Why do some people value animals over human lives?

[MavsSuperFan]

Well we already have one who would rather let a stranger die than their dog. I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I don't have a dog so I can't legitimately weigh in.

What I'm saying is by choosing to save the human over the 10 animals, is that a human life is more valuable than an animal life. I just don't see any way in which an animal life is more valuable than a human's.

If truly 1% of the population would not do that, then this topic is moot. However, I believe more people than that would choose to save the "innocent animals".

The scenario is totally different.

10 animals is not the same as one object you have a personal connection to.

Would you rather a random human die, that you've never met or have your house burned down and no one be injured?

Vested interests make the situations uncomparable to your original example

[Dresta]

I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against animal cruelty, it's disgusting and abhorrent. But you know the train problem? Something like, 5 people are about to be hit by a train, you can flip the switch and divert the train, but it will then kill a single individual?


If there was a human being trapped on one side, and 10 animals on the other... sorry Fido, but I'm saving the human being. Again, I am NOT condoning any kind of violence or mistreatment of animals, but does anyone else out there consider a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal? PETA types will absolutely roast you for being an animal hater and despicable person for saying this, but don't explain their logic.

How can you be against animal cruelty but then eat meat? But then, i guess you just had to get how disgusting you find it in to prove your moral virtue .

If there are 1 million dogs on one side and one human being on the other, i am saving the human being. Anyone who spends their time campaigning on the behalf of animals should be picked up and dropped off in the Congo somewhere.

[RedBlackAttack]

The question is fundamentally flawed and, if you simply look at the way the question is being asked, you'll come up with some answers.

Humans are animals. We've evolved to have a highly functional brain relative to the other species on this planet, but we are animals.

Pulling humans out of the animal population and placing them on a tier above every other living thing on the planet is precisely the problem I have with a lot of people when it comes to this discussion.

In fact, if you look at our role on Earth and the way we arrogantly overpopulate and destroy virtually all natural resources, you may come to the conclusion that the exact opposite is true. Most other animals live harmoniously with their natural environment. We beat it and destroy it until it fits our short-term needs and only our short-term needs.

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.

[9erempiree]

Catch 22 here.

People don't value animals over humans. The ones that do value animals or humans are those that became attached to the animal as a pet. That right there is cruelty to animals. Withholding an animal for your guilty pleasure of having something to pet at. Stop rubbing the damn animal and stop letting the damn animal run your life.

A friend of mine has a dog and he doesn't hang out with us because he has to go home and let the dog out.

I once invited a girl over to the house for dinner and she declined because I won't let her bring the dog into my house. She said she needed to bring the dog over so she can let it out for a pee/sh!t.

People are too consumed with animals to be honest with you. That is the real question here....Are humans too consumed with their damn pets?

[Dresta]

The question is fundamentally flawed and, if you simply look at the way the question is being asked, you'll come up with some answers.

Humans are animals. We've evolved to have a highly functional brain relative to the other species on this planet, but we are animals.

Pulling humans out of the animal population and placing them on a tier above every other living thing on the planet is precisely the problem I have with a lot of people when it comes to this discussion.

In fact, if you look at our role on Earth and the way we arrogantly overpopulate and destroy virtually all natural resources, you may come to the conclusion that the exact opposite is true. Most other animals live harmoniously with their natural environment. We beat it and destroy it until it fits our short-term needs and only our short-term needs.

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.

Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man .

[9erempiree]

Pet owners are the ones being cruel to animals. Come on guys, you are locking them up in your house. Forcing or not forcing them to walk. Feed them packaged food when you should be cooking for them. Letting them shit without wiping their ass for them.

It's a damn shame that these pet owners don't even brush their dogs' teeth. Cruelty at its finest what I mentioned.

Lets be serious, you owners put your dogs on a freaking leash.


Only purpose of a dog is to be outside in the backyard guarding and protecting the house.

[miller-time]

That's why I've never understood the reasoning behind disregarding the lives of all other animals and putting us on our own tier.

Because the survival of a species requires the species to look out for itself. All (or most) animals put their own species above others - every animal places itself on its own tier, we just happen to be human and therefore from our perspective we are on the top tier. The question could be more accurately worded by saying "non-human animals" as opposed to just animals.

[DeuceWallaces]

Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man .

Stop being an idiot. That is not what arrogantly overpopulate has to insinuate. There is some ground between being a nomad and destroying the earth with our society. People can value an animal more than human x without having to be naturalists or a hypocrite because they have a couple burgers a year.

There is no context to the OP's argument, just incoherent ramblings. Who are these people he's talking about? Why are the humans dying? Which animals are we saving? Do we know the people or the animals? Just a whining troll thread.

[CelticBaller]

Don't get it either. Fck animals. We got to the top of the food chain by shitting on everyone else so keep it that way

This

[Dresta]

Stop being an idiot. That is not what arrogantly overpopulate has to insinuate. There is some ground between being a nomad and destroying the earth with our society. People can value an animal more than human x without having to be naturalists or a hypocrite because they have a couple burgers a year.

There is no context to the OP's argument, just incoherent ramblings. Who are these people he's talking about? Why are the humans dying? Which animals are we saving? Do we know the people or the animals? Just a whining troll thread.

Well, seeing as those are the means that allowed us to overpopulate, i don't see how it could insinuate anything else without being incorrect. Human beings are not having more children than ever before, but the population is growing because 1. The growing complexity of world economy has become capable of sustaining it (i.e. people not dying from want and starvation as frequently) 2. Medicinal control over pestilential diseases that had before acted as an suppressant on excessive population growth has limited the frequency of early death.

Either way, these are preventing a lot of human misery and suffering, so to call them 'arrogantly overpopulating' is ridiculous. If he would rather the majority of human beings not survive to adulthood again, then that is his prerogative, but to call the attempt to stem such a capricious mortality 'arrogant' is ****ing idiotic.

[RedBlackAttack]

Arrogantly overpopulate? If by that you mean develop societies so efficient that they are capable of catering for millions, or developing medicines that lessen the precariousness of human life, then you are effectively arguing against human life and against the extension, prolongation and proliferation of it. We don't live in our 'natural' environment because that would be a thoroughly miserable existence, and if you are so desperate to return to nature why don't you go and live in a jungle somewhere?

****ing animal nuts man .

This is the "love it or leave it" rationale you often see from overzealous nationalists when they encounter someone who is willing to honestly critique some of the country's ills. Just because you're able to step back from the situation and honestly evaluate our place does not mean that you should have to go live in a jungle and get chased around by tigers... "That'll learn 'em!"

I'm simply pointing out the facts of human existence. It took humans until 1804 to reach the 1 billion mark. Now, just 210 years later, we are at 7 billion. If that rate of growth continues, we'll hit 8 billion by 2028. There will come a point where this planet can no longer sustain the growing overpopulation.

We are becoming massively overpopulated. It isn't conjecture or debatable. It's a simple, accurate assessment. I'm not even saying there is anything we can necessarily do about it, but there's no denying it.

[DeuceWallaces]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

[9erempiree]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

Dumbest thing I have ever heard. First you mention we are at a steady pace and then say we are over-populating.

Trying to put a limit on something as natural as reproduction and starting/growing a family is dumb.

[RedBlackAttack]

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

The most "arrogant" part of the scenario, for me, is that people basically refuse to talk about it. This may be humankind's most dire looming threat, yet it has no place in the political dialogue or mainstream consciousness.

It's like most people accept the fact that we're overpopulated and it is growing, but there's a sense that we'll work it out down the road and we'll figure out a way to make it work. That's true arrogance.

[Dresta]

This is the "love it or leave it" rationale you often see from overzealous nationalists when they encounter someone who is willing to honestly critique some of the country's ills. Just because you're able to step back from the situation and honestly evaluate our place does not mean that you should have to go live in a jungle and get chased around by tigers... "That'll learn 'em!"

I'm simply pointing out the facts of human existence. It took humans until 1804 to reach the 1 billion mark. Now, just 210 years later, we are at 7 billion. If that rate of growth continues, we'll hit 8 billion by 2028. There will come a point where this planet can no longer sustain the growing overpopulation.

We are becoming massively overpopulated. It isn't conjecture or debatable. It's a simple, accurate assessment. I'm not even saying there is anything we can necessarily do about it, but there's no denying it.

Population did not suddenly grow like that because people started having more children; it happened because we became capable of sustaining more life, more efficiently. Population growth is dependant on that, so these 'facts of human existence' you are pointing out are little more than scare-mongering myths, and the overpopulation myth has persisted for several centuries now.

What you're saying isn't conjecture or debatable, i'll give you that, it's just completely incorrect.

US birth rates have held pretty steady the past 25-30 years while our knowledge of Earth's CC has grown and pointed at the dangers of this. People still arrogantly overpopulate today; there's no need and it's irresponsible to have so many kids in modern times given what we know.

Furthermore, preventing the misery and suffering of the living through modern medicine does not mean you should go balls out and have 3-5 kids while ignoring the repercussions. That would be arrogantly overpopulating. You can respect the limits of nature while still embracing society and technology.

What are you blabbering about? Who is 'arrogantly overpopulating'? The US needs people to have more children considering how difficult it is going to be to support the baby-boomer generation.

How is having 3-5 kids not 'respecting the limits of nature'? If you can afford to sustain them, then there is no problem. And what exactly are 'the limits of nature'? apparently 2 kids according to you, but i'd really like you to try defining this ridiculous concept a bit more accurately.