I was shocked that he'd even asked. So much so that I couldn't even articulate a good answer. I think I mumbled something about liking animals and that was the end of our conversation. I suppose that his question might be considered a fair one, especially when one takes into account the enormity of human suffering around the world. The current economic crisis is causing many people to lose their homes, some parents to choose between necessities like paying for gas to get to work in order to provide for their families, or buying food for their children to eat or paying for health care they desperately need. People are dying by the thousands all over the world: the genocide in Darfur, natural disasters such as the earthquake in Italy or typhoons in Southeast Asia. The plight of women in countries like Pakistan or Somalia, to name just a few. There is no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of human suffering to be found almost anywhere one cares to look. So why help animals, who after all are "lower forms of being"? Why spend time on creatures that aren't even sentient? Why donate money or even time to help ease the suffering of animals that we esteem so little as to experiment on them, raise them in huge numbers only to slaughter and eat them, or destroy their natural habitats to the extent of their inevitable extinction?
If we're going to debate the relative value of these issues, then why not compare other causes? Why raise money to research infertility and its causes when there are millions of homeless or foster children who need and deserve loving homes? Why fight to preserve the opportunity for students to learn not only language arts and mathematics, but also science, history, and the arts when the latter subjects are not life "essentials"? Why bother raising money for research into cures for diseases when the world is facing overpopulation problems?
The point that I'm trying to make is that comparing different causes is as useless as comparing apples and oranges. I could go insane trying to analyze the comparative value of many worthy efforts. And why would I want to restrict myself to contributing in only one way? The fact is that if it is only permissible to care for animals after all human suffering has been eradicated all over the world, or even in any single country, then it never will be permissible. I am realistic. There is not much that I can do to help all of the people who need it, and truth be told, in general I like animals much more than I like people. I feel comfortable around them because they make so much more sense than people do. They never try to deny their true natures. They don't play the cruel mind-games that humans practice without even thinking. When they offer love and affection, it is complete and unconditional. How many of us can say the same? And perhaps most important, they may not be "sentient" in the ways that humans have decreed that they must be in order to be considered a higher life form, but just because animals don't adhere to our standards doesn't mean that there's nothing there. Animals feel pain, sadness, happiness, love. The question is not "Can animals think?" but "Can animals suffer?", and I believe that the answer is yes. They're voiceless, however. They cannot fight for their rights in human society. They cannot understand when their people abandon them because of a stupid homeowner's association rule, or the fact that their people did not plan for how big they would get, or that their people simply don't want to take care of them anymore. Who will help them, if not me? As stupid as it may sound to some people, I care about them. I care about them in groups, I care about them as individuals. It breaks my heart that 150 dogs were euthanized without any evaluation in Indiana, simply because they were seized from a dog-fighting ring. Many of them were just puppies, who had not yet been trained to fight. It breaks my heart that millions of animals are euthanized every year because they were abandoned, and no one cared enough to adopt them. It breaks my heart that I am not able to take all of these needy animals and care for them, protect them. All I can do is what I can do.
I know the animals at Best Friends, well, the cats, mostly. It's more relaxing to work with the cats. The dogs are a little too high-energy for me. I know them the way their handlers know them: as individuals. I don't know them as well, but I appreciate the time that I am able to give them, and I like to think that they appreciate it, too. Visit the Best Friends website - www.bestfriends.org - to get an idea of what this sanctuary is like. Take a look at the animals that I have come to know and care for:
So why do I waste my time helping animals rather than humans? Because if I don't, who else will?
1 comment:
Hmmm... I see both sides, but you know that I'm WAY more drawn to yours then others and people think I'm CRAZY for wanting to help animals more then humans. Personally, I think animals are more loyal and trustworthy and they are innocent. Humans have choices to make and often are the cause of their own problems in round about ways. I'm happy to help both but I think you're amazing to be helping the animals. I think you're a kindred spirit.
Post a Comment