Equating human beings to animals has never worked out for people. At least those on the receiving end of such a philosophy. A bigger brain could explain it better but what we see around us today is what brought about Nazism. There's no Hitler around today. Not in Poland or Hungry yet but most comments are here are driven by misanthrope and a misguided sense of compassion. Those big brains might ask you to read the bible , ancient Roman and Greek literature and philosophy , English common law but I think you are to far gone. Not being to able value human life is Athiesms and secular humanism greatest failure.
Maybe it won't come with death camps this time but if and when famine and desease are killing of tens of millions and your answer is its for the planet you failed.
1
People can look after themselves. Animals can't always do so, because of the evil that people perpetrate. I'll support the animals first every time.
23
no, not wrong. When animals do well, so eventually will humans.
6
In my mind, this question is exactly our problem. We see ourselves as different than, more valuable, more everything than...animals. The truth is, this planet would be in perfect shape without humans.
25
Animals have no voice, someone has to speak up for them.
20
Yes, of course. It's a false choice. We need a healthy biosphere in all it's rich complexity much more than it needs us.
10
Your article was a serious misfire and rather than persuade you just infuriated!
Mr. Kristof, it is possible for someone to be an animal activist, donate to animal charities almost exclusively and then participate in March For Our Lives. Caring for animals does not exclude caring for people. Try it! I do it everyday.
But keep in mind that every day is a holocaust for the millions of animals killed in factory farms, hunted and exploited by humans. Should not the conscience consider the suffering of the animals caused by humans? You may not love or find the joy in animals, like so many others do, but why judge those that do? And why are the most vulnerable amongst living creatures not entitled protectors? If you want to make a point about the suffering of people, why do it at the expense of animals of those that care about them?
15
Can't we all share the planet? While I agree that starving and dying people are a travesty of the worst kind, the fact that endangered animals are diminishing rapidly at the hands of greedy and heartless hunters is horrible too. Are the two problems mutually exclusive? Or do they exist for the same reason -- man's inhumanity, whether it happens to other men or to innocent animals?
12
I have a moral obiglation that I have voluntarily made to protect my pet, as an individual I love. you want my concern Nick? take a number
4
Animals have as much right to live their lives as we do. Every single bit as much. People can make choices for themselves and their countries. They can choose to populate or not, they can choose to go to war, they can choose to help each other or stand alone. Animals just live their lives unaware that a species called humans choose for them whether to destroy their habitat, hunt them to extinction or protect and value their lives and the planet we all call home. You better believe I'd save my dog before I'd extend a hand to a tourist I don't know. If that tourist can hang on another minute I'll get him too, but my dog is my family and his life is just as important and meaningful as the tourist. Our righteous attitude towards our species comes from the bible and we take its teachings to believe that we have every right to pillage and plunder this earth for our benefit alone. So how's that working for us? Maybe if I believed in a god or the bible I'd feel different, but I gave up on that baloney 40 years ago after watching our pastor drag a horse to death behind his pickup because it was "misbehaving." If he was the Christian god's representative then I decided right then and there that religion was a complete joke and wanted nothing to do with it. The more I see done in the name of religion the more disgusted with it I become. So tourist, save yourself cuz I'm saving my dog.
13
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated".
Mahatma Ghandi
That answers the question....period.
15
Destruction of mammals is obviously bad but the wanton destruction of bugs (including stuff like krill) and birds is what will collapse the biosphere. Bugs are not all that cuddly but it is they who create soil and selectively bread plants.
6
I love my cats and don't really care about most humans. The humans and cats I love come first.
I care in an abstract way about the human race and donate to help human welfare as much as animal welfare. That's about it.
4
"Is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering?" No.
I am a successful lawyer, just on the cusp of retirement. My wife, also a lawyer, and I have no kids, and that is the way we wanted it. We have dogs and cats, and give a lot to animal-welfare charities (although I suspect in the end the heedless humans will destroy the animals and themselves).
I don't worry at all about the morality of choosing animals over people. I like a few specific, individual people, but frankly wouldn't lift a finger to save mankind. I have always said that were I lead counsel in a trial to prove the existence or nonexistence of God that I would introduce man and woman as Exhibits A and B in my assertion that there is no God.
14
Bravo!!!
3
The Pygmies get it. It isn't either or anymore. It isnt us or them. It's now mostly them and then it will be us. Even if you live in the cement and steel toxic waste dumps we call cities you're not immune to what is happening to the natural world. We have no idea when we will finally tear the fabric of life to shreds and will pass the point of no return. A week ago it was the last male northern white rhino. In the mean time several less charismatic species (and probably undiscovered)have probably gone too almost all due to the exploding human population and its infinite need for resources. I could almost understand this if humankind had opted for quality over quantity, but we haven't. We've decided the planets resources should be used to produce humans who by and large live on 10$/day or less and have miserable lives. In the end, the environment we choose to destroy is the same one we depend on as our fellow creatures.
6
I rescue feral cats. I contribute to PETA and the World Wildlife Fund. I also financially foster a child in India, and am a public school teacher by profession. Other contributions go to Planned Parenthood, and ActBlue, a Democratic PAC, as well as to the League of California Conservation Voters and the Washington National Cathedral.
Helping animals or people doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation, but if I had to choose, I'd probably choose animals over people. The last time I looked, we are the only species destroying the entire planet.
18
The inclination to feel a more visceral pain in the face of animal suffering is a very human tendency to feel compassion for the literal and metaphorical "underdog"—the one who is made to suffer at the hands of a cruel bully or more powerful adversary.
Animals— as the long-suffering victims of our species' unbridled greed and religiously-stoked sense of superiority and consequent license to exploit and inflict suffering, are finally emerging into our dim and selfish awareness, as deserving of our protection after eons of imbalance.
16
Funny, I didn't get the memo that humans were only allowed to care about one thing at a time.
16
A resounding YES! Animals cannot avail themselves of the resources that people have.
10
The symbol of global warming is the Philippenes rep to the the UN crying after the Tacoblan hurricane, crying at the UN, and saying Please ACT..
Name your symbol -there are too many to count....
2
Empathetic people are empathetic towards all sentient beings, human and non. That is natural.
The fact is that the easiest way to stop the suffering of the largest number of sentient beings is to boycott factory-farmed animal products, which are virtually all animal products sold today -- including those with the deceptive labels ("free range"; "organic"; "humane"; "cage free") suggesting otherwise.
One can easily help other people while boycotting factory-farmed animal products. It is no impediment whatsoever. And it is a moral imperative.
10
Truly compassionate, empathetic individuals who are activists for the rights of human and/or nonhuman people, are a rare, critically endangered species under constant attack. They need our devoted protection, care & support.
8
To answer the question, no, it is not wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering.
Why?
Like so many of today’s flashpoints it comes down to a question of power.
Why is racism wrong? It’s the disenfranchisement of the powerless by a dominant culture.
Why is sexual harassment wrong? It’s wrongful subjugation by those who hold power in society and the workplace.
Why is child abuse especially abhorrent? It's an extreme cruelty of power over the innocent.
And animals? Are they not least powerful of all? It is our responsibility to care for, protect, and cherish those who survive at our mercy.
9
Sorry, but I read all the time about African animals becoming endangered or extinct. I don't read about any peoples becoming extinct for lack of mosquito nets. I also have limited pity for other of the problems for humans that Kristof weekly describes. When the US is in better shape, US children have better educational facilities, then I'll start thinking more about Pygmies and other central African problems.
4
I think the point is that none of this compassion is mutually exclusive. I like to think, for instance, that your comment was not meant as cruelly as it came off.
5
We're merely temporal vehicles for DNA, as is all life on earth. Once we die, our bodies immediately and efficiently work to recycle the materials that once served us to service other living things.
Our consciousness has no scientific factual basis. It's an illusion, as is our sense of self. Both cease to exist upon death; the dead are not aware they have died.
We need to understand ourselves in this context. The question posed is absurd, not just because we are animals too, though that classification is a purely human construct. There is no meaning to our lives different from any life. The meaning of life is life itself.
Our one unique gift is the possibility of comprehending this. This article, alas, does not.
6
Animals have no voice and no choice when it comes to the pain we inflict on them. We have too many children and rob them of their natural habitats. We use them to test eye liner and face cream. We hunt them and mount their heads on our walls. We discard them after 13 years of devotion to the local animal shelter. So easy to side with innocent animals over selfish mankind but everyone with a brain understands by protecting animals we are protecting our species. The same selfish people driving factory farming or poaching or clubbing seals should realize if we kill off all the bees our food crops will disappear or if we decimate habitats and the species supporting them cures for diseases are lost forever or if we continue to pollute the oceans there won't be any fish for us to eat. By not supporting the world's animals we're destroying ourselves. Not to mention continued cruelty erodes what little compassion we have left and makes us less empathetic as a society. My checks/donations go to help animals. Sorry, folks. Every year they shoot hundreds of deer in Valley Forge National Park simply because they interfere with tourist traffic. This land was there's long before we showed up and yet we're annoyed that they're behaving naturally and want to be left alone in peace. So we kill them.
14
Animals are animals. We eat them, use them for labor , keep them as pets. Let's show a little more compassion to our fellow humans first.
2
So very unenlightened. This comment shows why I will only give to animal welfare groups.
18
Is it surprising that when we treat animals as just another commodity that we rarely treat people (especially weak ones) any better? Humans by their sheer numbers have devalued the iportance of any particular individual. Was it Stalin who said "the death of an individual is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"? More true today than ever.
2
I can stoically watch just about anything on the news—carnage, war, etc but show an injured animal and my heart melts.
8
I’m shocked to see a 2x Pulitzer Prize winner wondering for years if animals are worth saving.
I have news for you, without animals and plants we would be extinct!
The writer of this article has been poorly informed.
Take a basic biology class!
5
Helping animals feels like a less futile exercise, because they are not able to steal the aid meant for other animals, embezzle funds or burn their newly recreated habitat down in a civil war. Also, there are way too many humas on the planet while in many wildlife projects, it is literally about whether a species will stop existing forever.
14
What kind of a question is it to ask if we would save a stranger over our family pet? I would chose my family pet if I was ever faced with this horrible (but highly unlikely) dilemma, but that doesn't say anything about my dedication to helping humans. I, like most sane people, would chose to save both!
8
There is no legitimate reason to think that animals have a different moral standing than humans. We are animals. We should consider the impact of our actions on animals the same way we consider them toward other humans.
The single greatest moral failing of humans is that we think we are somehow radically different and more valuable than all the other creatures with whom we share the planet. This is a very convenient belief, one enshrined in the religions of the west, but not one that can be defended with any consistent logic.
To protect animals only because they are ‘resources’ for humans is the worst argument. It undermines the inherent value of all these animals. It should be ok to slaughter elephants if they don’t bring tourist dollars?
It is shameful that Mr. Kristoff - who usually has a trustworthy moral compass - would not approach the question of animal rights with the same thoughtfulness and generosity that he would approach the question of human dignity. The argument in this essay is completely wrong headed. I count on Mr. Kristoff to write a retraction, for the sake of his devoted readers who rely on him for ethical guidance.
10
Greed in politics allows human suffering and it could be remedied. Animals could be saved and at the same time bring in money to countries through eco-tourism. It's an easier problem to fix than the greed and dysfunction in our political systems that turn a blind eye to human suffering.
5
Nearly all of my charitable contributions and volunteer work goes toward animal welfare, including wildlife organizations and rescuing 5 cats and 1 puppy -- Baloney, our newest family member. Why? Because humans as a species don't deserve this beautiful world. We're selfish and greedy. Many care only about having way too much. Animals make this world bearable. I'll choose the company of animals over most the people I've met. Animals are, truly, pure. They do not lie, cheat, deceive or kill, unless it is absolutely necessary. A world without them would not be worth living in.
14
Compassion is not a zero-sum game.
4
Cash is fungible. Before decrying those who fight for animal rights, perhaps you should consider the vastly greater sums spent by the 1% on their own selfish indulgences. Humans are responsible for an ongoing great extinction—we are pushing virtually every other species off the earth. Whoever slows this debacle is to be commended, not condemned.
8
That the symbol of global warming is a skinny polar bear and not the people who die in violent storms or who are left homeless in Louisiana or Puerto Rico are just more examples of how we elevate the value of animals over humans. Yes, I get it. The love from a pet is unconditional and uncomplicated. That doesn't make it better.
26
Actually grace, to many of us it is. A species that has been around at least since the last ice age may not last until mid century due to the need of humans to burn hydrocarbons almost exclusively to produce ever more humans dooming the bears because their world will have melted from right under them. They ARE the poster animals for a planet being changed too fast (by human activity) for nature to adapt.
7
This question will resonate with me the day a pack of animals burn down my neighborhood, stuff me with antibiotics, force me to live in the dark in a tiny cage or stalk me and shoot me because there are too many humans and we need to be 'culled.'
Peter Singer once said "The question is not 'Can animals reason?' but rather 'Can animals suffer?'"
Wake up Mr. Kristof. You're one of the 'idealists' who can't recognize the suffering around you except when it threatens your own species.
16
The earth's problems are no caused by lions and tigers and bears and elephants and all other animals,
the problems are caused by human beings, over population, greed, indifference to the planet's welfare - as other comments have noted. As E. O. Wilson has noted, half the planet must be urgently, sincerely devoted to the welfare of all non-human species. Unfortunately the abusive, selfish destructive impulses of unkind humankind are not easy to remedy. It will take extreme enlightenment to make People "the luckiest people in the world."
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
7
There are 7.7 billion of us. We are not in danger of going extinct, or even of having our number shrink, except from our own stupidity.
There are only a few thousand, or a hundred, or mere dozens of some of our fellow species. That's on us.
Zero population growth for us. Habitat conservation for the rest of creation.
14
It's not either/or. It's both together. We will live or die depending on whether we take action to reverse global warming, stop polluting the air and the water, and stop killing each other over stupidly false issues. We've been worshipping false gods since before we developed cave art. You can't eat money or power and neither one is ever going to love you. The truth really is out there - hiding in plain sight.
3
Everywhere humans settle, species extinction follows. Save the animals.
10
Re Headline: "...Choosing Animals Over People?
Hearts melt seeing the wildlife in the Dzanga Sangha rain forest. But is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering?"
When animal;s suffer...humans suffer, too, 'cause... humans are at the top of the food chain! Thus...when we cause-permit-extend the corporate_profiteering-caused conditions which lead to extinctions amongst other species...we are, (...knowingly 'N, unknowingly!), sawing off that plank, we're balancing, on...as it extends from the side 'O, the ship, out over sea!
The “god gave man dominion over all,” “humans first,” “top of the food chain” excuse is destroying everything, because it fails to take into account short sightedness, greed and stupidity. Qualities humans have in abundance....
2
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so my Father shall do for you." A nice Jewish man said that. If you believe God gave us dominion over the earth and the animals, then certainly we have some responsibility to them.
3
I maintain that humans are an evolutionary mistake, our every move forward as a species, as a civilization, has come at great cost to the natural world that is the source of life for us, and great cruelty to the other sentient beings that share this planet. Individual people are capable of rising above human baseness, but in general, yeah, my sympathy lies with animals over humans. Every time. We have taken our large brains and ruined everything for every other creature and now finally, in the next 100 years or so, for ourselves. We are immense cosmic idiots. Even God must be disgusted.
10
While there are real arguments to be made for wildlife conservation at the species level, and rational and compassionate animal welfare and stewardship, it is truly frightening to see the level of misanthropy in many of these comments.
4
Animals vs people is really not a legitimate question. Animals are part of the ecosystem all of humanity ultimately depends on for survival. Assuring the survival of animals along with humans who inhabit much of the same space should not be mutually exclusive. A civilized society can and should devote the resources to do both. To allow a species to die because demand driven by Chinese demand for imaginary benefits is unconscionable just as is not supplying a few mosquito to save native lives.
4
The article begins with a false argument, so I didn't read it.
Humans' war on the environment is killing all of us. Sustainability is not about "saving the animals." It is about saving all of us, human animals and non-human animals.
And sustainability will never be achieved unless humans control their reproduction.
Overpopulation by humans considers to undermine the existence of life on earth, including the life of humans.
12
Fortunately, in the US, we've started to count the cultural costs of actions in environmental impact studies. However, that isn't universal.
Consider the celebrated new national park in Patagonia. Rich white westerners are lauded for buying millions of acres and creating a national park. Not a word about two cultures that were destroyed and their people driven off in that effort. Not a comment about the human cost to an impoverished people of eliminating the local supply of meat. People and cultures must be considered.
1
You may be correct about that park in Patagonia and its effects. But that doesn't negate the hunting of species to extinction for sport or trophy, the perverted mistreatment of animals by the meat industry, the chemical and nuclear pollution of land and water, the poisoning of the seas, and manmade climate change, not to mention the sheer overpopulation by humans beyond what the earth will support in the long run. These are what the other commenters' sentiments are about.
3
Caring about ANYTHING is always the correct thing to do. Compassion and mercy are not zero-sum games.
8
After living in this world for 76 years I now feel more compassion for animals than I do for humans. No animal has destroyed my faith in an individual species as has Homo (not really sapien) sapiens.
26
I see this discussion as part of the larger worldwide movement away from civility. In America, and elsewhere, pets are seen as a part of the family and treated as humans. Why? Because animals give unconditional devotion that is interpreted as love. Pets provide the perfect partners for those unable to cope with the emotional intricacies of a human relationship. It's my experience that most animal rights advocates are simply amplifying their personal pet relationship to the larger animal kingdom.
4
Reading this article makes me realize the limitations of human intelligence.
This isn't a "legitimate question" as Kristof claims, it's a half-baked, limited consciousness grasping unsuccessfully at thought.
We're a mean, nasty, greedy bunch of primates that has zero business knowing the secrets of nuclear fission. Our fellow earthlings suffer greatly at our expense as their habitats are destroyed by pollution or razed to make room for more of us.
Should we choose animals over people? The "choice" is false. All life on Earth is related. We are all brothers and sisters to gorillas, puppies wild horses, birds, insects and marine algae.
The tragedy is that human intelligence and consciousness are too limited to understand our interconnectedness.
189
Thank you for this razor sharp statement of truth and thank you, moderators, for "picking" it.
Value is assigned and not inherent beyond its usefulness to the system within which it resides. Humans have assigned themselves premium value over the rest of "creation" because the tale of that creation tells them "god" created humanity as the crowning achievement and ruler of the whole enterprise.
Now that we're in the midst of our adolescent realization of the egocentric mythology we've been spoonfed as children, the ecological rampage it enabled is now running headlong into the long overdue redefinition of "value". There is absolutely no value in procreating and consuming to the point of destruction of the host system. That's the modus operandi of a cancer cell and humanity is now acting no differently.
Yes, humans have value, as other humans have assigned them (and not at all equally, it should be noted), but not to the detriment of the host planet or the future of the species. Something must change and the time to face that change is now. The sooner we eject the mythological deity-based value system we've used to cocoon ourselves from the reality of the science-based universe, the sooner we can set about redefining value for the good of the whole that is our home and future.
27
Well said. We should all be contributing to The Population Connection, formerly Zero (Human) Population Growth.
And having one or zero children.
7
Yes, yes, we are all one. The human zygote and beginning embryo go through all stages of the evolution of life. At three weeks we are fish, complete with gills,at 4 to 5 weeks we have a tail. This is "creation" at its finest. As i have stated before, God's middle name is Science.
2
It's my understanding that charitable donations to conservation/environmental organizations pale in comparison to donations to human welfare groups. So if you're moved to save the orangutan, and put your money towards that, hurray for you! Biodiversity matters.
9
There's no way of knowing for sure but maybe each species on this planet believes they are the most important species. One thing is certain, humans collectively are the most destructive species on this planet, by far. Many of us, including me, may care deeply for these gorillas or the poor lion that was shot by the trophy hunting dentist from the Midwest, but in the end humans, due to so-called progress, are an existential threat to all other species, and ourselves. For that reason it is incumbent upon our species to protect all other species from humans, even as millions of humans suffer. In America that ideal is better realized when you vote for Democrats.
3
The inhabitants of this planet evolved for a reason and the more animals we eliminate by removing their habitats the closer we get to eliminating ourselves. So keep chopping down those rain forests, draining the marshes, fracking, and dumping trash in the ocean . . .
7
Friends and I ask ourselves why it is that we can watch several people get shot in a movie, but are out of there if an animal gets killed. Perhaps it's because we know that animals don't get a choice. We are the top predators, at the top of the food chain. Humans pride themselves on their self-awareness, but we seem to be clever in the short-term and pretty stupid in the long run about considering long term consequences, as witnessed by the numbers of people who seem to think that conservation and climate change concerns are merely foo foo liberal plots.
7
I saw the wonderful documentary "Jane" about Jane Goodall and her decades long study on chimanpanzees on NAT GEO Wild recently. After viewing it I realized that I would rather save a chimpanzee's life over most human beings' lives. Why? Chimps don't kill their own species for no reason and they certainly are not war-mongers.
7
Animal rights activists should read the story of the siege of Leningrad to put things in perspective.
2
The question not allowed to be asked is should the US and EU be telling Africaians what they are allowed to do with their lands? China builds railroads, dams and reseviors. What does America offer? Are you sure you can sit at the negotiating table with an agriculure minister when you believe animals are more important or at least equal to people? Are you going to him you can't open that forrest for farmland, to chose wildlife when his people can starve? They might consider you a rascist and a colonists.
I predict unintend consequences.
2
The organised religions place Man at the centre of everything because it's in their interests to do so.
There are 7.4 billion humans and there will be almost ten billion by mid century.
I dislike Homo sapiens sapiens as a species, but feel pity for individuals. In general, I prefer dogs to humans. It's up to me whom I care for. If Christian Evangelicals don't like it, then they can go sup with Trump for solace.
5
A better title for this piece would have been “Why helping animals isn’t at the expense helping people”. Why give the knee jerk opponents of animal activism more uninformed grist for their mill? Kristol ought to know better about rhetorical devices.
6
Maybe because he has a more nuanced and rationally considered view than the kneejerk animal rights PROponents.
3
In the wild sharks don't attack without signalling their intentions while people go nuts without much provocation or need.
I know I prefer wild animals over people. I've been shocked by torpedo rays but I admit that I teased it at times so I didn't hold a grudge. Once after teasing one I looked back to see that it was following me and glaring with it's beady eyes. I've seen the same look from people.
The fact is that people are animals too but there's so many of us that we have become desensitized to our own instincts, our own species. And we have been trained to do so by religion, entertainment, and society. Our current leader is one of the best examples of that.
Choosing animals over people is a red herring. If we alter the environment so much that wild animals cannot survive, then we will not last either. The politicians who claim that some of us do so could care less about the rest of us, let alone animals.
1
As Gandhi said: "The moral fabric of a country is measured by how its people treat animals." The problem with the world is mostly due to the cruelty of men. Men are cruel to animals, women, and children in gross and subtle ways. Rather than blame compassion for animals, educate men on how to behave early in life.
9
Some of the earliest expressions of human compassion arise from childhood interactions with animals. There is an innate understanding that animals are largely at the mercy of humans and their actions. Most humans are empathetic to the animal condition, which is why as young learners we cry when Old Yeller dies or when the coonhounds are lost in Where the Red Fern Grows. Our need to feel connected and respond to the exploitation of animals and rally for their welfare taps those early emotions. Humans are not being abandoning other human beings for the sake of animals...as the author states, "Compassion for other species can also nurture compassion for fellow humans." Supporting wildlife helps to heal the world, however human tragedy and suffering cannot be eradicated by simply writing a check.
3
There is one other group who you are leaving out of the equation.
Actually, it's multiple groups rolled up into one. It's the rich and the privileged; it's corporations and hedge fund managers and financial companies; it's the war-mongers and third world dictators who we prop up; it's environmental polluters and anti-environmental groups...the list goes on.
Over the last forty years, we have made conscious decisions to direct our time, interest, efforts, laws and money toward these groups. I don't have an all-encompassing name for these groups and peoples. But they are there. They take up all of the air in the room.
I would almost say that choosing between people and animals is a false equivalency. The point is, there is enough for both people and their basic needs and rights, as well as there is enough for animals and their basic needs and rights.
But in truth, there is not enough for either people or animals. There will be - if we as a people, country, species and world decide where we want our priorities to be.
There is enough for everyone - to get their fair share that is. It's only the ones who take their disproportionate large share that get in the way of the rest of us. And those same people of power who will ultimately spell our true loss as a species, peoples and as a world.
6
Wildlife deserves protection. The real issue is the environmental impact of pets. Whether it's the slaughter of birds by cats, or the impact of pets on climate change, we need to drastically reduce the number of pets.
1
We've oversold the myth of the superiority of humankind. My dogs give me a greater sense of well-being than most people. The aesthetic of nature is superior to the things of man. Our opposable thumbs and more complex brains have given us a huge advantage over other species; we've used it poorly.
Intelligence and manual dexterity have made life easier for many of us in developed countries, but it's doubtful that we're happier as a result. Larger numbers of us live longer, but not necessarily better lives. We take antidepressants to deal with lives full of lots of meaningless stuff but fewer meaningful relationships. We knowingly seek happiness with lethal drugs, killing ourselves accidentally (or not). We'd be happier helping others, but we don't. The squirrels and chipmunks in my yard seem happier than my neighbors.
We haven’t achieved world peace, but we've perfected the art of killing huge numbers of living beings quickly. We don’t limit our weapon use to protection nor do we limit the killing to adults: we kill the young or do nothing to stop others from doing it. For all our weapons, we don’t feel safe, even in our own backyards.
Technology has allowed us to pollute the planet at a faster rate, and if left unchecked we may, at some point, transform this beautiful blue planet into a lifeless sphere, spinning in space. I do believe extinction is built into whatever "this" is all about. The human experiment has failed. It's time to let lesser life forms take the reins.
30
Thank you.
WOW it must be tough seeing nothing but the darkness. Permit me to shine a light: Beethoven, renewable energy development, stem cell research, the highest literacy rate/lowest occurrence of war in history, greatest access to and sharing of knowledge ever, a brilliant new and global generation of young people demonstrating extraordinary skills and talents etc etc... etc etc...
3
The philosophical concepts of human rights and animal rights are not laws of nature or evolution. Mr. Kristof's correctly points out that animal conservation efforts helps selected animals in Africa, but it will not solve the bigger problems.
The real problem that we all know, is that in the next 50 years, the human population is expected to grow to 9-10 billion people, all striving for first world lifestyles. From what I read, and have observed traveling in many countries, the wild animals are continuing to disappear and more and more carbon will be released into the atmosphere that will impact all species.
It is time to quit talking about human and animal rights as though those human created beliefs will save the animals or humans. Through billions of years of evolution, there has never been a right to live. There has only been an opportunity to survive and pass on the genes of each living animal or plant.
If humans want to save other species, and ourselves, limit future population growth, and find ways to force a substantial reduction in activities that increase carbon releases into the atmosphere.
Accomplishing the goals of stopping population growth and lowering carbon emissions will require
universal cooperation by our species. There are no simple answers and many hard choices.
Perhaps it is time to quit talking about rights and speak only about the law of survival and the duty of humans
to preserve our species and the remaining species before it is too late.
12
A duty is an obligation: why do we have a duty if those who are threatened have no rights?
1
"Empathy isn’t a zero-sum game" That says it all. We can do both. If only we have the will.
11
What bothers me about this column is that it implies that animals are value mainly (if not quite only) because they are sources of income as tourist attractions, etc. Bottom line: Money.
At least a couple of "primitive" people mentioned that the animals were central to them in some other way. I suggest that their view should have received more prominence.
The column bothers me as well because, in drawing comparisona to Tamir Rice, etc., it gives a LOT of ammunition to those who subscribe to the view that the world's wonders -- including those that share much of our own DNA -- are of little value, and that what really matters is to make sure that each human group gets its fair share from the others. In fact, the shooting of Mr. Rice had nothing to do with the gorillas, but drawing the comparison does a great job of keeping people pitted against each other.
21
In a moment of true revelations, some of us may have friends with a marked preference for animals over humans, and if you play a parlor game of whether these would choose to save the man who is drowning or his dog, there is a reluctant grudging admission that they would help the former first, accompanied by a note of resentment.
This tame game is not played in the Humanitarian Community because it would be considered in poor taste. A friend from Africa and this domestic American have engaged in an exchange of why do men hang out with bears and then get eaten in the process.
Mr. Kristof might have visited Virgunga, the greatest park and sanctuary in the DRC, where public servants are placing their live on the line to preserve the Gorilla.
Some of us have been to South Africa and sent a photo of lion cubs taken with respect, and while an 'aww' is expected in return, we do not prioritize.
Let's give a hand to those who dedicate their lives for the cause of Wildlife, while another for those who choose to go on mission for the cause of Children world-wide.
A friend who has been caught in the conflict of the Sudan, spent a few years in Afghanistan, has a 'cat' phobia. This is taken seriously, while the cat treats this carer like his 'Alexa'.
The American reporter and author, Paul Gallico, spent a year in England surrounded by 30 cats and one Great Dane, where he wrote 'The Snow Goose', for the Men at Dunkirk. A sentimental tale for some, it was 'Inspiration' above all.
4
We have distortions of our sensibilities for human suffering, period. Why are we not more outraged with deaths and injury caused by traffic accidents, guns, or prescription drugs? Why did Hitler have more feeling for his dogs than people? Why do we close our eyes to the long term suffering of war injuries? Gosh, could not this be a very very long list? Humans are born with the potential for the dark side, which is mostly the cornerstone of Freudian ideology. And, this encompasses developed and so called under developed cultures. No one need be romanticized as innocent. Why are birth rates so high when one knows the increased risk of suffering?
5
In central Africa humans depend much more on the ecosystem. It is their primary ressource. It makes sense to protect it in order for their children to benefit from it. It is a question of survival.
2
My 12 year old frequently discusses how species survive, how they feed themselves. He told me about how species have survival mechanisms to defend themselves that then allow them to hunt their prey.
The hunters that I know in Canada & the USA (not trophy hunters) tell me they fall to their knees in prayer when they kill the animal they hunt; they would rather eat this wild flesh than the flesh of animals dealt a death blow in a stockyard.
Most country people know these things, but some country people also profit from rhino horn and elephant tusk. if the animal conservation people Mr Kristof talks about had brought a few packets of mosquito netting to the pygmy people to act as a malaria prevention device, they would have been much further ahead in their animal conservation efforts: the local would hve helped them even more.
1
Charitable giving to conservation and animal-welfare organizations is entirely eclipsed by giving to charities focused on human health, education and above all, religion. No need to fear that animals are being spared at the expense of humanity.
81
We should be taking care of human welfare through intact and ongoing government policies, not merely through charities. Yet government policies rarely if ever include animal welfare.
9
I'm compelled to ask. The people who said they would chose their dog over a human what religion did the belong to. If not affiliated or identifying with any religion did they believe in God? Or are they secular humanist, atheist or both?
I believe it is an important question.
1
My god doesn’t value me as human above the other living souls on our home planet. Creation placed all of us here. Will we cooperate and share? Or will we kill each other?
2
Studies have shown that atheists have just as strong - or stronger - moral principles as do those who claim religious creed to be their guide. We see this constantly in the US - those who claim strong religious foundations are then exposed as blatantly hypocritical, cry their crocodile tears, and then go back to “sinning”. And apparently all is forgiven. Moral principles that come from within can be every bit as consistent and immutable as those imposed from without, especially when espoused by others who clearly have excused themselves from such in their own personal conduct.
6
I belong to no religious group or non-religious group except a book club.
I believe in a "god" sort-of concept, in that something began all "this" and that something must be greater than me and you. I fail to see why it is important to define what category of life we feel is superior to others. What’s here is here. I embrace most of it.
I would sooner save a crow with a broken wing in my yard than a billionaire who has made his wealth by manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or the millionaire who developed nerve gas. Even though I consider myself to be relatively non-judgmental, I can’t help but preference an innocent birdbrain over a human who uses his intellect to destroy other life forms.
It's a beautiful planet and I love it. It's my home. I have no desire to move to another sphere in space. I'd rather try to maintain some balance on this one, with all forms of life living together.
1
Please spare me the sanctimony. There is nothing wrong with feeling more protective of animals than of humans. People can make decisions for themselves and their lives. Animals are too often at the mercy of humans, and subject to abuse or exploitation. They cannot speak for themselves, or protect themselves. Elephants and gorillas — and so many other species — are endangered. Humans are not in short supply.
To say that people “care” more about a dog being beaten by a baseball bat than a human who is similarly attacked is a meaningless, subjective measure. How do you define “care more”? Emotional reactions can differ in quality, without being more or less. If I read about an animal being abused, or see a video, I am a puddle of tears. I cry when I read about or see children being harmed. That photo of elderly people sitting in a flooded house after the Texas hurricane and flood? I sobbed. When I read about women and children being raped (much in the news lately) I am devastated. These are visceral, empathetic reactions to the pain of vulnerable beings. In contrast, when I see a story about (to give an example of a too-frequent news item where I live) a young man killed in a drive-by shooting that is “gang related,” I feel more discouraged and disgusted than sad. Those are humans who made choices. They put themselves at risk. But the little child who is hit by a stray bullet — from that drive-by — when it went through a living room window? I’ll cry for him and his family.
20
Ecology is the biological science that explores the dynamic evolving relationships among and between living things and their environments. Choosing living things and healthy environments is the best choice for preserving abundant human life.
People are terrestrial vertebrate mammal primate ape animals that evolved fit in Africa 300,000 years ago. We cannot isolate animals and plants from their environments. People have domesticated animals and plants while altering environments. But wild animals, plants and environments on a planet that is 70% saltwater ocean with about 3% freshwater and a thin oxygen breathable temperate connected atmosphere is the only habitat that we have. In the cyber auto jet space age we are inextricably interconnected to all living things and environments.
'All that you touch you Change. All that you Change Changes you. The only lasting truth is Change. God is Change' Octavia E. Butler 'The Parable of the Sower'.
9
While, of course, I share specific and deep concerns about Makumba and his toddler twins, the author entertains a specious dilemma.
All members of DNA Club are equal citizens of this eco world and deserve as much love and support as the human subsection can offer.
Those heart rendering cute or horrific photos, used to fundraise for "good" human or animal causes are misleading in many contexts. As well, here is no moral choice between the homeless of America and the refugees of the world.
2
This is a "non question" which conflates human's attitudes to animals vs other people with the benefits of animal welfare to the communities around them.When humans hurt animals we can be fairly certain they did not do so out of premeditation or malice.When we exploit animals it is virtually always because of greed or some other human flaw.
42
I support animal charities instead of human charities because animals greatest enemy is people. Whether it is factory farming, bears and elephants in roadside shows & zoos, rounding up wild horses by helicopter and putting them into pens to languish, we are the perpetrators against them.
Though my heart goes out to human tragedy, governments have the power to help their people but don't. Dictators, greed, politics and religion cause human suffering that could be wiped out in an instant if mankind did what was right. So reluctantly, I choose to only support animal charities, rigorously and generously, as they cannot support themselves against the daily horrors we perpetrate against them.
170
Wise choice, Meg. I split my donations down the middle, have five rescued indoor cats and take care of four street cats (with valuable help). Lots of sacrifice, cannot take off for vacations or trips on a whim. But I couldn't sleep at night if I had not rescued a feral female spitting out several litters per year and starving right under my window. These animals, wild and domestic, are largely willfully ignored or treated cruelly by people in their midst.
Farm animal treatment is horrific and yet people keep eating meat.
Wildlife is still being murdered for profit.
And yet humans refuse to take care of each other and continue to overpopulate and destroy.
17
"At the broadest level, it’s a mistake to pit sympathy for animals against sympathy for humans." Absolutely right, despite the twisted "either/or" rhetoric of some. This is another of those "either...or" false choices that should be a "both...and."
3
Bravo Nicholas Kristof! Absolutely the right answer and thanks for pointing this out and reminding us!
Humans are overpopulated, we continuously do things against our self interests such as destroying the environment and the ecosystems on which we depend to live. Our society has made talk about population control a taboo topic, the Ecological Society of America prohibits studies about human populations. We’re incredibly short sighted as a species and in the whole, we’re not very nice to one another. It’s no wonder people prefer animals over other humans.
As many others have stated, most animals are endangered because of habitat destruction by humans. Until human population gets to a more sustainable number, both animals and people will continue to suffer.
12
Many people in Africa live in far worse conditions than the animals do in the West. It is due to alternative priorities set by the developed countries.
1
This is an incredibly narrow Western, Abrahamic, be fruitful-and-multiply-and-subdue-the-earth perspective. According to many other belief systems, all creatures are sacred, and harming one is akin to harming the whole.
I agree with many below that this is simply another version of us vs. them. Taking the position that harming other species to save your own is preferable to some people dedicating themselves to saving other species rather than other humans sets a dangerous precedent that is one step away from justifying harming other races, ethnicities, religions, etc. to save your own.
To the person below who called pets "human accessories," you must not have pets. This is another form of arrogant speciesism and perhaps a culture of superiority present in certain wildlife preservation circles. So their lives have no worth because they've been domesticated, they live in controlled environments, or because they may be dependent on humans to care for them? By that measure, you may as well call children human accessories as well.
7
I have found that most animal lovers also show and feel compassion for humans. It's not about the species; it's about having a heart for the "least of these" or those who "can't help themselves" or those of beauty and simplicity. It's about cherishing what God has made - those in his own image and those he placed here for our pleasure.
4
If we wait until all human suffering has ended before we make a move to help animals, then no animal will ever be helped.
11
People are not only the worst species on Earth, the expanding globular population is destroying the environment. Whatever happened to the policy of only having two children to not take up the nation's, world's resources? Now, my local newspaper champions people who have six, eight, ten kids ('Isn't that wonderful!).
8
I've yet to see any four-legged animal support the NRA. That's worth a lot, right there . . .
13
Defend your right to arm bears - works for me ...
1
We can do a lot more to help both people and other animals. What a sad world we would have without the animals. Without humans not so bad.
3
This is pretty normal human behavior. Crows are probably just as deserving as bald eagles, but...
Humans are over represented, with no shortage. In fact, way too many of us. The wildlife we worry about is rare. Rarity is always more coveted than that which is everywhere.
3
Humans couldn't exist without animals. Animals and other life on earth would flourish without humans.
7
Memo to Scott Pruitt:
"Simply put, one of the most important resources ALL (remove:some poor) countries have is wildlife."
Mammals took 65 million years to evolve after the end of the big lizard era--reducing their diversity to 1 species and a few handmaidens in a mere century or two will be the destruction of us all.
1
Other commenters write that gorillas and elephants wouldn't be under threat of extinction if there weren't so many of us. I agree.
We are the only species that must willingly regulate its population and appetites in order to survive. It's an unprecedented problem but not an insurmountable one. We've managed to eliminate the famines and diseases that used to keep us "sustainable." Maybe we're smart enough to figure this one out, too.
The good news is that a lot of people get this. Unfortunately Trump doesn't.
4
I propose a concerted effort to identify the hunters who perpetrate these killings and campaign with each one to convert them to animal life savers rather than killers.
There is so much personal satisfaction to preserving the animals through donations there is no question that some hunters can be permanently convinced to carry a camera instead of a gun!
4
When given the choice, most people living in sync with their environment would undoubtedly chose to preserve their habitat - we are animals, too - rather than destroying the land for survival's sake. It's completely unnatural to raze your surroundings, at the same time endangering other animal life by destroying their territory. Of course, we've been doing this as human beings for centuries.
We in the West don't connect with nature terribly profoundly, anymore, though many of us do our best to try. We are too sheltered from it, there's very little left of it where we live, and we see it attacked from all sides. And so Nicholas Kristoff is delighted to find that people closer to nature than we are, don't want to loose it. Possibly we've heard too many stories of poachers and others - who are very much in the minority.
Also, of course, when war rages through a country, people loose their moorings and the natural order is turned upside down.
The bigger problem is that as people move to cities, they loose their bearings, in a big way, becoming steadily less respectful of the planet and more likely to treat it badly - especially those who are poor or emotionally deprived.
Right now, America has a Nature problem at the top of the Administration. Not a good example to the world. We see the Trump brothers running around sadistically killing cheetahs, for pleasure, thus giving more license to the criminal exploiters of wild animals to continue their dirty work. One step backward.
3
Animals are are badly treated and killed by the millions. Cows, chickens, and turkeys in particular. Hunters, like Dr. Walter Palmer, kill lions for sport and leave them to die a painful death. The habitats of animals in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are disappearing, often due to logging and development.
The animal rights movement started by philosopher Peter Singer has awakened consciousness throughout the civilized world about the suffering of animals, their complex nervous systems, and their ability to suffer pain, loneliness, and isolation.
Oftentimes, a person who is cruel to animals will later be cruel to persons.
Humans are animals. Therefore there is no contradiction between treating people with kindness and justice and also animals.
8
It is the human species that has caused unfathomable suffering to wild animals over the centuries and brought many of them to the brink of extinction. We have hunted them down for their body parts to assuage our greed, vanity, and superstitions. We have massacred their families in front of their eyes. We have killed mothers with dependent babies, leaving bewildered, vulnerable orphans all alone or in captivity as pets. We have destroyed and polluted their habitats and blocked their migration corridors. We have taken them from the wild and shipped them as cargo to faraway lands to live in captivity in zoos and circuses, beating them into fearful submission so that they will perform humiliating and difficult tricks to entertain the mobs. We have kept them caged and chained, taking away the autonomy that is their birthright. You did not mention in your piece that the very elephants in the video were attacked by brutal poachers a few years ago who shot at them from a viewing platform, killing over two dozen. We need to protect the animals who are left not because it would be beneficial to us, the very species that has caused them to need protection in the first place, but because it is a moral imperative. We owe them. No other justification is necessary.
6
Good topic Nicholas. As someone who would certainly check that box for feeling worse about a puppy being beaten with a bat than a foreigner adult, or any adult frankly - you missed what is the most critical part of that thinking. Humans are the ones doing the hurting. We are overpopulating the planet, we abuse animals on industrial scale, we are taking away their habitat, we are hunting them for hobby, we kill them to make trinkets out of tusks, we confine and torture them for entertainment, we do testing on them for beauty products, we even skin them alive to put a Pom Pom on top of a winter hat. So it seems only natural to have empathy for the victim over the perpertrator. We have an obligation to care for those below us on the hierarchy, and we have failed miserably at that for our selfish desires.
7
We are who we are and some of us have been born to love and care for those who have no voice. They don't disappoint us as humans do.
2
Anyone who is truly compassionate and is helping animals or people would never criticize another person for helping to make the world a better place. Only the self-righteous or ignorant would do so. I'm passionate about helping animals, but devote my time and money to helping people too. And I've heard the complaint that I care more about animals than people. Usually from people who do little or nothing for either the animals or their fellow human beings.
3
Ah. I would easily sacrifice the life of someone I don't know and never heard of who lives in a distant land to save the last rhinoceros. But someone in front of me? A friend? Of course not. Not nice, but true.
1
Two simple truths:
1. People are animals. (Human animals, if it matters.)
2. Non-human animals are persons. (Non-human persons, if it matters.)
3
I hate the false equivalence of this argument. I give to charities for humans and for animals. However, we refuse to address the issue that humans need to stop overwhelming the world with more humans. That's the real issue and the one we refuse to consider. When we finally wipe out every living animal other than us, will we then decide to do something about overpopulation?
4
It is an old question. Noah took two of each animal. Not all people survived
2
It's quite simple:
animals are innocent, helpless
(and don't cite how dangerous rhinos are:
they are no match for an elephant gun)
and animals cannot speak for themselves.
And if you see how they suffer - especially in the factory farms - you understand what monsters the people who eat them are.
4
In a fair world, as much support would pour into the countries and down to the people. The reality is that both the peoples and the animals of those regions are doomed.
Billions in aid pours in and nothing really changes. Why?
10
Funny how environmentally conscious people often parrot the idea that all things in the environment are connected, yet here, the author apprently abandons that idea. The other problem I have with the central concept of the article is that if people prefer animals to people, there is something wrong with that. What entity has the right to make the judgment that one life is more valuable than another? It appears to me that this is something within the domain of free thought, an idea that self proclaimed "liberals" have grown to culturally detest.
The dog/tourist is kinda a tough one.
Geez, who'd a thunk.
As for animals over vague people in general...yeah.
In my defense, my spouse is much more the humanitarian. (Then again, I have been accused of misanthropy.)
2
I am not anti-people. I'm just a sucker for any injured, abandoned, abused or endangered animal. I always have been. I guess it's because most of their dire circumstances have been caused or created by humans in one way or another. They're just trying to get along, minding their own business, making a living and doing instinctively what comes natural to them on a daily basis. But the biggest and most compelling reason why animals usually come first in my hierarchy of needs and wants in life is because they don't have any prejudices or built in biases, they don't judge, condemn or hate. The moment I look at their faces, especially into their eyes, my heart melts - regardless if the animal is a dog, a cat, a cow or any of the endangered animals depicted in this article.
My husband feels the same way - we'd sacrifice our lives for any of our animals if, God forbid, a fire or some other catastrophic event occurred endangering their lives. I apologize if my comment is offensive, but I do not apologize for how I feel about animals over humans.
8
What percentage of animals on earth have personality disorders? How many harm their fellows or other species because they are mentally ill?
What do the numbers look like for humans?
I'd rescue the animal in the burning house first.
4
Dieudonné Kembé is right. Kant had no special love for animals but was smart enough to know that if we treat them badly, we likely do the same to our own species.
Humans are in no danger of going extinct. Most of these species are and humans are the cause. So please forgive me if I care more about the hundred of surviving Rhinos being poached for their horns for their mythical healing powers than for the billions of people ruining the planets.
8
The question reminds me of the old childhood game of aasking about wonderful or terrible choices - would you rather fall out of an airplane or be eaten by a lion? Thankfully not many of us will ever be faced with those kind of decisions. Judging by my own reactions, there is sometimes a disconnect between my intellectual and emotional responses. I find myself empathizing in a deeper way with individual suffering and tragedy vs. mass tragedy. I believe that children and animals engage our sympathy so readily because of their innocence and helplessness.
1
If we fail to take care of the animals of the world, and they die out, so will we. So, in that sense, it IS humans first.
3
The planet earth started to die when the human animal began to evolve--how sad to know this planet was once pristine with no human animal interference
5
"...it''s a mistake to pit sympathy for animals against sympathy for humans..."
Please, we are ALL animals, and we of the humanoid persuasion often seem amazingly insensitive to the plight of other species everywhere, hunting them for sport to mount a head on a wall...looking at you Junior, or going after dwindling species when there are other food sources available, even eliminating entire species to harvest things like rhino horn, for use as a (faux) powdered aphrodisiac in certain cultures.
We are plundering the planet, squandering it's precious diversity in a stunning and reckless manner.
There will be a price to pay, not tomorrow..
But sooner than we think.
Who knows, maybe one day it will be our turn in the barrel.
4
A biological annihilation or 6th extinction of species has begun. Unless we address varied issues from human population growth to global warming (CO2 levels)to pollution of air and water to eating habits we humans will be responsible for a significant killing of much life as we know it - including ourselves. We won't be discussing whether to save large mammals or a pygmy tribe if we do not attend to a responsible care of this planet. Both will be gone.
55
Like any virus we are overwhelming our host. We are the malignant force,everything dies in this world,nature will find a way to end our reign if we don’t do it ourselves.
7
I would choose animals over humans any day. The only human charity I would give to is one promoting birth control and population control. Human population has increased from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.6 billion today. And wild animal population during the same time period?
7
Animals can’t fight back and humans can’t help our greedy selves. The world is doomed. Just a matter of time.
2
Hearts melt seeing the wildlife in the Dzanga Sangha rain forest. But is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering?
To give a definitive answer to your question- No!
3
I, as well as many others I know, prefer animals over humankind at almost every corner.....
4
The 3 Abrahamic religions have set-up a system of "god" over there, men (excluding women) over here, and animals and the environment down there. This allowed men to do what they want with everything considered 'beneath them' empowered by some 'divine ordinance'. This compartmentalization subverted the 'natural order', that everyone and everything is interconnected; allowing for all sorts of exploitation based on greed and power.
5
There are over 7 billion people on the planet. I will leave it to the reader to draw the rather obvious inference.
5
We humans have destroyed whole animal species, slaughtered one another, and virtually ruined this planet. Can you say that of other animals, Nick?
91
No this isn't something out of a Disney movie. This is something out of a Tarzan movie.
If you eliminate the animals, humans will die. They may have a little more land to farm for a few years, but that will wear out and then there is no more. Then the humans will die.
26
When the next generation of "superior humans" evolves, would we expect and demand that the "ancient form" of humans be protected or allowed to be killed? Sentient beings should all be entitled to protection-after all "they are us".
4
The baby gorillas are cute because they resemble baby people. We're primates too.
2
What species is destroying this planet? I prefer not to enable the one that is responsible for all the horrors it is inflicting. 7 billion of anything is too much.
5
Wow. Dig these comments. Note to self: If I'm ever drowning with a dog I'll cling to it in the hopes that when they save the dog, they'll also rescue me.
29
The reality is, the dog will risk his life to save you from drowning. Can you say the same about the dog?
10
Even though I am cat person, I will make sure to rescue the dog and use any additional available time to see if there are other non-human animals in need of rescuing.
9
Humans are trashing our planet and animals are not. Humans are selfish and animals are not. Humans are greedy and animals are not. I could go on and on....none of it favors humans.
6
The human population is growing and growing on this ridiculous planet and the wild animal population is shrinking and shrinking. So, why no empathy for these animals?
Mankind with its built-in idiocy (look at Trump) is ruining everything in this world, so "to focus on animal welfare" can't be wrong.
3
It is immoral to be obsessed with people when the human tsunami is exterminating other living things.
6
Absolutely Yes. You only have to view a few seconds of Factory Farm footage to realize Humans are horrible creatures that the planet would be better off without. I always feel bad for the animals because they are the innocent victims of human cruelty and horrors.
We murder sensitive sentient beings for their horns and tusks because some idiot human thinks the powder will make him more virile? I rest my case
8
This is a stupid column. Humans are animals. And there are too many of us, so many, with First World human apes (we belong to the Great Apes family) like the columnist, not only contributing to the numbers squeezing out other life forms (eating or hunting or just pushing off the cliff of survivabilty) but, also, with First World appetites, causing the Sixth Great Extinction. As much I, too, am moved and concerned by how humans badly treat other humans, doesn't our compassion need now to be for all life, for the planet's life? Anthropocentric attitudes are what are killing everything that walks, crawls, swims and flies. The columnist and other elites in power and with amplified voices need to see and do better in service to all life.
5
People generally feel protective of innocents, like animals and young children. Scenes of injured toddlers and children bring home the horror of war, similarly harm to animals inspires anger and sympathy. But it seems, generally, more feasible to protect animals than people. Weapons used against animals are still individually oriented, war involves mass destruction. I think my dollars will go further to protect animals, although most of my giving now involves attempts to throw out Republicans, who are engaged in mass destruction of our norms and government and a great wealth transfer to oligarchs. Sympathy for all, support where it seems most effective.
3
Here’s the thing, though, we humans are busy killing off animals, they, on the other hand, are not trying to exterminate us.
10
No, it isn’t. Once we get past the Stone Age nonsense that religion preaches that animals were put here for us we quickly realize they have every right to life we have.
At a minimum half the planet should be left for them.
Religion is the problem. We can’t have a just planet if some purported old man in the sky (really just patriarchy) with a Stone Age mindset forces people to do things like not use birth control.
10
This whole article is premised on the ideas that human life is more valuable than animal life, and that all people agree that that is true - two premises with which I disagree.
8
It is people who can control their population through any number of birth control methods. It is people who have the ability to manage their health, however rudimentary it may be. Wild animals and plants are at our mercy, and as human beings, we have precious little of that for ourselves, let alone for other species.
What gives us the right to determine which species live and which perish? We are in the midst of the largest mass extinction since the time of the dinosaurs. It is up to all of us to reverse this trend. Until we learn to decrease our population, and not just control it, and until we learn to care for the climate and the environment in general, human beings will continue to be the most destructive force on the planet.
8
simple answer - both are important, and intertwined - can't have one without the other..We have to focus on the health of the earth.
15
Preserving biological diversity and preserving human life are not inconsistent. The opposite is true: the destruction of the world's species is an act of self-destruction. We need to reduce our numbers.
14
There is no simple answer to the question here. For example, mass tourism generates income mostly for corporate interests. And the diversion of resources to the tourism industry can cause impoverishment of the poor. This is not to say that the poor are always victims. But it is not to deny it either. I had a friend who went on a safari and told me that poverty was all around. I am uncomfortable, myself, with a safari that brings much attention and revenue to safari companies while it is indifferent to the abject poor.
1
Most animals are endangered because of destruction of their habitat. We are the only animals on the planet who can realize the results of their own actions on the environment. When or only standard for these actions are short term profits the environment suffers whole flora and fauna disappear.
We can change our behavior but animals can't. It's not really hard to figure out the moral path.
18
There is no need for Malthusian projections. The earth can sustain a lot. What it cannot sustain is crippling poverty. It creates perverse incentives that are against the interests of people and the environment at the same time. This is not an either/or. We need to do better by the poor and animals.
5
No, the Earth cannot sustain "a lot", and no, the problem is not "crippling poverty". The problem is affluence that has made it possible for an enormous number of humans to survive, who should have otherwise not survived owing to diseases or malnutrition. And the worse part is that advances in medicine and increases in food production all come at the expense of animal suffering. So yes, it is either/or. Animal suffering is unacceptable. Human suffering is unimportant.
I support animal charities, not human ones, because the government's primary role is to protect people, and animal protection is important but not primary. Giving to charities that cover for the government's failure to protect people just enables the government to shirk its primary purpose.
25
You cannot separate the wild animals from the people who live near them. Kristof is correct when he says that to help the people and/or the animals helps the other. Their well-being is connected. On the other hand, the only way to help animals overall is to reduce the human population as we have covered the globe and are eliminating natural habitat. Reducing our numbers is the most important thing we can do to help animals in the long run, but in the short run, specific animal populations can be helped hand-in-hand with assisting the humans who live near them.
13
If you want to save humans, animals, and the environment then promote birth control throughout the globe. There are far too many people for the Earth to sustain. If we don't get a grip on our population, we will be responsible for not only animal and plant extinction, but our own.
On another note, what good are studies that pose questions without delving into the reasons for respondent's answers?
People who have pets are responsible for their well being, just as they are for their children. A "foreign tourist" presumably has agency, whereas animals are largely dependent upon their humans.
37
I am not surprised at all at the 40% figure, for a while now I have suspected that a lot of people would consider their pet "family" and prioritize some unrelated human. Some even argue that animals are more worthy than us horrible humans, that is the natural conclusion of post-religious, postmodern, post-humanist thinking. We humans deserve to be eradicated from Earth to save it, goes that thinking.
Aa for the old question, if a tree falls in the forest when no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The modern answer is obvious: it does to the animals in it, so it does, and that is all that matters....
2
In the 90's I lived in CAR and I have visited Dzangha-Sangha. I have been so worried. News from this country is so hard to get. Thank you for these essays.
2
It should never be either or, only both. The surveys mentioned likely form an incomplete picture of public sentiment. The underlying idea that humans bear some degree of responsibility for their own fate biases the public’s relative response to animal stories. The human stories can also seem endlessly overwhelming, while the animal stories feel more solvable through direct action. People also receive very little good news out of third world countries, they are almost never shown stories about the millions of positive outcomes. This gives the wrong impression that all the money and effort directed towards helping people in places like Africa is simply a wasted effort. Until the third world becomes largely educated and is dominated by open democracies, these issues of perception will persist.
3
Clearly, the conservation of natural resources to save endangered animal species in Africa is complementary to, if not directly advancing, conservation efforts to save endangered humans.
The money donated for elephants and gorillas helps African humans by paying salaries of animal protectors and workers in the tourist industry and by helping protect a physical environment which allows farmers to plant and harvest.
The problem is that the money often does not produce immediate results for people in crisis.
We need immediate funds and workers to help with malaria and other diseases taking human lives every day in Central African Republic and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
That does not make it a zero-sum proposition, but it may mean that we need a smarter allocation.
I have committed to a June safari (photographic, no guns) in South Africa, and part of what I hope to learn is what can be done better to help people who live in the bush and farm the area. Nicholas Kristof is correct to pose these questions.
19
Cleveland: Enjoy your safari! Caring about something starts with enjoying and valuing it. Tourism and ecotourism support world treasures galore with hearts and wallets both. Pack light, ditch the safari apparel and be ready for the ride of your life!
2
I don't think we need to choose one over the other. Both are equally important. You do what you can for both humans and animals, but not at the expense of one or the other. Others have already commented that there are far too many humans on earth. We must stop curb population growth. This will help - mind you not necessarily solve the problem of suffering of any animal, which BTW, humans are - ensure that all living things have a chance to thrive.
8
Whenever we deal with these metaphysical questions in the abstract, we can choose an answer that may contribute to the statistics without any preconditions.
What that means is that if no one is looking, then we choose ( at best ) a 50-50 scenario where a life may be lost and we shrug our shoulders. ( that may be an animal life or even a human one )
I always use the analogy that if anyone were walking down the street and someone was in need ( or they would perish ) that almost all of us would stop ( we are actually legally required to do so ) and give help, or at least call 911.
What if the person requiring help were an animal ?
Since we are at the top of the food chain, most of us will answer that it does not matter, or that in the scheme of things overall, it does not make a difference.
I would argue that we are all related, whether that be somewhere down the food chain , or whether that be a fellow human being. It also does matter if it is in slow motion or happening in real time.
A life is precious.
( although cells in a petri dish do not qualify )
7
If, and this is a big if, it is somehow "unfair" that we are choosing "other" animals over human animal this observer can only say it's about time. The pendulum swung the other way in the extreme for far too long. Anyway we still have our factory farms.
10
Underlying this article is the view that humans are so different from the other living things on the planet that they are entitled to violate the rules that create the balance that sustains all life.
There is a number of humans on the planet that does not harm the balance of nature. We are vastly exceeding that number, perhaps by a factor of ten. We are also vastly exceeding the number of humans needed to have a progressive civilization.
Given climate change and resource exhaustion, it is astonishing that we tolerate human families of over 2-3 children.
59
A related question is: what are humans good for? That's a really good question to think about. If other animals and plants had any sentience, they would sure be wondering about it, don't you think?
3
As we persist in pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, land-based species are at risk, and the oceans also acidify. As this continues, coral reefs, shellfish, and plankton (which produce 2/3 of our oxygen) are at risk, and as that food chain weakens, collapse of marine species is inevitable. What will happen to humans if we do not protect life in our seas?
We fund space exploration; what good is that? We plan to let Earth die and run away to Mars? Why don't we convert all of that funding to taking better care of humans and animals? But we believe that a small amount of money spent keeping our heads in the stars is worthwhile, both psychologically and for our long-term interests.
So where do we draw the line? Humans need fauna and flora to survive, but regardless, we will always have our problems. We should just pull all funding from efforts to protect the environment and the natural world and channel the resources into purely human needs?
If humans discovered that we would have to kill all life on Earth to save ourselves, what would we do? Would we sacrifice ourselves to save the animals and plants? Think about it.
We're not smart enough to know which species we can "allow" to die -- what the effects will be. Earth will recover, eventually, from our folly. We just won't be here to see it.
13
"Empathy isn’t a zero-sum game."
Exactly. This "humans vs. animals" dichotomy is just another false choice we are presented with, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Like "jobs vs. environment," "gun control vs. freedom," "universal health care vs. innovation," etc.
So many of the current debates revolve around these false choices; we are expected to choose one "side" or the other, based on a right/left identity paradigm, and fight with all our might against the other "side."
What is missing is the sort of critical analysis that is provided in this editorial. Thanks for this mini-lesson! If more of us would dig a little deeper before lashing out against the "other side," we could probably avoid a great deal of the animosity that is so prevalent in our national dialogue.
30
Mr. Kristof, Thanks for another fine essay. I am with you all the way on this topic and want to share a perspective that at first surprised me. A friend many years ago noted that some radical animal rights people have a hard time connecting with humans. They are willing to give their all for animals which may just be a safe laudable place to radiate their emotions while failing to have healthy relations with others. If one cares for animals then surely such a person must be great with people. Long story short, a friend with a rear bumper saying "I brake for turtles, save the whales,etc " was unwilling to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk especially when running late for a PETA meeting .
20
This is a false equivalence
9
One very good ecological reason to be more concerned about endangered animals than persons, is that there are more than 7.5 billion people on this planet. About 1.5 billion more people than the planet can sustain, without accounting for the pressure placed on wildlife habitat.
Philosophically cruelty to animals involves a choice/power imbalance that is less applicable to people. Although the act of beating either a dog or a person demonstrates a degree of sociopathy/psychopathy that removes the perpetrator from classification as a human. The irony is that you can shoot a person for beating another with a baseball bat but not for beating your dog. Some weird social quirk in operation there.
20
Ugh, I am so tired of this navel-gazing question. It's not an either/or situation--some people help animals, other people help people. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think that when animals suffer, human suffering will follow, particularly as it relates to factors having to do with the environment and our terrible stewardship of this planet and its resources.
34
Thank you so much for this article for I spent five wonderful teenage years in Central African Republic which is one of the poorest countries on that continent but provided me with some of the most wonderful memories in my life. My father being cultural affairs officer at the time took the family to see these gems in Southwestern part of country as well as Northeastern N’Dele and at time Parc Saint Floris. I remember meeting pigmies and going on a trip with a musicologist to record music performed on local instruments. I sure hope everything will be done to help that country preserve its cultural and wildlife riches amidst all the strife and recent warfare. I am going to save this article in order to refer to email addresses provided to make contact since I am retiring in 4 months. Thank you NYTimes for helping me connect with events in US and parts of the world dear to me
8
The essential difference is that even in the most dire periods we, as humans, have the ability to rationalize and understand the circumstances occurring around us, even if only in a haphazard manner.
Animals can't understand the pain inflicted on them and that makes all the difference in the world.
Since Kristof mentions beatings, I'll just say that beating an adult is different than beating a teen which is different than beating a child which is different than beating a baby which is different (although perhaps only slightly) from beating a dog or some other defenseless animal.
Whether we live in a poor country or a wealthy one, we're schooled in the ways of violence to different degrees, understand it as a phenomenon linked to our superior position in creation.
That is at least some solace that animals have no recourse to.
10
Many years ago as a wildlife rescue volunteer, I realized the biggest problem wildlife faces is habitat loss. From then on I became an advocate for local habitat preservation. I also get involved in social justice issues, but the thing about other species is that they are more courageous, more independent, more resilient than we are, extraordinarily diverse in their evolved roles in ecosystems, reflective of the ingeniousness of life on this planet itself........yet they have no voice, no vote, other than that which we offer on their behalf. Pets are endearing, but they're human accessories. My love, fascination and admiration forever goes to the wild.
56
Nice.
My cat disagrees however. Accessory? I'm the one that must provide scritches and open the door. She provides the stunned mice for her incompetent help mate.
6
I like Kristof, and he may not have intended to make this point, but it appears that he says that animals have no intrinsic value whatsoever except insofar as they are useful to humans.
I disagree strongly.
123
Exactly. More damaging than that, it buys into the twisted framework that might makes right, the ends justify the means and that where there is a will there is a way. These are all belief systems which conveniently obfuscate the concept that "rights" are purely a function of power. Animals do not wish to confined, electrocuted and tortured. This happens to many of them because we have POWER over them.
11
In pointing out the importance of animals for humans, Kristof directly addressed the contention of many - that humans are more important than animals, so humans should be helped first. People who think humans should always come first probably aren't going to change their mind. However, if they recognize that human and animal survival is intertwined, they may buy in to helping animals. While it might be more satisfying to change the view of the humans-first folks, it's not going to happen and, if you insist on it (as does True Believer), animal welfare will suffer.
8
A thousand "recommends."
4
It is immensely sad to realize that the author's only point is that helping animals is simply another way of helping humans. Implicit in this argument is that animals are second class beings, and the the Erath can carry even more people than it already does. Not so. There are too many humans on Earth, and not enough space nor resources to ensure that our fellow non-human sentient beings have the safe and happy lives that they are entitled to. I have never given a cent to any human-focused charity, nor will I ever do. I help as many animal welfare organizations as I can, including those that fight use of animals in any kind of medical and "scientific" research.
50
Ajax,
Your points are salient, however, there are charities helping humans and animals that are worthy. What about funding research for alternatives to animal proteins?
1
I hate to break it to you but you've benefited from medical research at some point in your life.
3
As the article indicates, it is not a matter of choosing one species over another. It's a matter of understanding that the planet is a functional arrangement between all the interacting complexes of the total planet. Each human being contains not only human cells but far more non human cells that are necessary to maintain a functional living structure. Each animal species has evolved over millions of years to remain functional within its very special environment and continuously scientists discover huge treasures from creature structures that are beyond human current knowledge and can add to valuable human understanding. The massive current loss of living species is not just a tourist problem, it is a vital loss of immensely useful technologies that nature has accomplished through different species adaptations and the current loss of many insects may prove far more damaging than even the large changes in weather patterns. The loss of even human life, not to speak of other species, may prove fatally disastrous to all life if there are not installed powerful controls to preserve what has been gained in geological and biological and all the other systems of our planet.
17
Since so much of both human and animal suffering is a direct result of the ways humans use resources and prioritize ourselves over "others" -- other nations, others tribes, other races, other religions, other species -- it seems pretty short sighted to make protection of animals yet another us-versus-them scenario. We need to protect animals, plants, all manner of endangered ecosystems from US -- our habitat encroachment, hunting, pollution, global warming, and taking plants and animals from the wild for our own use and amusement. The other species don't have any say in their destruction. Humans are responsible for so much damage, it only makes sense that we shoulder the burden of righting our wrongs and helping the creatures we harmed in the first place. And, while we are at it, we can help our fellow humans, too.
24
There is no choice to make.
Everything is connected. Everything a part of the same system.
If we don’t preserve enough if it, there will be no place for us in what little is left.
57
It's a compelling and hopeful prospect and Mr. K's reporting clarifies some optimistic possibilities. There is however, a dearth of reliable data that supports the sustainability of long-term animal conservation policies as described. Moreover, consider the multitudes of so called non charismatic animal species undergoing devasting habitat loss, hunting, and poaching in the face of war and genocide; of basic requirements of human development and agricultural practices. Why is the 2-gram Kitti's hog-nosed bat less valuable to the ecosystems of Myanmar than that of the lowland gorilla to those of the Central African Republic? The simple answer is the financial support of ecotourism. It's most unlikely that ecotourism will rescue the little bat which alone does not indict ecotourism. It only raises difficult questions.
9
The same dilemma is found when money is spent on foreign aid while domestic poverty needs more. Also when the US ambassador in Tokyo cried for whales' welfare while the US warplanes relentlessly flied low on crowded houses in Japan (which is their unchallenged privilege since the end of the war). There are just too many and it is not possible in most of the cases to find a conciliation or a convoluted reason between the conflicting situations. Life must go on, that is the only reason I can find.
1
Aki,
'Austria' and 'America' here once had an exchange on hearing the death of one of our friends about to give birth.
It was a shock to both of us and to the humanitarian agency where she worked, and our Policy of Life has not changed through the years for Austria decrees that Life 'must' go on, while I sense it 'goes on' whether you like it or not.
She is more interested in whether I have remembered the insurance bill for the house and has a short fuse when listening to my musings on the meaning of life. On occasion, when reading of an uproar in the News over a crushed puppy, we feel that Society has its priorities mixed up.
We complement each other well, and have a great respect for Wildlife and domestic animals. Above all, she loves Life.
Let us thank our poets and photographers; this is a splendid panorama by Lynsey Addario.
Such a disappointing column from a writer I've long admired. It assumes a zero-sum game: save animals or people. We - especially in the US - can do both. I suggest a column urging the US to diver the billions it would spend on a border wall with mexico, or the billions it will lose in a trade war with china, or the billion-dollar increases just approved for pork barrel defense projects, to save both humans and wildlife in the places kristoff describes. to suggest that volunteers and money spent in africa to save wildlife is misdirected while people are dying of disease is, offensive.
11
Not sure if you read the entire article?
"Compassion for other species can also nurture compassion for fellow humans. Empathy isn’t a zero-sum game."
Mr. Kristof is asking the question "are we ignoring humans when we help endangered speicies?" The answer seems to be no.
"So compassion for elephants or rhinos or gorillas is not soggy sentimentality, but a practical recognition of shared interests among two-legged and four-legged animals. Go ahead and embrace animal causes without a shred of guilt."
While as the supposed richest nation on we could certainly and most absolutely should do more to help both people and elephants, I would point out there are plenty of people and species in our own country that could use our help. In defense of Mr. Kristof's article I think it is clear the conclusion is that it is not, as you suggest, a zero-sum game. I give you the final paragraph:
"“What’s good for the animals is also good for the Pygmies,” Dieudonné Kembé, a Pygmy working in Dzanga Sangha, told me. Without conservation efforts, he said, “the animals would be gone, and we might be gone, too.”
1
The need of wildlife is great all around the world in every ecosystem. We are in the midst of a sixth great extinction but unlike the first five this is all of our fault. We have over hunted for centuries, over populated to the point of pushing animals out of their habitat, and are now even over heating the planet. If we dont work on correcting the problems in the eco system it will all collapse and man will suffer as much or more than other species. We act like the planet is invincible, when it is crumbling right in front of our eyes!
26
This is an old argument. It our duty of care as humans to look after those who are vulnerable and may need help. It's misguided to be concerned about whether humans should choose to care for or help one species over another. If you go down that path, you may as well ask whether people would also make a choice based on race, gender, profession, eye colour, of humans.
An animal, just like a small child, is vulnerable and voiceless and deserves our protection and care. But unlike a child, an animal has no comparable rights or protections in law for them. Arguably they are far more vulnerable.
44
As others have written, I would certainly attempt to save my dog before saving a person I didn't know. Why should this be wrong? The author writes thoughtfully, but fails to confront two key issues: Are humans more worthy of life than other living things? In a general sense I would answer no. Secondly, he ends on a feel good conclusion - that helping animals increases empathy for all living beings. I have no problem with that proposition, but the author avoids the more difficult issue, which is this: as human numbers increase, we steal habitat from many other living beings, many of whom are extinct or moving toward extinction. Preserving other living beings necessitates we people make sacrifices. There is no way around this, if we are honest. Tough choices need to be made. For example, if we are to preserve habitats for bears, wolves, lions, and many other animals in the United States, we need to stop growing the human population of the United States. There is no other way to do truly do this. And this means we need to drastically reduce immigration to this country, since immigration is what is growing the human population of the United States. Restricting immigration goes against our sense of freedom and openness, and maybe one's sense of what America is about. I take the issue personally, as both my wife and mother are immigrants. Yet I also recognize the need to be honest about environmental issues.
18
I think your immigrants argument leaves out one of the main features of the definition of life: reproduction. There are three process that determine a populations size: deaths, new comers and births. To look at just one is to proclaim a bias and fly a flag of ignorance. (And no, I am not advocating that we apply pressure on the first factor, deaths, to mitigate population size.)
Also, you are playing a zero sum game, and saying that the US is the only place that matters. I would suggest you think your argument through a bit more carefully.
2
The problem is that I have no control over the government policies of any country but my own. I support an organization that advocates for population control through family planning and so on globally. But I am responsible and have power through representative democracy over my country - and I can complain about other cultures' propensity to have lots of kids, but do I have a right to tell them not to? I advocate for empowering women, which plenty of stats show brings down population, but again, do I have a right to impose my vision of gender on another culture? In addition, some immigrants leave their nation's because of government corruption; a huge part of the income of Mexico comes from Mexicans in the United States sending cash they've earned in the US back to Mexico, instead of forcing their government to have more responsible policies toward its own people. Mexico is a wealthy country - but the wealth is locked up in a relatively small part of the population. While immigration from Mexico has slowed a great deal, the great majority of immigrants who are in the US illegally are Mexican, and we share a border with Mexico, so our policies vis-a-vis Mexico are important. Long story short, the situation regarding immigration is much more complicated than you imply!
Current World HUMAN Population
7,613,807,564
7.6 billion and counting
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
It's time for serious global contraception and birth control of humans before the reckless humans wipe out the majority of life species on this planet.
The best way to save the elephants and the gorillas and the honey bees and all the other species is to donate to a global contraception organization that helps poor women manage their bodies.
Donate a few dollars.
"Be fruitful...and don't multiply"
United Nations Population Fund
https://www.friendsofunfpa.org/
International Planned Parenthood Federation
https://www.ippf.org/support-us
WomanCare Global (WCG)
http://www.wcgcares.org/donations/
190
As a child free married man, I endorse not only birth control but aggressive advertising using modern public relations to encourage more people to not have children.
Ask parents how their parenting life went and many report that it didn't turn out to be rewarding or anything like they expected.
My contribution to helping mankind was my 32 year career as a psychologist and career counselor with disabled people.
So many troubled adults had a damaging childhood from punishing unloving parents.
35
Micheal, you're not alone in your brave decision.
1
I think we can do both as Nicholas Kristof points out.
The main reason animals are endangered all over the globe is loss of habitat due to out of control human population growth.
I am in favor of helping animals as well as humans- but I would certainly would prefer it if all societies encourage common sense birth control to reverse this trend- that goes for both rich and poor.
The root of most of our problems ( including global warming, terrorism and failed states), stem from overpopulation. Too may people, too few jobs, and too much pollution.
Let's help humanity in need but let's get birth control as well.
Birth control for all incomes since rich people usually have a larger carbon footprint than poor people.
Once we get overpopulation under control, the animals won't need so much help.
30
"Other researchers found that if forced to choose, 40 percent of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist." A huge problem facing us is "thinking globally." The farmers in the Midwest apparently voted for Trump when what he was going to do had no impact on them. Suddenly, Trump has become very personal as his tariffs will impact their soybean crop. The dog is personal, a known and loved animal; the foreigner is an unknown and if you make the foreigner brown skinned or poor or ... the attempt to rescue would be even less.
Unfortunately, we are so tuned into our own needs we are failing this country and our world. Too many are simply not seeing or denying the rapid climate changes taking place in the arctic areas (for example). All that matters is the weather where we live. It is crucial we understand and respond to what is happening beyond our personal experiences.
16
My animals and I are close and are considered family. I would try to save them before trying to save a stranger, whether foreign or not.
30
How kind.
1
DeeDee, you have inspired this reader to revisit 'My Family and Other Animals' by Gerald Durrell who wrote of his childhood in Corfu during WWII, and later pitched his tent in the Guernsey Islands with a zoo for his menagerie.
A family man by his own account, I believe he would try to save a stranger whose house is on fire.
1
More animals are much nicer than people and there is more to like in animals, so it is an easy choice sometimes. Besides, look at the cruelty by humanity on animals on an astronomical scale - for "sport", slaves (beasts of burden), mystical and virility potions, experimentation and worse. We do not even provide animals we eat with a decent life before a humane death.
Humans are certainly no better than animals.
136
You've forgotten one little thing. We're animals too. LOL.
5
Absolutely spot on comment. Animals deserve sympathy; humans have not yet earned it.
7
In any well-organized society there should not be a need to make a choice between animal and human welfare. Besides that, some animals are definitely better than humans. I close this by a quote from the Babylonian Talmud, composed in Aramaic, "A hint suffices to a sage".
9
I truly believe that as the highest form of biological life on this planet, man has a responsibility to ensure the survival of every other species. And, jeez, I envy Mr. Kristof for making it to Dzanga Sangha! I've wanted to go there for some time but the price of such a journey remains prohibitively high, Africa's wildlife is to be found on both sides of the continent (different species, especially of the lower primates) though you wouldn't know it judging from the outsized popularity of the game parks in Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa.
12
Stu FREEMAN: No excuses! If you really want to see CAR , visit its towns and villages, see its faune and flore, you will find the means to do so.Enroll in an ngo which will get you a cut rate ticket, and in return for teaching in a village for several months,provide room and board!Miss Lillian joined the Peace Corps when she was in her seventies!
1
Mr. Kristof - writing to you from a Doctors Without Borders maternity hospital, where I am helping women who might otherwise have died from pregnancy complications.
I also make large donations every year to wildlife conservation organizations.
I'm so very glad that, after deep consideration, and one of your many drop-ins to trouble spots around the world, you have decided that you might deign to give people like me, who manage to care about more than one thing at a time, your approval.
I don't know how I would have been able to go on without it.
12
Feel free to come back home and start a free clinic here in the U.S. We'd love to have you! Perhaps you could also help remedy spiraling health care costs, the fact that the ACA isn't actually affordable and neither is medication. How about it? Drop in anytime.
1
When it comes to this type of question it is usually greed over habitat. In the state of Oregon the BLM is addicted to income from forest products. One hundred years ago Oregon boasted a large rain forest, but since WWII 90% of the coastal range has been logged. There is only 10% of the original forest left. Yet we have commercials all the time saying how wood products are a good thing and all the clear cuts will be replaced, no problem. What they are talking about is growing trees like products so when they get about a foot in diameter they can be cut again. They aren't talking about trees that are four feet in diameter and are what was common place when I was young. With the logging and the forest, wildlife here has suffered. The Marmet is almost extinct, and other species are not doing well. You don't have to go to exotic places to see permanent destruction of the environment. It is happening right here in the USA.
80
Weirdly, we see the connection of wildlife to habitat (e.g., our planet, our environment, the air, water and land we depend on) more easily than humans to habitat. But with every effort to save one species, we contribute to saving all of us. We are connected.
But, personally, I put my effort to wildlife. The idea that humans should come first disgusts me.
105
Allison,
Perhaps we shall be reincarnated as chimpanzee and hope that we remain connected.
1
"is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering?"
No. We humans have come to realize that suffering is suffering, no matter how far in the distance, or the tree of life it is felt. AI will one day surpass us in intelligence, compassion is what then what will remain for us. Treat animals, however you want to be treated.
21
Isn't it amazing that "animals" are able to reliably regulate their populations, but humans (the top of the food chain) simply breed and destroy what I would consider to the superior species (essentially every other species).
77
Umm, animals don't really regulate their populations. Their numbers depend on conditions in their habitats, like availability of food, the amount of space, the presence of predators, climate, and availability of mates, among other things.
People generally arrange their habitat to suit themselves. We grow food, build houses, take medicines and kill other predators. That's why our numbers keep growing.
It's not as though the animals are smarter or know something we don't.
6
I would pick my golden retrievers over my husband any day. Please don't tell him that, but I believe he knows already.
64
Funny...I sometimes think my husband would save the dogs before me if we were all in peril. I’m not sure who I would go for in that situation. Husband? dogs? Depends on the day, I suppose.
16
I feel sorry for you and your husband. both of you likely deserve better.
That would never be a choice for me. I would kill anyone who tried to harm my wife or any of my four legged family members. Or die trying. Same thing with trying to save them from some calamity. There would be no "choice."
1
What is the level of non-human animal that should take precedence over the human animal given we cannot save every being? Dogs - not scarce. Cats - not scarce. Elephants - maybe.
But crickets? Fish? Sparrows? Intestinal worms? Draw me the line and I'll look at it.
3
People can unite, fight back, and change their circumstances. Elephants can't. They are being wiped out of existence so people can have ivory trinkets. People are not endangered. Elephants are.
134
AUTHOR is to be commended for sharing his experiences in CAR with his readers, but 1 should also recall the sad, bloody history of this developing country and its "homme fort, "Jean Bedel Bokassa who ruled with an iron and bloody hand thanks to French imperalism, and in particular to Giscard d'Etaing, whom Bokassa plied with gifts, mainly diamonds in order to be left alone to loot his poor nation on his own!Choice NK presents to us should not be contradictory. 1 can do both, care for "etres humains" and 4 legged creatures. When Juliana. "cuisinere" from Iburri arrived here she brought with her Billy Boy who is still with us, and that was a decade ago. Trick is to find a partner who has the same consideration for animals as you, second person plural, do!But this is a good piece and Kristof's heart is in the right place!
7
The animals who live with me are my family. I love them and would protect them over strangers. I know they love me and trust me. How is this strange?
42
There are other important ethical questions to worry about in addition to the rightness of contributing to animal causes.
One of these concerns the rightness of Trump Jr. and his brother Eric.
They are thuggish louts who delight in slaughtering unsuspecting African elephants, lions, tigers, leopards and buffaloes from a far distance while disguising themselves in camouflage clothing;
after which they enjoy having their pictures taken with them;
Before having them stuffed and mounted for exhibition to their many friends and admirers in high government and real estate circles.
All of this this is widely known, but has not been sufficiently addressed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/16/trump-sons-us-lifts-impo...
72
Animals evoke a sense of innocence and vulnerability deep within our human hearts. I argue that our own humanity shares in the innocence and vulnerabilities of our fellow creatures, this despite our all too human awareness of our moral failures.
7
Why must everything be measured in terms of what benefits or costs it brings to humans? Our species is not threatened; far from it! No other animal preys on us as we do on all of them.
162
Our spieces is vulnerable because of the significant risk of selfdestruction whose root cause is greed. Taking care of vulnerable animals by involving the local human population is an antidote to that. But I'm not sure if ecotourism or tourism in general should be pushed too hard because flight adds to global warming. An important complement to protection of local populations, let it be humans or other threatened spieces, is IT technology who let us keep in sustained contact with those environments without too much personal transport and it's associated co2 emiisions.
8
Just for the record, mosquitos are the biggest killer of mankind. Nothing comes close the numbers they have first sickened, then exterminated -- from their viewpoint. And are cancer cells a species; if so, they kill many of us, also.
Au contraire. Humans don’t restrict destruction to other forms of life, they also prey on each other.
1
We should respect (not eat, etc.) our fellow animals because it is the right thing to do. Not because it is good for humans for some economic or philosophical reason.
Arguing for animal rights because it helps humans is like arguing against slavery because it demeans the slave owner. Or arguing against oppression because it harms the oppressor. Such arguments fail since everyone knows it is better to be on top than on the bottom, if one must choose.
A lot of non-human animals have treated me with more love than the humans in my life. According to Kristof, I should ignore my animal friends' love for me, in favor of a human, who might not care anything about me, simply because they are human.
Where is the the fairness in that?
Would Kristof want to be treated like that?
32
To entertain the premise of this article you would need to ignore the extreme suffering of animals for the sake of human appetite, or quest for amusement and status. Ignore the thousands of species threatened by human encrouchment. Ignore that by entertaining this premise you are bolstering the argument that animal abusers and slaughter industries use and survive upon, and that makes you essentially a part of this vast and extreme mistreatment.
People care about animals because they are powerless to human domination. We can do what we like to them, and we do so with no regard for their suffering, right to live. We care about animals because we are wise enough to know that loving animals give us things, magical things, and feelings we need and that make us happier, nicer, saner people.
As for people being shocked that animals seemingly matter more than humans, perhaps if they were aware of what humans do to animals, they would understand. Animals are powerless in ways humanity isn't. It's our responsibility to care, and overall, we as a species sure don't.
We are blessed by our ability to care for those who need us. Caring about animals releases and empower our better nature and angels. Why even bother questioning it? Surely these feelings of care, love and selflessness are beyond debate and doubt.
53
Tamir Rice, the kid shot by police, was also innocent.
2
As JFK once famously said, "We can do both".
76
Of course we should care about all living things. But after looking into the eyes of a starving or malnourished child, and listening to a mother's pleas for food, I for one don't see it as a theoretical abstract choice any more.
6
Mr. Kristof:
Your articles seems to express a fear of either siding too much on the side of people or, alternatively, on the side of animals. You seem to be sitting on the fence.
The more difficult question is how far are we willing to go to help animals when our cultures are anthropocentric? More and more, philosophers conclude that animals–not just those useful to humans–have a right to exist. This right is based on the fact that animals feel pain, pleasure, are sentient, etc. But it is a right not dependent on whether humans like them or find them useful. Thus the hard question is how much we express our duty to protect animals because they, like humans, are sentient beings (or feel pain, pleasure).
Remember that 40 percent of nonhumans (individuals, not species) have been killed by humans or their impacts in about the past 40 years, and 70 percent of songbirds have been killed by pet cats left free to wander outside. And, enormous members of marine species have been killed by the by catch in open ocean fishing.
Without resolving the question of whether nonhumans have rights, there are three things that can be done to help animals: (1)go on a vegan or vegetarian diet; (2)reduce poverty especially in Southern or less developed countries; (3)bring your pet cat inside.
25
Please give source for claim that "70 percent of songbirds have been killed by pet cats left free to wander outside." I google searched the statistic and could find no verification. I did, however, find this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/03/170851048/do-we-really-know...
3
Over many years of activism, I have concluded that that's the wrong question. If someone is passionate and willing/able to help, you don't question the hierarchy of their affections. It's quite enough that they are actually Doing something, in great contrast to everyone who isn't.
In addition, too much can be made of the differences between people and our fellow travelers on the blue marble. It's not for me to say that our species is somehow more worthy - as the song goes - "you and me, babe, we ain't nothin' but mammals ..."
141
Thank you, thank you, thank you
I thought all the sane people had left the planet and everyday I find another person who understands.
It is all about metaphysics.
3
Nicholas,
I remember what Exxon did in the CAR. I normally agree with you but this time there is only one outrage and the regard for outrage about which is of greater import.
We are the the problem, we have let the planet under our stewardship to become completely off balance.
It is we who are already too big and want to get bigger. It is we looking forward to a 50k Dow.
We are insane.
63
What I don't like is how often I see people being kinder to their pets than they are to the people around them. If all a person can connect to in terms of how he or she relates to the world is being kind to animals while ignoring the real needs of people around him/her something is wrong.
What we need to understand is that unless we care about the animals and the humans on the planet we cannot keep it going. Among the things that come to this reader's mind are birth control, abortion, arable land, clean water and air, climate change and how often humans deny each other basic rights when it comes to life. And another thing that comes to mind is that there is no planet B. Earth, for now, is our only home. It's not wrong to save the gorillas or the small insects that plants depend upon to survive. It's wrong when we don't include humans in the areas in that planning. Their lives are affected too.
Animal welfare is human welfare. Like the animals around us we need clean air, clean water, food to eat, air to breathe, space to live and grow. We need to be kind to animals and to other humans on the planet.
9
Conservation (of land, species, or nature generally) eases the conscience of the dark side of our humanity. We are trapped in an era of over-population, mass extinction and global scarcity. Human living, and reproduction especially, esures the destruction expands and our morality has failed thus far to frame the latter correctly.
18
Elephants, giraffe, rhino etc are all endangered, on the verge of extinction. Humans are not on the verge of extinction. Those of us who prioritize animals have every right to do so.
226
I agree with your premise, except that I believe human beings will be on the endangered list sooner than later. As highly complex organisms we don’t evolve as quickly as more simple life forms. At the rate we're fouling our nest, our planet will reach a point that it will not support our form of life. Once we're gone, the planet may begin to heal itself and what's left of simpler life and evolution can begin again.
4
When you help an animal, you help a human, as Kristof points out. Lots of people hate to hear this -- some may want to bury their heads in the sand rather than read further -- but the best thing people can do to help every living thing on the planet is to stop eating animals. Or at least cut back considerably. Who needs to eat meat three meals a day, seven days a week? I've heard some people insist "it's not a meal without meat." But with this many people on the planet, that attitude is unconscionable. It's not just factory farmed animals who will be helped by a drastic reduction in meat consumption. Again, it is every living thing on the planet.
94
Birth control would help alleviate an awful lot of world suffering as well.
68
Start with "Meatless Monday." It is one small step with huge effects.
6
There are plenty of us animal lovers / rescuers / caregivers who also devote plenty of time and other resources to helping other humans. On the other hand, I've sometimes wondered how much effort our critics put into helping the people they claim to care so much about. From what I've personally witnessed: not much.
And while no one ever needs a justification for helping animals, perhaps it's also timely to remember, Dr. King's immortal words, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
100
Nicholas Kristof is right about the money donated for saving African wild animals filtering down to African humans. But we need to examine the motives of the donors. Are the donors doing it so that they can enjoy viewing 'wild life' while on vacation from their 'civlized' pursuits in the 'developed' parts of the world ? Are the donors really interested in the welfare of the humans struggling for survival in the wild & 'underdeveloped' parts of the world ? Would they be willing to have a percentage of their donation allotted directly to the health, education & other basic needs of the humans in such parts of the world ?
4
An interesting and provocative topic; agree that balance in all things is good. That said, the 40% who said they would save their pet dog in favor of a foreign tourist.....were the ones being honest; I suspect that % figure is actually a great deal higher...
38
Thanks for another thoughtful and beautiful column.
4
I am more concerned with assisting humans, but this brings up a similar problem. I cannot help everyone, so I must make choices. I think helping someone, human or animal is better than not helping. Who or what is being helped is not nearly as important.
33