats have the mentality of toddlers - some even smarter than that, service dogs for example. Pets are a part of the family, you disagree, that's your business. You live your life your way, everyone will live theirs the way they want.

What I do think is weird, and I've seen this happen, is when someone looks at a material possession, such as a car, as their child or their "baby" unless they're joking. That is messed up IMO.

[Orrex]

151. "Most pet owners consider their pets like their children"

When such pet owners also have actual children, I wonder how the children like being on equal footing with the cat that their mom found in the alley behind the garage.


I can't help imagining an exchange along these lines:

"Welcome to the parent/teacher conference. I'm sorry to say that Jimmy has trouble interacting with other children. Does he have any siblings?"

"Yes, we have two cats and an iguana."

[OwnedByCats]

154. Ok smarty

Just so you know - when I was a kid, my mother considered the pets her babies - didn't bother me. I was an only child too, but just because my "siblings" were pets, I was perfectly able to interact with other children and make friends.

Were we all on equal footing? No idea because I never put expectations on my mother like "If all of us were drowning, who would you save first?". Just stupid to even imagine such a ridiculous scenario that would never happen. Just as ridiculous as asking a parent, if you do have human siblings, which one of their children they'd save first.

[Orrex]

157. Your framing is incorrect.

Just as ridiculous as asking a parent, if you do have human siblings, which one of their children they'd save first.

No, that's only true if we accept as an article of faith the claim that pets are to be valued as highly as actual children. Your framing assumes the very claim of equality that's at issue, and that's circular reasoning.

That fallacy is always invoked by the people who claim that their pets are their children.

[OwnedByCats]

163. Whatever

You believe what you want, others will believe different.

To my knowledge we're all still allowed to believe what we want, as you are.

It's wrong for you to think you have any power over what people choose to believe just because you don't agree.

You don't think of pets as children, if you have any, that's your business. At the end of the day as long as your good to them, I don't give a shit if you don't consider them children.

[Orrex]

164. That framing is also incorrect

To my knowledge we're all still allowed to believe what we want, as you are.

It's wrong for you to think you have any power over what people choose to believe just because you don't agree.

Nowhere have I claimed power to dictate others' beliefs. I have taken issue with the claim that pets are as important as actual chldren, because that claim has merely been asserted; it has not been supported.

Believe whatever you want. As long as it doesn't harm anyone, I couldn't care less.

[OwnedByCats]

166. Not supported to your mind

and that's fine.

I'm probably the wrong person to discuss this with. I personally can't say if a pet would as important as my child (I can't have children and most likely never will have them). They are only like my kids because I don't have kids. However, if I did have kids, I would still consider the pets part of the family. Some people claim their pets are as important as their children (or more important, which that I would find strange), you'd need to ask them why.

[Orrex]

167. See, that sounds entirely reasonable to me

In her later years my mother described her many cats as "like her children." Since it was clear that she was speaking metaphorically, it wasn't an issue, and my sisters and I weren't offended.

If someone without children invests that level of emotion in a pet, then that's their business, and it shouldn't really be an issue for anyone else. This appears to be your situation.

Some people claim their pets are as important as their children (or more important, which that I would find strange), you'd need to ask them why.

That's it, exactly. In several of the current threads, people have actually stated that they would kill another human being who threatened their pets. This seems grossly irrational to me, and I can't imagine how they justify that level of hair-trigger violence.

Also, many people claim that their pets are as important as children, but they balk at "what would you do?" questions. In practice, it seems that what they really mean is that their pets are as important as other people's children except when actually called upon to prove it, which is to say that they aren't actually as important.

Your position is actually much more reasonable than you initially framed it to be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

192. Hair trigger?

I'm pretty sure saying in advance that you'd employ lethal force against someone who threatened your family (and obviously they would consider those non-humans family members to be willing to do so) is not employing 'hair trigger' violence. It's a straightforward statement that they literally do consider said 'pets' as family, and that they're willing to employ lethal force to defend family members. It's a statement that they actually believe what they're saying, and not merely being 'metaphorical' about pets as family.

[Orrex]

208. That once again assumes the conclusion

You assume that pets are equivalent to actual family members, which is the exact question at issue, and you declare the matter settled. I'm not saying that you personally believe this; I'm addressing your current circular framing.

Tell you what: kill someone who threatens your dog and only your dog, and see how the court reacts. We're not talking about a deputized police dog, nor a highly trained service animal. Just a garden variety mutt. Kill the person who threatens the animal and let me know if the judge throws out your murder charge, praising you for protecting your family.

Additionally, these noble protectors aren't reacting in a moment of duress: they're declaring in advance their intent to kill anyone who threatens their animals.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

211. You're addressing a different issue there.

I'm perfectly aware that society as a whole does not consider my pets in the same way I do. And the legal profession in particular, given how many pets have been pointlessly murdered by police in this country over the years.

In re your last sentence - that was exactly the point I was making. The 'violence' in question was not a matter of 'hair trigger', as you first characterized it. It was a decision made in advance, to protect someone they considered family with up to lethal force if necessary.

I certainly wouldn't go immediately to lethal force based on a threat whether the person threatened had 2 feet or 4, or was even myself. Nurses are trained to de-escalate situations, as police should be too. On the other hand, somebody that kills any member of my family had better be willing to kill me as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

196. important is an individually chosen decision.

Anti-abortion foes consider their fight 'important'. Ditto pro-choice folks.

Conflicts exist both inside groups and between groups because each individual rates different things as 'important, or as 'more important' or 'less important'.

If you don't wish to believe people when they tell you what they consider to be important to them, then you're not really having a dialogue. You're merely suggesting that you do not believe things they say. Which is certainly your prerogative, but you have no real basis on which to base such an assertion if you don't know much about the individual in question.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

187. My parents referred to their dog Axel as my brother.

And would off and on mistakenly call me Axel while speaking to me, or call him by my name.

So I guess my viewpoint is generational in our family...

[Orrex]

190. I admit that "Axel Ploodaxe BSN" does sound pretty cool.

[HangOnKids]

168. Lots of assumptions in your post

Did I use the words unusual or weird? No I did not. Did I say pets are not part of a family? No I did not. Did I ask you what you think is weird? No I did not.

[OwnedByCats]

170. Doesn't matter

You think it's silly for people to consider pets their children, maybe even regardless of their reasons.

What if they have no children, just pets? Is that ok in your mind, or do you still think that is silly?

[HangOnKids]

173. Maybe that should have been your response to my post

It would have made more sense.

[OwnedByCats]

175. Well to be honest

I was responding to you and the OP in general, hence why there were so many assumptions.

[HangOnKids]

177. Hey Cats Are Cool

I have two rescue cats slumbering on my couch as I type. Take care.

[joeglow3]

155. And there aren't too many dogs?

Adopt a child out of the foster system

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

191. If I ever wanted to take personal responsibility for another human

that's exactly how I'd go about it, just as any future companion animals will likewise be adoptees.

[krawhitham]

103. Does a child rank higher than adult in your moral code?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. Sort of

The abstract "save-from-drowning" question is obviously silly and counterfactual - for one thing, I'm a lousy swimmer.

But society genuinely has to make choices like this when it comes to deciding who gets organ transplants and who doesn't, and I think that life expectancy is one of the criteria those decisions should be made on, so in that sense the answer to your question is "yes".

I wouldn't say in as many words "the life of a child is worth more than that of an adult". But given the choice of which one to give the life-saving heart to, all else being equal I'd choose the child, provided it's healthy, and for most practical purposes that's probably indistinguishable from saying "your life is worth more". Worth the same per day-to-come, but likely to involve more days.

[4Q2u2]

181. Foster Child?

Let me know how that Foster Child will be cooking your meals and changing your adult diapers when you are old?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

194. I'm not sure that was nested under mine

The lines are long and sometimes confusing. But if it was a reply to mine, I don't expect to be 'taken care of' when I'm old. If I find myself becoming unable to care for myself, I will 'take care of' that issue myself. I've already got my DNR paperwork, and I'm investigating leaving my body to a 'body farm' to be used for forensic science.

[Tikki]

6. I was never taught that people are above animals….so, NO.

We are pretty much all here for the same reason…We evolved the way we are.
..Natural Selection, survival of the fittest and all...

Tikki

[petronius]

8. I think about that sometimes - I honestly don't know which I would choose

between my cat and some random kid. I know I'm supposed to choose the kid, but when I close my eyes and imagine it the visceral response is a bit less clear-cut. (Maybe I should toss my cat in a pool to find out if she can swim or not - if she can, I could rescue the kid with more confidence... )

[Aerows]

37. Most cats are excellent swimmers.

They just don't *LIKE* to do it.

[qazplm]

64. I love my cat to pieces

but if it's her or a random human, I save the human.

Humans DO matter more...doesn't mean animals don't matter, but the idea that human, dog, bug, horse, squirrel are all the same? Absolutely silly.

[Lizzie Poppet]

89. I'd almost certainly do just the opposite.

What "matters" more is a subjective evaluation. The vast majority of humans on earth mean less (a lot less) to me than my cat. A human I don't know has no special meaning for me, and I wouldn't place them above a creature I love dearly just because their DNA is a bit more similar to my own.

[oldhippie]

94. I'm with you. nt

[FrodosPet]

109. I am just the opposite

EVERY human being - even the ones that detest me and want me dead, have a special meaning to me. At the least, my obligation in life is to wish them well and not to impede their success in life, as long as they are not a predator. And if even the smallest action, a smile, a friendly hello, whatever can make their life a bit better, bonus. Donate a kidney? Sure, no problem. I had a spare. Car is rolling down the street, flames shooting from beneath? Absolutely I'm whipping around to see if I can help (thank goodness I did not need to - he got stopped and out safely).

[Lizzie Poppet]

128. I respect that. A lot.

I'm not built that way, but I definitely respect and admire your take. I'm actually pretty generous and friendly...I just don't really connect to people easily. Those I do connect with, I'd die for. But it's uncommon for me ...

[snooper2]

162. what about a furry?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

197. That center one is one damn fine outfit.

Really good work, especially on getting the face much more anatomically correct than the rest.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Do you think sentient animals have no rights?

Further, if tomorrow we discovered that some species of dolphins were at least as sentient as we are, would you be willing to grant them the same rights as we grant humans?

And further if your claim is that the lower consciousness levels of highly conscious non-human animals is justification for denying them rights, does that claim extend to humans with lower consciousness?

I'd save a child first, but I would also strive to save the dog, even at the risk of my own life, because I recognize a dog as a sentient being in a perilous situation. But that is not really an interesting situation. Slaughtering sentient animals by the hundreds of millions is an interesting ethical issue.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. I tend to think cetaceans already should have more rights

than they have atm, although in a similar argument someone said 'rights' was not the word I should be using. Hunting them or killing them should certainly be illegal; ditto keeping them as 'entertainment'. The California bill to end SeaWorld 'orca shows' is a definite step forward.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. And that law is part of the gradual recognition that "rights" are not exclusive to humans.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I think they should have legal protections, but that's not quite the same thing as rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sentient".

If we discovered a species of animal as *intelligent* as we are then yes, it should have the same rights as humans, but there are no such animals within several light years, if anywhere.

I can't articulate the distinction between "legal protections" and "rights" at this time of night - I may be wrong about there being one - but I think it has something to do with the fact that with animals "the greater good" trumps "the rights of the individual", whereas with humans it's the reverse - culling a population of animals to ensure an ecosystem remains healthy is a good thing; killing a human and using their organs for transplants to save two lives is a bad one.

Added on edit: to partially answer the bit about less intelligent humans: one of the most important rights is the right to make your own choices; I, and I think almost everyone else, think that children and the severely mentally handicapped should not have that right.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Are you sure about this:

If we discovered a species of animal as *intelligent* as we are then yes, it should have the same rights as humans, but there are no such animals within several light years, if anywhere.

I'm not. New discoveries on animal consciousness keep piling up. "theory of mind" tests, for example, which were once thought to be a good way to objectively distinguish between human consciousness and other animals, are now being passed by quite a few non-human creatures, including some birds.

But lets assume that we are at consciousness level 8, and the best that any of the other critters on this planet can do is a 7. These sevens have no right to the pursuit of happiness? Why? And if it is simply level of consciousness, then do our humans who fall to a 7 also lose all their rights? And if not then is the critical difference just "we are humans and you aren't"? And if it is, then what happens when a level 9 shows up?

[truth2power]

99. Dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror. n/t

[AcertainLiz]

101. I assume what some mean

is that animals cannot take responsibilities like taxes and civic duty, etc and cannot vote, so thus they don't deserve equal rights with human beings.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

131. The difference between human and animal intelligence is massive and qualitative.

It's not just "7 vs 8".

The most intelligence I've seen animals demonstrate are probably Sue Savagh-Rumbaugh's chimps, who (judging by the youtube videos, which are extraordinarily impressive and entertaining, and well worth a watch) are about on a par with three-year-olds. And they're truly extraordinary by animal standards - I doubt if there are animals that haven't been specifically taught by humans that are capable of even that level of thought.

Humans who are mentally incapable, either through youth or disability, do indeed not have a lot of the rights the rest of us have - notably, the right to make decisions for themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

147. Well there was Alex the Parrot who made jokes, played word games

combined words to make new words and otherwise exhibited a disturbingly acute verbal facility. While you can claim all you want that the difference is "massive" but even then you are stuck with chimps overlapping three year old humans, and we are back to do three year old humans have no rights? They have rights. So do chimps, by the way, as demonstrated by the increasing legal protections being afforded chimps with respect to medical testing.

[quinnox]

30. Not sure what you mean by rights

It sounds like you do subscribe to that model of humans and pets all on the same level. But to me, animals don't have "rights". That is a concept that humans give to each other. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to vote. We have the right to petition the court for grievances. We have the right to be free from unreasonable searches. Etc. I would not say the same for animals.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Animals do have rights.

Animals have the right to not be treated with extreme cruelty.

But you are avoiding the question of why we give humans rights beyond "don't torture them". What is it about "humans" that we think distinguishes them from other animals such that humans should have these greater rights?

Is it simply speciism?

If tomorrow sentient space aliens from Alpha Centauri arrived and started living among us would they have none of these greater rights? Would it be ok to put them in pens and raise them for slaughter and eat them?

[quinnox]

56. I agree animals should not be subject to cruelty. But to me, that is just practicing good morals

And you can put me down as a believer in "Speciesism", that is fine with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Regarding the extraterrestrial scenario, I think that is not something to worry about. If any aliens come here, they will be the ones enslaving the human race, if they wanted to. They will be far, far advanced from us in technology. Just to get here, they would probably know how to do worm hole stuff and all kinds of things that to us, would be like magic.

[qazplm]

67. I dont believe a cow is sentient

by any meaningful definition of the word.

There are a handful of animals for which such an argument can be made, and thus, I'd be behind not killing those animals and I'm behind not abusing any animal and better conditions for the animals we do use for food.

But at the end of the day, a dog does not equal a human in any way. That doesn't mean a few animals aren't sentient or that they don't have some degree even of rights (or should have) but barring MAYBE the dolphin (and even then I'm skeptical) I don't find any animal equivalent to a human.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You can thank Aristotle for that thinking

and it is getting us in all kinds of trouble to be honest. I mean that.

We need to start seeing ourselves as part of the ecology not outside of it. And that includes respecting our pets.

[pipoman]

115. I see nobody suggesting disrespecting our pets

Just placing the life of a human above theirs. Most human existence contributes to society in some meaningful way, over many decades. Their family and friends mourn them for a lifetime in some cases.

Most pets contribute to a family for 10..15 years, is mourned for a week or two, is fondly remembered for a lifetime, and is replaced by another loving pet.

[butterfly77]

11. Yes..

You are going to have a hard time on this subject. Some years ago I had many discussions with DUers who said if they saw a child or a dog in danger they would save the dog.

I've also had some tell me that they think that dogs and other animals should be fed and taken care of over humans. I am waiting for some of the responses.

[hlthe2b]

12. We are all "animals" and it sure the hell isn't non-human species destroying the planet...

So tell me again how superior the intellect of humans?

Given it is instinct, it is likely most people would elect to try to save the human. But if it were one of my beloved pets, I wouldn't say that for sure. One never can never really know until the situation emerges

But in the enlightened words of Will Rogers: "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”

Me too. Me too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I hope you're a better person than you think you are.

Only a truly wicked and selfish human would save a pet in preference to a child.

I suspect (on probabilistic grounds) that, like most people, you would make the right call if it actually came to it; I certainly hope you would.

[Nine]

61. +1,000,000 (nt)

[hlthe2b]

98. How silly to say that. None of us knows with any certainty that we would "step in" AT ALL...

until faced with it, we only assume what we might do. And, quite frankly, all the lofty thoughts might go by the way side for a fair number of us despite our best intentions expressed when NOT facing the threat.

[qazplm]

68. we aren't "destroying" the planet

that's gross hyperbole. We are certainly making it harder for some species, including us, to live on it, and that's no laughing/small matter, but even if we changed the environment so much that we went extinct, the planet, and the biosystem, would go on without us.

[G_j]

71. rosy glasses you got there

Cataclysm Has Arrived: Man’s Inhumanity to Nature
‘The Sixth Extinction,’ on Endangered and Departed Species

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/books/the-sixth-extinction-on-endangered-and-departed-species.html?_r=0

<snip>

Today’s deadly change agent, Ms. Kolbert observes, is man himself. And by the end of this book, she’s left us with a harrowing appreciation of the ways in which human beings have been altering the planet: hunting to death big mammals (like the mammoth or giant sloth or, more recently, elephants and big cats); introducing alien (sometimes invasive) species to regions where they disrupt a delicate ecological balance; and altering the geologic surface of the earth (damming major rivers, mowing down forests and cutting up habitats in ways that impede migration).

Most significant, she says, has been mankind’s effect on the atmosphere. By one estimate cited by Ms. Kolbert, the combination of fossil fuel use and deforestation has caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air to rise “by 40 percent over the last two centuries,” while making the concentration of methane (“an even more potent greenhouse gas”) more than double.

Over the years, Ms. Kolbert writes, “a number of different names have been suggested for the new age that humans have ushered in”: including the “Catastrophozoic era,” the “Homogenocene,” the “Myxocene” (from the Greek word for “slime”) and the “Anthropocene.”

Human-driven change is happening faster than ever — “warming today is taking place at least 10 times faster than it did at the end of the last glaciation,” she writes — and its fallout looks to be devastating. “It is estimated,” Ms. Kolbert says, “that one third of all reef-building corals, a third of all freshwater mollusks, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of all reptiles, and a sixth of all birds are headed toward oblivion. The losses are occurring all over: in the South Pacific and in the North Atlantic, in the Arctic and the Sahel, in lakes and on islands, on mountaintops and in valleys.”

Ms. Kolbert shows in these pages that she can write with elegiac poetry about the vanishing creatures of this planet, but the real power of her book resides in the hard science and historical context she delivers here, documenting the mounting losses that human beings are leaving in their wake.
<snip>

THE SIXTH EXTINCTION
An Unnatural History

[tabasco]

82. LOL.

Mind boggling ignorance.

[hlthe2b]

97. Ahh, another climate change denier responding to the "dog" whistle (pun intended)

right on schedule.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

198. I actually don't think he is.

I think he's just saying that even if we change the climate enough to destroy ourselves (and probably 99% of the species on the planet), life will go on, probably initially at a single cell level for the most part, and continue to evolve without us, and eventually get back up to sentience, just millions of years post human, in an environment inimical to life forms along our own lines.

[hlthe2b]

213. and THAT is not destroying the earth as YOU know it? Really? Reallly? REALLY?????!

Good Gawd (pun intended)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

222. I have both a BS and PhD in geology.

So, no, that's not destroying the earth in my books. Whether or not humanity wipes itself out is of little consequence to the planet.

[hlthe2b]

223. What lack of regard for your children &

Grandchildren and humans of the future.

[oldhippie]

224. What does regard for children and grandchildren have to do ...

... with the fate of the planet?

NOTHING.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

226. I'm not a breeder.

Nor do I consider humanity to be the be-all and end-all of creation. I'd certainly like to see us have a longer run than we have, but that's mostly up to whether or not we can break free of our current horrible addictions to fossil fuels at this point.

[hlthe2b]

231. Nor am I, but I don't find it difficult to give a damn about the future of those who come after me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

232. Neither do I.

I think you're reading more into my posts than I'm writing.

[qazplm]

229. exactly

humanity might very well destroy humanity, and take some species with it, but that's not the same as destroying the planet.

[qazplm]

230. please point me to the climate change denial

in my post...try using that organ between your ears when you do so though.

[AnalystInParadise]

118. To quote Red Leader

Stay on Target...........

[GeorgeGist]

14. Who would Fido save ...

you or the child?

[msongs]

35. fido would save whoever is feeding it. end of story nt

[newcriminal]

17. I love my pets. I truly do, but I can assure you

that if a human was in danger of death I would always save the person before the animal. Yes, any human even nasty, evil republicans. I can't understand anyone doing otherwise.

[Politicalboi]

23. You would save Rush Limpballs

Even if he were yelling screeds as you were saving him? I'm sorry, but I draw the line at people like Rush, Bush, Cheney, Hannity, Ryan, McConnell,. I would have to let them drown.

[newcriminal]

28. Yes I'm afraid I would.

I might regret it later.

[FrodosPet]

110. What is the rest of the list?

Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? What's the border line? How progressive must one be to be worthy of saving?

Damn, I am a life-long Democrat, but I an a white middle aged straight man who thinks a lot of people need to get off their asses and fix stuff instead of sitting and waiting and waiting and waiting for THEM to fix stuff, so I suspect I might be on your "Let 'em die!" list.

[quinnox]

32. that is how I see it

My instinct would tell me to save the human, and politics would not come into it.

[phil89]

41. Humans do not have instincts, our behavior is learned.

And you're not making sense. You ask questions then get angry when people don't agree with you. I would save my pet over a human if that unlikely choice had to be made. You see, I choose who/what living things I value and to what extent, I choose who and what living things I consider family. Not you.

[EX500rider]

116. "Humans do not have instincts" ??? What? We so do.

http://listverse.com/2012/01/28/top-10-human-reflexes-and-natural-instincts/

[pipoman]

119. Utter nonsense

"Humans do not have instincts"

[Eleanors38]

40. I agree with this. Some dark opnions, here...

No doubt bookmarked widely by those of less-than-progressive outlooks.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. I have to go with saving the human over the pet. n/t

[WhiteTara]

29. We are all sentient beings

and their lives are important. When you take on the responsibility of a life a pet, this is a karmic act.

[The2ndWheel]

31. Humans are animals

Currently the most dominant, but an animal nonetheless. If it was your child that was drowning, and a stranger's child, and you could save one, who would you save? Probably your own kid, since they're closer to you genetically and all that, so who you would save between a human child and your dog Fido isn't really a good question. A mother bear would protect her own offspring over a human child. Not really all that different.

[angstlessk]

34. When it comes to saving a child or an animal I would save the child EXCEPT

If the animal was MY pet and the child was a stranger....

[darkangel218]

36. You couldnt be more wrong.

Humans are not above animals. Yes, we happen to be "in charge " at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should look down to other species.

Trash thread.

[glinda]

124. Humans demise is that they "think they are above animals and nature" and it is that "separation or

belief that we are a superior species" that is an illusion, IMHO. Bombs, mass killings, pollution, planetary destruction, addictions to money, power and control, the list goes on. I have personally far more respect for animals than I do for humans. Because of this I try to tread lightly on this Earth. You can get angry at me for what I believe but that only enforces my feelings and thoughts on this. If an animal and person were drowning I would hope to save both but would go for the animal first.

[4Q2u2]

180. Yes, because all animals are perfect and Humans are not.

Funny how while using technology made by humans you list only bad things you see in us. While completely ignoring animal behavior that is wrong and destructive.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

200. I wouldn't say 'animals are perfect'

and I doubt the fellow whose comment you replied would either.

For me, the difference is that we supposedly ARE intelligent, and have enough brainpower to do the right thing, and even so, pretty much all of us choose to do the wrong thing to a lesser or greater extent. Killing people who don't need to be killed, greedily grabbing up more resources than we need, destroying things for no reason other than to amuse ourselves or hurt others.

If non-human animals were as smart as human adults, they might very well act like humans do too, though.

[joeybee12]

38. Of course not..pets are far superior...

I'm being half-faceitious...animals don't start wars, etc...it's all done by instinct, and I think they're also more forgiving than most humans.

That said, the situation in your question...save a child or a pet...I bet has never come up...and I bet until it does, none of us can say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet we all go for the child, no matter whose child...we're hard-wired to see all human animals (we're animals, after all, too) the same as us and superior to other creatures.

[CFLDem]

39. Hmm

Tough decision. I hate these hypotheticals!

Let me just say I would run into a burning building for both a child and a pet even though my interest for the welfare of children is instinctual at best.

[michaz]

42. Not all humans are above our pets.

I work in animal rescue. I have seen unbelievable things done by humans to dogs, cats, etc. A dog will stay more loyal than a human that is abusing them. Very recently there was a man that bound and taped the muzzle of a dog then took him to the river and drown him by holding his foot on him till he was dead. Do you really think for a minute that if that man was drowning that I would lift a finger to help him? I have no use for any human that does any abuse to an animal. Sooner or later those demented humans will abuse other humans if they have not done so already. On the other hand, I would save a human first but sure would give it all I had to save them both.

[Upton]

43. No..

and though this may not be the case with you, I've found most people who express similar "humans are above our pets, or animals in general" ideas just aren't animal lovers or they're all religious.

[Blue_Tires]

44. It's clear that the OP has never had any sort of companion animal...

I mean, if a human child was drowning, and your dog Fido, would you really go after and save Fido, instead of the human, even if it was a stranger's child?

False dilemma alert!

[99Forever]

45. Some of the very nicest people I know...

... wear fur coats year round and walk on 4 legs. ALL of the nastiest, most evil wastes of oxygen and murderous scum are hairless apes and walk on 2 two legs.

What were you asking again?

[RebelOne]

46. Agreed. Great post. n/t

[quinnox]

48. well, damn

I don't know how to respond to that.

[Go Vols]

57. I have never met any

of these fur coat wearing people that have 4 legs,all people I have met in the last 51 years have only 2 legs.

[99Forever]

72. That's sad. n/t

[Go Vols]

114. Yes it is

I would like to meet people with four legs if they exist.I have lived all over the country and never seen such.

[99Forever]

221. Might I suggest you check into the concept of...

... poetic license? I'm not quite sure what it is you are trying to accomplish with your posts to me, but then again, whatever it is, doesn't matter much in the scheme of things.

Please proceed.

[99Forever]

69. Just being absolutely honest.

Given the false dichotomy you raised, I responded with my actual opinion.

My pups are family members, for that I make no apologies. Human beings could learn an awful lot about trust, compassion, love and loyalty.

Strange that you would post this today of all days. I came home to our 14 year old rescue GSD, Nakita laying lethargically by the door to the deck. She has never failed to greet me at the door, not once. I think her time is at hand, as she won't take any food, even by hand. We have known this was coming because of her advanced age and she has tumors in her belly. Even knowing this was coming, I can't put words to the ache in my heart as it does.

[Beaverhausen]

120. I'm sorry about Nakita

[Violet_Crumble]

137. I lost my dog in early February so I'm so sorry for what yr going through...

Mine was a senior citizen who'd led a long life and had heart failure. During the heatwave back in January it got too much for her and she started having seizures. I loved her heaps and she was a member of my family and I mourned for her far more than I thought I would, but she wasn't a person. Unlike my daughter, who's the other person who shares my house with me, Mini wasn't judgemental or demanding, always had time for me when I just wanted to sit around and sook a bit, and was happy to eat whatever shit I put in front of her. But those characteristics made her a pet dog, not a person, and the love I felt for her was very different for the love I feel for my own child.

*hugs* to you and Nakita

[glinda]

161. Sorry 99Forever.

[avebury]

83. +1000 K&R nt

[Prophet 451]

138. Well put n/t

[CrawlingChaos]

47. This is so much bullshit

I've noticed whenever someone seeks to minimize our responsibility to treat animals with compassion, they go right to the US vs. THEM crapola. As if people who care about animals are some kind of species traitors or something. Well it's NOT one or the other. If you're a decent human being you care about ALL, and you don't sit around thinking, hmmm, whom am I above and which of these is worthy of my compassion? I can't imagine walking around with the attitude that you're "above" the other creatures of this planet. What garbage!

Frankly, the whole "would you save a dog before a child?!" thing reminds me of torture apologists and their ticking bomb scenarios. Fucked up shit.

Surely you're familiar with the Gandhi quote:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Do you find that "strange" and "goofy"?

[quinnox]

49. Look, I disagree with you. And I can do that with a good conscience

I am not demanding everyone agree with me.

[KurtNYC]

95. +1 Nicely said.

And what a bogus strawman question. Dogs save lives all the time. SAR, bomb-sniffing, Labs and Nefies were bred to rescue fishermen in cold water.

None of the dogs in this video need to be saved from drowning, well maybe the Corgis...

[OwnedByCats]

150. Totally agree

with every word. Thank you! Very well said!

[Orrex]

152. Might not be goofy, but it's argument by assertion

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I would be interested to read the reasoning that led to this conclusion.

I'm not assessing the truth or falsehood of the statement, by the way. I'm simply asking why, exactly, this must be the criterion by which we judge moral progress.

[4Q2u2]

179. He minimized animal treatment and compassion?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

That is a Gandhi quote as well. Is he supposed be some Super Trump card that ends discussions?

I looks like he was opining on what he sees as the absurdity of "Pet Parents" equating the lives of their pets to the lives of humans.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. Nope.

[uriel1972]

51. understandable...

but disconcerting.

[2naSalit]

52. No.

[haele]

55. Thing is, Fido might be drowning because he was attempting to save that child in the first place...

I know people who have dogs that are trained to assist and rescue, and have seen dogs (and cats or other animals) challenge perceived threats to the people or other creatures that those animals feel are under their protection.
I have seen animals act with an unusually humane sense of "mercy", and with reactions and attractions akin to what we call emotion - and this without anthropomorphizing their activities.
There are certain altruistic activities that are recognized as beneficial to the survival of a species or ecosystem no matter what species one is observing; that are part of evolution. That includes why there are examples of apex predators that show mercy and even "kindness" to a prey animal once the necessity of the hunt is over.

That being said, the classic "save a child or your dog" argument against PETA and "other animal rights organizations" as rather unfocused, rather like saying someone can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
First of all, most dogs can swim better than most people.

Okay, one can - and should - be aware of the ethical and humane treatment of animals, as that is an indicator of how other people will be treated. In most cases, someone who is capable of inflicting pain on animals is also capable of inflicting pain on other people.

The person who will not jump in to save a drowning Fido will probably also not jump in to save a drowning human child.
The person who treats everything like a possession would jump in to save a drowning Fido, because Fido has worth to him/her, but probably would at best stand at the shore and point to the drowning human child that otherwise has no worth.
The person who loves both Fido and people in general will be the real one in a quandary; "do I save my beloved companion or do I save someone else's child?". Then there are other factors in play with the decision; social class, racial or sexual bigotry, mental health state etc...
If it's both their dog and their child that are drowning... well, I would hope they would choose their child.
In my case - I can't swim well enough to save either without drowning myself. But I would try to save both, and would hope to be clever enough to find a way to do so.

I can see having a problem with someone saying "I know how it feels to lose a child because my dog died". It's an insult to those non-psychopaths who have lost a child (my husband lost his son to SIDS, so I'm very aware of how it affects him), no matter how attached to your dog you may be.
While a companion animal or "pet" is as dependant on a person as a child is, that bond of dependency does not usually come from the same place. The closer comparison to the death of a companion animal is "I know how it feels to lose a friend because my dog died." And we (me and my husband) have no problems with someone expressing that. We have both lost friends, and we have both lost companion animals that depended on us as the equivalent to "parents" or pack leaders. The feeling of loss is similar to those who have experienced it.

So while PETA and "other animal welfare groups" may use pretentious or (honestly) silly tactics to promote or bring awareness of the need for humane and ethical treatment of animals, I would make the point that the treatment of "lesser animals" reflects the treatment of "fellow animals" - so casual, inconsiderate, disrespectful treatment of animals for sport or for personal pleasure reflects the capability for the same casual, inconsiderate, disrespectful treatment of other people for sport or personal pleasure.

So, can we walk and chew gum at the same time? Or is being aware that there is a sentience in those animals that deserves some sort of respect so one shouldn't cause distress to or torture an animal for sport or pleasure means that you would let the child die for Fido?

BTW, I'm a proud omnivore that respects my food, and a considerate pet-parent that knows my pets won't survive very long if they didn't have someone to take care of them, because they have been raised to be dependent companion animals rather than working animals.
I know where my meat comes from. And I know how it's raised and processed, so I go out of my way to try and ensure when I do get meat, it's raised and processed as humanely as possible.
And if an animal has evolved to have a long migratory range and has the intelligence level of a 8 to 10 year old, I know that to pen an animal with that level of intelligence is as cruel as locking up an average human being in one room with a balcony "for exercise" for the rest of his or her life.

Haele

[quinnox]

60. Thanks for that detailed and lengthy answer

I agree, this can be turned into a profound philosophical question, and raise thorny issues. I don't deny that.

[undeterred]

59. The problem is that animals are thought of as property.

It is not that animal rights should be brought up to those of people, but that the law is often written in such a way that an animal is nothing more than a piece of property. Animals are sentient beings, and as such they deserve more respect than inanimate objects.

[yallerdawg]

62. I heard a punk rocker...

of all people remind us that domesticated animals, like dogs and cats, are not natural selection process -- we created these animals to be our companions, to serve us and to be or at least ended up being totally dependent on us. We made them!

I'm sure there are pet owners out there who, knowing the base nature of most people, would save the pet over the human and make the world a better place.

Of course, I could be biased.

[panader0]

65. Welcome to DU yallerdawg

[yallerdawg]

75. Thank you for the welcome

[truebluegreen]

66. No.

[Tom Ripley]

70. I think that we flatter humans by equating them with pets and animals...

as any misanthrope would

[Vattel]

73. It depends.

Humans and dogs are animals who can, if they are lucky, get benefits from life. Other things being equal, a dog's suffering is just as bad as human's suffering. Suffering is suffering. As for survival, many factors are relevant to a comparison. Assuming the child has a good shot at a long, decent human life, I would think it likely that he or she would have more to lose by dying than the dog (since a dog's life span is relatively short) and so that would count in favor of saving the child. But other things being equal, I would save a young healthy dog with a bright future before I would save a brain dead human or a human that is terminally ill and will die soon anyways or even a very old human who has already had a long, full life.

Anyone who thinks that just because they are human their wellbeing is more important than a dog's is a human supremacist and that is not any better than being a white supremacist in my book.

[Agnosticsherbet]

77. No, because we humans humanize almost everything in our world.

Guys, especially teenage guys, humanize their cars. Most pet owner I know humanize their pets. Couples without children often consider their pets the same as their children and equal to other people's children. I used to date a Wiccan who humanized trees. They were not only alive but she talked to them and believed they talked back. I think animals should be treated humanely, even if we intend to eat them for dinner. I have even seen some evidence that dogs and other higher mammals are even conscious creatures.

PETA carries it much farther than I would, but I'm pretty tolerant so what they believe doesn't affect me. I've had both dogs and cats. They were amazing creatures, affectionate, caring companions. They were not human. I saw them as their own beings.

Ive never met anyone who would watch a child drown to save their pet. I would not think highly of them.

[bravenak]

78. I am inclined to save the human animal over another species.

Just like i would save my child first over another child.

I would never attempt to save a dog over a child, and besides, dogs are good swimmers and have a better chance than a dhild to survive in water than a child. What would i tell the mother of the child? Sorry bout your kid, but my dog is way more important? Cannot do that.

[tabasco]

79. No. I think your viewpoint is quite stupid.

Please tell me why humans, animals themselves, deserve to live more than other species.

[HangOnKids]

172. Priceless as you posted this as a reply to me

" It is very stupid to denigrate another person for having a different opinion." Yet here you are denigrating another poster for having a different opinion. Really?

[avebury]

80. I actually think a lot higher of animals then I do people.

Humans are the only species that exist that has driven numerous other life forms into extinction intentionally. Humans over populate and over consume the planet's resources to the detriment of life on the planet. Animals don't participate in endless religious wars nor have they ever dropped a nuclear bomb. Humans who are supposed to be the most intelligent life forms are, in reality a huge force of destruction. I figure that we will deserve what ever happens to us and I just don't worry about it anymore.

[femmocrat]

84. No.

Pets are people, too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. I'd save my cat before almost every human on the planet.

I like my cat better than almost every human on the planet...

[PasadenaTrudy]

113. Exactly!

My dog comes before anyone else, even my boyfriend. And he's fine with it

[frogmarch]

88. It's on a case-by-case basis for me. nt

[MelungeonWoman]

91. What I find rather strange

Are the laws regarding the housing of breeding dogs. In order for a kennel to pass USDA guidelines it has to be 1.5 times the length of the dog, not including the tail. This is the minimum space allotted to live in their ENTIRE LIVES. Dogs are companion animals, not agricultural animals. They were bred with different objectives than animals destined to be food, they were meant to work and be companions, not lay around like a food animal. They should not drink out of a rabbit bottle which can cause severe dental issues - but it's perfectly legal. The way breeding dogs are legally kept is barbaric and horrific and I'm glad to see many states leading the way in improving the lives of these dogs where the USDA has abysmally failed.

There are a lot of things in this world I find strange. I don't count people who believe in better living conditions for companion animals, or animals in general, one of them.

[sagat]

92. Yes.

[MFM008]

93. any one that has a pet

may feel thay are people......

[baldguy]

96. There are people on DU right now who campaign to put my dog to death for the way she looks.

I think of my dog as a member of my family.

Do you think it's "goofy" to defend a member of my family from people that want to murder her?

[kelliekat44]

100. What I find strange is putting pets and animals above humans. nt

[Nine]

102. This thread is giving me the major creeps.

There are actually people who would save their dog or cat over a drowning human? Really? REALLY?! That is some motherfucking sick shit right there.

(And whether you think the hypothetical is pertinent to animal rights issues is irrelevant; these are people who chose to answer the hypothetical.)

I could maybe have one teensy iota of respect for this position if people at least said they would save any random dog or cat over a random child. But these posters are going out of their way to emphasize that they would only act this way if their own pet were involved. That is just... ugh. I dearly hope that most of these people are just trolling or at least navel-gazing in a way that has no bearing on how they would act in real life. Otherwise... I have no words for that level of evil and self-centeredness.

[DashOneBravo]

105. Yep

[joeglow3]

156. A-FUCKING-MEN

Never knew there was this much sick shit right here.

[LeftyMom]

104. Humans are animals. nt

[glinda]

125. Humans appear to be aliens to me.

[dionysus]

106. posts like this are part of the reason why i'd save my drowning cat over most people.

animals don't know how to be jerks like most people do...

[politicat]

107. So the drowning situation doesn't work as a thought experiment but...

I don't have a dog; I have a cat who has been with me for all of my marriage and more than half of my partner's life. She's 23, she is our child in all emotional ways, and she's an experimental subject helping to find the means to use stem cells to treat kidney failure. So she's exceptionally important to me emotionally and practically. (And may someday be important to a lot of people who are currently on dialysis. If we can learn to treat feline renal disease with stem cells, it's not a huge leap to treating it in people.)

However, she's never near water, we live in an almost desert, we live on highish ground, and when we have to deal with flash floods, we will evac at the first warning (and yes, our cat goes with). That's just how we roll. So drowning... Not good for a thought experiment.

Let's try a car accident, since I do take her to the veterinary teaching hospital where she's in her study. Something like we get t-boned at an intersection. Assuming that I am the adult who is able to get myself out of my vehicle and help the people in the other, and the other driver is unable to get out to assist, then here is my priority:

1. Get myself out to safety. I can't help anyone if I am a casualty. Check and make sure my car isn't burning, leaking fuel or otherwise about to make me a casualty. If it's safe-ish, then...

2. Get my cat out of my vehicle so I can not worry about her and because I'm already right there, and getting her out is going to be natural since I will also be getting to my rescue tool. (My rescue tool lives in the elastic pocket behind the driver's seat. When kitty has to be in the car, the place where she rides best is in her carrier in the footwell behind the driver's seat.) This should take between 10 and 45 seconds. Place cat carrier out of the way, where she's safe. If she's injured, I'm not a vet and I don't have much feline first aid in my arsenal, but since I've just been in a car accident, I can't get her to the Vet ER anyway. If she's just pissed and scared, I can't help and I'm better off if she's in the carrier, yelling her head off. Either way, the place where she's best off is out of the way and secure.

3. Now check other car. There's a triage system that has a lot of variables, but if the driver is seriously injured and the kid is safe in the car seat, but panicking, then the driver gets first attention. If there's ABC compromise for either driver or passenger, then those get priority, unless it looks like a neck or spine, then that person stays put until EMS gets there, unless the previous thing about leaking fuel or fire apply. Here's why I need my rescue tool -- I probably can't get the windows open or the seat belts open without it. The rescue tool can break safety glass and cut through seat-belting, and has enough length to provide me with some leverage to pry open doors in an emergency. (And yes, I've had the first responder training for this.) I can't rescue a kid if the car seat won't come out of the car, or the adult if their safety belt is jammed. Do the extra 30 seconds to get my tool and move the cat carrier matter? Um... Not really. If someone is so gravely injured or so imperiled that the 30 seconds to make my cat safe matter, then nothing I could have done would have saved them. I cannot get a child out of a car in 30 seconds, nor free an adult from a jammed seatbelt if that's the only thing keeping them pinned. I CANNOT free a person from a crushed footwell, or unimpale a steering column. I am neither a fire/rescue responder nor EMT. I've had advanced first aid, Red Cross first responder and an incident management class. I'm a good Good Samaritan, but that's all I am.

It's not that I value animal life over human, it's that I have good triage skills. In an emergency, one gets the shaken bystanders and the walking wounded out of the way so there's space to deal with the yellow and red tags. In any car accident, my cat is likely to be either a green tag (no injuries or only superficial ones) or a black tag (dead at scene), so either way, making her not something to worry about leaves me better able to help others. Yes, I am the type of person who puts her oxygen mask on first before helping someone else. But I am also not going to make things worse for someone by interfering with something better left to professionals -- I won't extract someone with a potentially damaged spine, and I won't move someone who might bleed out if it's safe enough to wait for EMS. I will hold that person's hand, say comforting things, and keep a close eye on ABC. Note that I'm not doing the same for my cat. (Drowning is the only exception, and in my case, both cat and child are equally screwed. I swim just well enough to save myself, and I'd likely be making myself into a 3rd casualty.)

Now... There are a lot of times that I do value my cat over people, especially in non-emergent situations. If it's a choice between taking my cat to the vet and meeting my mom for breakfast, cat wins every time. Kitty will get her food and get her meds before I do our discretionary spending. Indeed, our 4 pound cat does get what feels like 1/3 of our CalKing bed, taken out of the dead center. If kitty is having a crisis, then yes, I'll stay with her rather than going to prod my grandmother in assisted living. (Gran is safe. Gran has people to help her. Kitty has me and partner.)

And if it's my cat or Louie Gohmert? One is a small, petulant creature who whines and spews up toxicity on a regular basis, and the other is a cat. No contest.

[flvegan]

108. Everything you said is based in ego.

Humanity's biggest flaw. And let's face it, most "people" are too selfish to try to save anyone (child or dog) from any danger because they might get hurt. Ego strikes again. But then I remind myself that humans are rare in that they can take pleasure through another's suffering.

But let us please get down to the basis of "equating pets and animals with humans" because the premise means one must choose one over another in every aspect of life. This isn't about drowning children when you talk about animal rights. This is about not abusing animals and generally treating them like plastic shit. Mere commodities to suit our needs, to be used and disposed of at our leisure. Our emotions (desires) selfishly causing them to suffer. Needless pain.

Speciesism is alien to me. I'm no longer a child so I can see and live my way around it.

[Iggo]

111. Okay, let's go with "strange."

[PasadenaTrudy]

112. Dog first....

Sorry, not a fan of kids.

[glinda]

126. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

135. That's just warped...

Most people when they see other people in a life-threatening situation don't work on some weird popularity triage system. They do what they can to save the other people, sometimes putting their own lives at risk to do so.

Not being stupid or confused over the difference between a dog and a child, if I saw a kid and a dog in danger, the priority is to help the kid and then the dog once the kid's out of danger.

[Nevernose]

121. I have pictures on my desk

One of my child, two of my wife, and five of my dog. I fucking love that dog. The family's cool with it: they both know I love the dog more than I love them. Hell, one of the reasons my wife fell in love with me was because I was a grown man who had stairs so his chihuahua could get into bed at night (to be fair, it's been five years and she's still a little weirded out that I tuck him in at bedtime).

However, if there was a fire, there is no question that I would rescue the human people before I rescued the canine people.

[PeteSelman]

122. I like my pets better than most humans.

I'd most likely save my pet over a stranger. I'd definitely save my pet over a person I don't like. Hell, I might even save my pet over a person I do like. You've got to be extra special to come in ahead of my animals. There aren't many in that league.

[LisaL]

123. There was a story recently where guy's boat was sinking.

He had his wife and his dog with him.
He first saved his dog then went back for his wife.

[kentauros]

127. I figure that if any situation like that were to ACTUALLY happen,

then there would be enough people around for one of us to choose the child and one of us to choose the pet.

There! Problem solved for the real world

[Vashta Nerada]

129. I'd hate to think the way you think.

Humans aren't "above" animals. In fact, humans were here after animals populated the earth.

[deathrind]

130. It is interesting that the OP...

Uses "child" instead of "human" or "person" as one half of the choice. If it was an adult would that change the equation... or what if it was an elderly person and a puppy drowning?

These are interesting questions. I highly recommend the book "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris if one is interested in these type of issues.

[ZombieHorde]

134. I have more loyalty to humans than to the other animals,

but that is my subjective viewpoint. Objectively speaking, no animal has any value, therefore all animals have the same value.

[mucifer]

139. I don't understand people who say "dog first" but eat factory farmed pigs

that are as intelligent as dogs, but tortured their entire lives in pens where they can't move.

Yes, I'm a vegan. But, I'd save the child first.

[Prophet 451]

141. Factory farming is illegal here

And even before it was outlawed, some of us made sure to buy our meat from a local butcher who sources it from local farms where the animals are raised free-range. I might be a carnivore but I don't have to be an unethical one.

[mucifer]

142. curious, where is "here"? It needs to be everywhere.

[Prophet 451]

143. Sorry, "here" is the UK

IIRC, factory farming was outlawed here mid-2013 although I can't remember (my meds affect my memory) if it's come into force yet which is why I'm still buying meat from that local butcher.

And I agree, it should be everywhere. Factory farming is horrific and, if we're going to eat meat, it's our responsibility to keep suffering to a minimum. That means organic, free-range meat (which any chef will tell you tastes better) from local farms and local butchers (which also supports small business); free-range eggs and dairy and not eating lobster/crab unless you can be sure it was killed with a Crustastun (new device that knocks the creature out with an electric shock before killing it the same way).

[mucifer]

144. I can't imagine the USA stopping factory farming.

The factory farms donate too much money to the politicians.

But, veganism is becoming more and more common in the USA. The more vegans and vegetarian, the less animals born for a life of torture.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

203. There's more good ready-made vegan and vegetarian food available.

I think most people's objection to going vegan was based on the fact that tofu tastes like used sweatsocks

But a lot of restaurants are starting to offer veggie options that are every bit as tasty as the meat-containing choices.

[Prophet 451]

140. Bullshit false dilemma

This reminds me of the "ticking timebomb" hypothetical torture apologists use. You've constructed a rhetorical trap so you can demonise us unless we answer the way we're "supposed" to.

No animal has ever beaten me or belittled me or sexually abused me. Even teh dog that tore my face up only did so because other humans had traumatized him. My cats have saved my life more times than I care to remember. Hurt them and you'll be dead before you hit the floor.

[Orrex]

149. There is no restriction against posing a hypothetical with only two options.

Asking "which of these two options would you choose?" may be an emotionally loaded question, but the fact that you don't like the options doesn't make it a false dilemma.

A false dilemma would be "only these two possible options exist; which do you choose?" when other options exist in fact.



It is interesting that you are so quick to forgive the dog that attacked you because of its past trauma. Could you as readily forgive the humans who abused you, if they had likewise suffered past trauma? Why or why not?

[Prophet 451]

159. I honestly don't know

The dog who attacked me acted on instinct. I bent down to pet him, he assumed I was going to beat him and he reacted on instinct to defend himself from a perceived threat. As it happens, the dog was euthanized despite my forgiveness (my friend, who owned the dog, pointed out that it could easily have been his infant child).

Humans can act on instinct, of course, but generally, they have a level of sapient reasoning which other animals lack. That is, we can (generally) choose whether to act on our instinctive impulses. When my partner and I argue, I can choose whether to respond with learned violence or not. Adult humans can, in theory anyway, excercise control over our impulses.

And yet... I have only been violent to her once, a verbal threat in the heat of the moment that horrified me once it was pointed out what had been said and steps have since been taken to resolve my anger issues. But the fact that I had those issues, that my life had taught me both the availability and acceptability of violence as a response...

The more I learn about human psychology (a lifelong interest which I'm currently turning into formal qualification; 5/6 through my degree), the more I become aware that a very great deal of what we consider to be choices are dictated by our past experiences; that we are, at some level, simply the victim of drives inculated into us by the surrounding world and which we do not fully understand. The children and teens who bullied me felt, I know now, threatened by me, by my intellect (I'm a genius and that's not a boast, I fall into the top 2% of the population)... And I was marked out as different by that intellect, by my accent, and SIT has proven that we all unconsciously favour our ingroup (those who we perceive to be like us or aspire to join) and against our outgroup (those we perceive as different from us)... The teenager who sexually abused me as a child, I don't know the details of his trauma, but the fact that he was in my grandmother's care tells me that he came from some form of abusive or neglectful home... The mother who physically abused me such that I ended up in my grandmother's care saw me, looking so much like my father, the man who had abused her, that she subconsciously feared me and that fear turned to violence.... My stepfather came from a home where alcohol was always available and so, when my mother was in one of her moods, it was easier to escape into a bottle...

The honest answer, as this disorganised collection of thoughts would indicate, is that I don't know. My mother and I were able to eventually repair our relationship but it took many years and teh death of my grandmother to bring us together. Whether I would be able to forgive those with whom I didn't have a pre-existing relationship, I honestly couldn't tell you.

[Humanist_Activist]

189. I find the hypothetical to be too unrealistic to create such a choice in my head...

If I, for example, saw a child struggling to stay above water and a dog doing the same, I would save the kid, they are an immature human, more likely to drown first, because they are less likely to keep their head above water than a dog could. I would then attempt to save the dog. The "worthiness" of either animal, based on species, wouldn't even occur to me.

Its a probability calculation to maximize the survival of both.

[Orrex]

193. The particular mode of certain death isn't central

It could be a meteor strike, a satellite death-ray, Godzilla's foot, etc.

Since it's a thought experiment, the "probability calculation" is that death is 100% certain for the one that you don't save.

You're answering a different question than the OP asks.
Your answer, though no doubt honest, basically seeks to wriggle out of the parameters of the question at hand.

[Humanist_Activist]

195. The problem is that, in real life, there is no way to figure out if death is 100% certain...

if you make one choice over another, the probability may be greater or lower due to circumstances both in your control and not in your control.

Given the parameters of the OP's hypothetical, I laid out what is most likely to occur.

Would I attempt to rescue a human over another species in all circumstances? I'll have to be honest and say I don't know, but most likely I would attempt to rescue the human first simply because we happen to be less equipped in a physical sense to handle most crises without assistance and/or training.

The problem is you would have to assume that both have an good chance of surviving if you rescue them, and that the other has no chance of surviving without your intervention. There are very few circumstances where this can exist, even with the outlandish scenarios you laid out.

Drowning, for example, can be a very slow process, and depending on ability, time, weather, circumstances, and location, risk assessments will differ greatly.

ON EDIT: To be frank, I generally hate these types of thought experiments because of their oversimplification and unrealistic expectations. I can suspend disbelief for fiction, but not for what should be "realistic" scenarios.

[Orrex]

202. It needn't be a mathematical certainty

The problem is you would have to assume that both have an good chance of surviving if you rescue them, and that the other has no chance of surviving without your intervention. There are very few circumstances where this can exist, even with the outlandish scenarios you laid out.

That is likewise an alteration of what the OP is asking.

The question is simply this:
Given that both will certainly die if you don't act and one will certainly live if and only if you do act, which do you save?

Your re-framing is this:
Able to save only one of two participants, and weighing the relative likelihood that either participant can survive absent your intervention, and also bearing in mind the likelihood of future survival of each participant after surviving the current threat, which do you save?

It's a pure hypothetical intended to isolate the question of human versus non-human value. You are attempting to turn it into a much more muddied discussion in which the essential question is lost. In effect, you're creating a straw man in an apparent effort to avoid answering the question.


This sort of thought experiment is fundamental in discussion of ethics. I don't understand why people are treating this one as if the very asking of it is preposterous or impossible.

[Humanist_Activist]

206. I can't remove my own assumptions from it...

the only issue I can think of where this is realistic is that both the child and dog are unconscious in the water, so death is certain if not rescued, and neither have a way to rescue themselves, in that case, I drag the child out first and hope I remember enough CPR to resuscitate them(I was a lifeguard once, a long time ago). Then I'll try to do the same for the dog(yes, even got training in that for smaller animals/infants).

In this scenario, technically both of them were already drowned, rather than in the process of drowning, so again, I changed the scenario to fit a "strawman" but not due to any ethical conundrum, just the way my mind works, and yes, I would rescue the child first in that type of circumstance, that seems to be a no brainer.

[Orrex]

209. When you're given a math problem, are you only able to solve it in terms of tangible objects?

Forgive me, but that speaks of a failure of reason, not an error in the framing of the original question. The fact that you "can't remove your own assumptions from it" means that you are unable to engage the subject dispassionately.

That's not a bad thing in reality, but it taints your input in the discussion.

and yes, I would rescue the child first in that type of circumstance, that seems to be a no brainer.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's all there is to it. Problem solved.

[Humanist_Activist]

212. The assumptions I'm talking about are things such as "a dog is much better at swimming than a child"

and other issues related to that.

Call it a failure of imagination, but I can't think of a scenario outside of something being seriously wrong with the dog to make it equally unable to rescue itself, or at least prevent itself from drowning for a few minutes longer than a human child, or even a human adult who doesn't know how to swim.

You are talking about two species which are adapted in different ways, humans are generalists who aren't very good at pretty much anything physically except marathon running and thinking abstractly, whereas dogs are bred, in most cases, to be quite good at wading in water, and outside of sheer exhaustion or disability, are less likely to drown.

I guess problems can occur when you have too much knowledge about something.

Also, and I know this is quite silly, but a dog taught me how to swim, his name was Mork, he was my grandma's dog, a beagle. I mastered the dog paddle like you wouldn't believe when I was a kid.

[Orrex]

214. Well...

You are talking about two species which are adapted in different ways, humans are generalists who aren't very good at pretty much anything physically except marathon running and thinking abstractly, whereas dogs are bred, in most cases, to be quite good at wading in water, and outside of sheer exhaustion or disability, are less likely to drown.

But that's irrelevant to the thought experiment, which is why I cited the meteor strike and/or Godzilla foot. Hell, you could even tie the dog's legs together and the child's legs together, or chain each of them to a boulder. You're getting hung up on the mechanism of the hypothetical death and avoiding the actual question.


The problem isn't having too much knowledge. The probleim is not being able to set it aside temporarily, as appropriate to context.

[Humanist_Activist]

219. But if it is set aside, then I don't find the thought experiment useful...

Kinda like how you mentioned the meteor strike and Godzilla foot in your thought experiments, knowing the context of those, if you are in a position to even see a child or dog be put in immediate mortal danger from those, you sure as hell wouldn't be able to help them, and in fact, most likely, all 3 of you are going to die.

I get hung up on the mechanism because it matters. If you see a meteor coming, and know its going to impact near you, then you grab who you can and try to find shelter, knowing you will die anyways.

I don't understand how its avoiding the question when the question is nonsensical or unrealistic.

[Orrex]

220. But you've already answered the question (correctly, IMO)

You were able to state that you would save the child. How did you achieve this, if you were unable to detach the death from the mechanism?

I've restated it several times in several ways, even boiling it down to the straightforward live/die choice without specifying a mechanism.

I honestly don't understand how you can't see this, and how you can't lilewise focus on the essential question. To be honest, I've suspected for several posts now that you're playing me, but I've persisted because I admit I enioy the thought experiment.

I have the feeling that, if faced with a word problem asking how many apples Jimmy will have after he gives away two of his three, you would insist that we must first determine whether they're Red Delicious or Granny Smith. In short, you ignore the actual question and insist that an incidental detail is the really important thing.

YMMV, but I think we're done here.

[Nine]

153. People chose to answer it.

Whether or not it's a bullshit false dilemma, people chose to answer it. And their answers, if sincere, are horrifying.

[RedCappedBandit]

145. Biologically speaking, we are geared to save what's genetically closer.

It has nothing to do with humans being "above" OTHER animals. (Interesting that you differentiate between animals and humans - why?)

That's the idea of the selfish gene, anyway.


I don't find it strange at all to equate beloved pets to humans. Sure, I might save another's baby if it was drowning alongside my cat or dog. But I would personally miss my own pet a hell of a lot more than a stranger's baby.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

205. The genetic difference is pretty minute.

But thinking of such in similar terms is why I don't have any particular feeling that I should preference one human above another simply because I share more genetics with them, either explicitly through blood connection, or assumed via phenotype expression. People who are different 'races' with whom I've interacted for years are closer to me than many other related to me by 'blood'.

[Sunlei]

158. My dog would rescue the 'drowning' human, child or adult. Doubt I'd notice a drowning child.

To drown is a silent death. Even when my dog almost drown, all I noticed was her nose in the middle of a pond, just breaking the surface for a split second.

I appreciate groups like Peta. Without them, humans would still do things like crash tests with live animals strapped in the cars.

Even now in 2014, this years Peta agenda goes after angora fur industry. I did not know live angora fur rabbits are just held down screaming- and their fur ripped out by hand. Peta exposes this kind of cruelty and that helps progress a more humane change.

[Prophet 451]

160. Jesus, I didn't know that either

We had pet rabbits when I was a child and when we would brush them, we ended up with a huge amount of fur on the brush. Perhaps naively, I'd always thought that was roughly how they got angora wool.

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. Misanthropy sucks. n/t

[Iggo]

201. That it do. (n/t)

[Octafish]

169. Marmite Rescue

http://britisharrows.com/award/marmite-2/

[MO_Moderate]

171. Strange as hell

ranks right up there with all the 'Mother Earth' nonsense.

[closeupready]

176. Yes, it is strange to me, and I'll never do it (with a few

exceptions, like - for example - if the choice is between extinction of a species of animal and rights of people). I guess to some extent you need to decide on a case-by-case basis, but generally, people and their rights are above animals and pets, IMO.

[mike_c]

178. as a biologist, I disagree with you....

All animals-- including humans-- are much more alike than they are different. Every species has unique qualities. That's what differentiates them as separate species, but those differences are minimal compared to the similarities that unite the animals (and I'm using the term in its broad sense, i.e. metazoans).

[IDemo]

182. To add to that,

Domestic dogs and people live together so well because dogs are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. It's not being anthropomorphic to say that they are in tune with our actions, emotions, voices and facial expressions in a manner that their ancestors could never be.

[liberal_at_heart]

227. excellent point.

[NaturalHigh]

183. No, I don't.

[LanternWaste]

184. As it causes no absolute or collective problems vis-a-vis western mores

As it causes no absolute, recognizable or collective problems vis-a-vis western mores, I have little to no problems with who or what people give over their affections to.


"if a human child was drowning, and your dog..."
I'm not clever enough to pretend to have absolute knowledge of what I would or would not do in any given scenario. I imagine many others are clever enough to pretend as such.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

185. love is selfish and not a rational/hierarchical emotion

i would save my cat before something i did not love, even if that something was the president of the US. that has nothing to do with the hierarchy of what is or is not rationally more important.

i love kitty > random stranger

[Humanist_Activist]

186. False dichotomy, unless there is something seriously wrong with your dog...

or its tied to an anchor or other type of denser than water object, or its a breed with exceptionally short legs or inability to swim, I wouldn't worry about them drowning, certainly not in a time frame it would take to save a child. Indeed, if he or she is a big enough dog, I would expect them to attempt to save the child.

[ProfessorGAC]

188. No. And Having That View and Equating With PETA Isn't A Logical Conclusion

One could emotionally connect with a pet well enough to consider them as important as people, and still think that animal rights activists could go too far in tone and tactics.
GAC

[jmondine]

199. I used to think that humans were the most advanced life form on the planet...

... then I realized, "Look who's telling me that".

[CrispyQ]

204. Humanity is about to shit in it's nest to the point it will no longer support us,

so yeah, I wonder why we think we're so fucking superior.

[justiceischeap]

207. ^ This. nt

[Glassunion]

210. Your asking the wrong question. It's more a matter of love.

I do not find it strange to have a form of love for our pets. Yes humans are above pets, however you are ignoring the agony that the person that loves that pet would have if they had to let it drown to save the child.

I don't think by and large those who love their pets would let a child drown. That to me is a false premise, that you are making the assumption that yes, folks may consider Fido a part of the family and then equating that to allowing a child to drown.

What about the flips side of the coin? There are cases where folks try to sue for damages in the wrongful death of a beloved pet just to have the court rule that they could always get another one as if they are just disposable napkins.

If you don't have pets, you may find it difficult to comprehend. But in pets, especially dogs, humans and their furry friends have evolved into a symbiotic relationship. We have developed together, and have evolved into a co-dependent pair of lifeforms.

There is no worse feeling of rejection than that of a dog not liking you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

215. well responsible parents are not expected to have their male children neutered

however sensible that might be in some situations

[TheFrenchRazor]

216. um, no. why is it a contest? people who are very anti-animal rights have some serious personality

personality problems. i get the distinct impression that they would treat people just like they treat animals if they thought they could get away with it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

217. The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world,

George Graham Vest (1830-1904) served as U.S. Senator from Missouri from 1879 to 1903 and became one of the leading orators and debaters of his time. This delightful speech is from an earlier period in his life when he practiced law in a small Missouri town. It was given in court while representing a man who sued another for the killing of his dog. During the trial, Vest ignored the testimony, and when his turn came to present a summation to the jury, he made the following speech and won the case.

----

Gentlemen of the Jury: The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us, may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads.

The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings, and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.


If fortune drives the master forth, an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by the graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death. - George Graham Vest 1855

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/vest.htm


"If dogs don't go to heaven. When I die, I want to go to wherever it is that they do go." - Will Rogers

[Scout]

218. nope, not strange at all. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

225. no. My husband's guide dog saved his life. I'd say he was probably better than some humans.

[pragmatic_dem]

228. Anyone else find this question just an attempt to bait people into bashing PETA?

Maybe we have bigger issues at the moment, like the chickens being raised in cages, slaughtered here, put on boats to China, where out of reach of US health inspectors and under the famous Chinese standards of sanitation, the meat is "processed" and put on a boat back to the US where you buy it in stores and eat it for dinner?

Don't want to buy it? Good luck. They passed a law making it perfectly legal to hide where the meat is processed.

So, if someone from PETA and someone bashing PETA fell into the river... I know who I would save.

[yallerdawg]

233. Another possibility

We have had reports of a parasite which lives in a symbiotic relationship with cats (you recall repeated warnings about handling cat feces, you know, the poop in the special box over in the corner of your room?).

The impact of these deep-brain parasites is still being researched, but this parasite is thought to control human behavior to create a more conducive environment for the cat. In a survival of the fittest scenario, both the cat and the parasite benefit from controlling the human which is a 'host' to both.

This is not a joke.

Nothing similar reported on man's best friend.

[Shankapotomus]

234. Is PETA asking or expecting

anyone to choose a dog over a human in an emergency situation? I don't think they are.

[Shandris]

235. I hate to break it to some people, but humans as a whole...

...have made my life a living hell. They're cruel, insipid, mean-spirited, and take great pain in seeing others suffer. They delight in evil and torture, and even the most insidious plans are cloaked in the talk of goodness while goodness is truly so far from most people's minds as to be a ghost of a memory. Conversely, my ferrets love me, like to play, and count on me to keep them safe and will never do me intentional harm.

You lose, except for the incredibly rare case-by-case exception. And I do mean incredibly. As in, I might know 2 people who would come first. Maybe.