Is It Wrong to Focus on Animal Welfare When Humans Are Suffering?

I believe animal welfare is an urgent and worthwhile cause. I also generally like animals. However, the idea that animals are pure and innocent beings is plainly a myth. It is something they have come to represent in popular culture. In some contexts, animals have been used to represent impulsivity and heartlessness. We humans rely on our stories, and we need something or someone to stand in for innocence in these stories, just as we need someone to stand in for evil. Sometimes it's Tiny Tim, sometimes its the dogs. But in reality, everything that lives, Tiny Tim, dogs, you and me, we are complex. We have capacity for bad will and good will (weather we have the power to act on that will is another question) and we can feel things. I have had cats, and I loved them dearly for who they were, but they did not carry this allegorical meaning of innocence to me. You would know it if you ever saw a female duck being gang raped by male ducks, or if you ever saw a cat torture a bird for hours before finally ending its life. And for what reason other than sadist pleasure? And yet, that same cat would sometimes wrap her little arms around my neck and press her forehead against mine with a love no less than that of the Madonna herself. Ironically, I think we are patronizing animals (and any class of life) if we tell ourselves that they are fundamentally "good" or "innocent" or "honest" by nature. It can be painful admit to ourselves the magnitude of our complexity as earthlings.

When I first saw this question it was hard for me to state my opinion. But when I realized what the word suffering means, I care more about animals because if you think about it animals die and suffer just like humans do so it is hard for me to say.

Personally I care more for animals than humans. I believe most people will agree with me on this as well. Many people already do and their reasoning is that humans are usually the main cause for harm towards animals. If animals are in need of protecting majority of the time humans are at fault for it. We are the main cause of animals going extinct not to mention that humans are also smarter. If we come across a problem we are more equipped to handling it and getting through it than animals. Animals are also easier to bond with, humans come with corruption and greed while animals show you who they are. If you treat them with kindness and try to understand and get to know them than they aren’t kind in return to you and you can easily gain their trust and loyalty. Also, once given this trust animals are much more likely to stay loyal and stay bonded to you unlike humans who aren’t constantly tearing each other’s down.

I am more dedicated to helping humans. I believe a human life will be more useful to society so that is a valid reason to care about their lives more. I believe people are more empathetic toward the suffering of animals because the animals are cuter and seem more innocent. With a human, we can imagine the person could have done very bad things in their life, but not with a dog. I do not think it is wrong for some people to focus on animal welfare if there are a lot of people helping other humans. If we all just focused on animal welfare, then it would be wrong. I was surprised to read that more people were upset at a dog being beaten by a baseball bat than a human beaten in a similar fashion. I would expect people to think higher of the human being than a dog. The author states, “ Compassion for other species can also nurture compassion for fellow humans. Empathy isn’t a zero-sum game.” This is important because it is good to learn to empathy for everything, but the empathy of an animal should not overpower the empathy for a human.

When looking at the question for what it is, the opinion that I would respond with is that it is wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering. Syntax and word choice are very important. The word “suffering” has a negative connotation and leaves the reader feeling guilty. Personally when I first read it I felt like I didn't really have a choice. In a general conversation I would feel more comfortable talking about the grey area of the issue. Kristof mentions a study where 40% of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist. The question is do both the dog and the tourist have the same inevitable fate or is it the human who can save themselves vs. the dog who has less of an advantage. Looking back at the prompt and thinking about this idea of “grey area”, I feel like my opinion could go one way or the other depending on the situation.

It makes sense that people would want to save there pet but I mean its either your dogs life or another humans life it would be a tough choice but in the end I would probably choose to save the person. It also kind of makes sense when people get very upset about an exotic animal being killed for something small because those animals most likely wont be around for much longer and shootings happen a lot, now I am not saying we should be fine with it but still

Instinctively the first answer that comes to mind is that I am more dedicated to helping humans first before helping animals. As every safety video on an airplane has reminded me: you first have to attend to yourself, then you can attend to others in case of an emergency. It's the same idea between humans and animals, the main instinct is to save your own before you save others. By no means am I saying that animal lives matter any less than humans, but if I were in a situation where I had to save only one, I find it too difficult to say that I will let the human die. Frankly, I think the issue is that nowadays in our world, death is everywhere. It's become a normal routine to see people dying on the news and at some point, the reactions go from shocked and mourning in disbelief, to "oh another horrible event happened and yet again people died". You don't see news about animals dying every day, it's not that it's any more or less important than human deaths, it's just that it's different. We as people tend to put more focus into anything that is different rather than focus on things we are used to if both are present at the same time. I don't believe it is wrong to focus on animal welfare as humans are suffering, but I do believe that there still needs to be some balance between the two, in order to show the idea that both lives matter equally. I agree with Kristof's statement to that extent. In the end, it's all about balancing the importance, in order to better everyone.

I am dedicated to helping animals and humans but when we have to choose between a animal or a human, we think about how animals are compared to humans. People can be bad or good while all animals have an innocent personality and when that factor weighs in some of us would choose to save animal's life over a human. The article mentions "40 percent of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist" and I would agree with this opinion because the dog is there pet while the tourist has no emotional connection with the person. The dog could have been with the owner for years and that makes a difference in the opinion of the person when it comes to choosing between a pet dog or a tourist, I am not saying that the owner should choose their pet dog over the tourist but if he did than that would be a reasonable choice. I believe we should focus on animal welfare and also on human safety. Most animal are in need of animal welfare is because of us, we hunt animals for profit threatening their survival. This caused their population to fall and we should be responsible for their survival. We should in no way stop protecting animals because we threaten their survival in first place.

I am the person who will cry at the death of a dog in a movie while the death of a person in said movie leaves me unfazed. I think the reason why I find myself more sympathetic towards the welfare of animals is because in my eyes they have no voice and this innocence about them. But in no way does that mean that I’d be able to choose the welfare of an animal over the welfare of a human. There is no authority that gives us the right to make the decision that our lives are more valuable than that of a dog, gorilla, cow, lion, etc. so there should be no reason why we should treat them as anything less than ourselves. And on that note there is no reason why we should only uphold the lives of certain animals when without all the creatures of the world there would be no ecosystem to support our society. Instead of focusing on just animal welfare or just human welfare we should focus on helping both since their welfare’s are dependent on each other in most areas of the world. As said by Kristof, “one of the most important resources some poor countries have is wildlife”. The World Wildlife Fund is one of the many organizations that employs the locals to help track gorillas or serve as rangers on the reserve, jobs that benefit the people and the animals involved. Because in the end “What’s good for the animals is also good for the Pygmies,”. We are living on the same Earth together, we need to support the welfare of all creatures on it.

I want to just start by saying that yes I along with 40% of people surveyed would save my dog over a foreign tourist. That may sound very harsh, but I feel a much stronger connection to my dog than I do most people. This isnt to say I wouldn't save the tourist if I could, but my dog is so special to me that it would be devastating if I ever lose him. Do I agree with helping some gorillas in a forest while letting people die from something easily preventable no I don't as no one should. We should be fair and balanced with helping humans and animals. This though is easier said than done as the article states "the petition for Cecil the lion was greater than for Tamir Rice." This is in my opinion because as I talked about with my dog, my connection to animals and things that I find "cute" I tend to feel more passionately about. Whenever the ASPCA commercials with the poor abused dogs come on I feel physical sadness and have to look away, whereas you see on tghe news another person was murdered and don't even flinch. In many ways I think this also goes back to how it feels like preying on the weak in this case animals that cant fight back to someone beating them and making them dogfight or such. I personally will attempt to be better about feeling more compassionate for people just as much as animals.

Is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering? I don't believe that it's necessarily ‘wrong ‘or that this even is a right or wrong situation, more so that it's easier to have sympathy for animals because they are such innocent creatures. There has been a multitude of times when I have watched a movie, and I told myself that as long as the dog or animal doesn't die, then I will be fine. However, in reality, I would never actually chose an animal over a human being. An example of this that was discussed in the article was when there was a huge discrepancy between a lion getting shot (which produced a large amount of outrage) and then a 12 year old boy getting shot by a police officer. Cecil the Lion attracted far more attention and complaints than the shooting of Tamir Rice which I find absolutely ridiculous. Overall, no one should feel guilty for focusing more on animal cruelty than human suffering, but there should definitely be a balance between the two.

I don’t understand how anyone can think there is a one or the other in this debate. Why must one species be denied of their rights for the other to have it? In the article, it states that there were more signature on a petition for the shooting of Cecil the lion than the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. It’s not that people care more about animals lives than they do humans. Many people view animals as small, and without a voice, so who else to speak up for them but us? The problem with this is that we tend to forget our fellow humans. The people we interact with and see everyday. Although we shouldn’t forget about animals, we need to also keep humans in our mind. Just because each person has their own voice, does not mean they don’t need others to speak up for them. Just because animals don’t have the same size brain or opposable thumbs, does not mean their lives are any less precious than ours. There should be absolutely no debate for one or the other.

No matter what the choice is between, there are always at least four options. One is, "I will choose this." A second option is "I will choose that." Many people don't see the other two options, however: "I will choose neither," and "I will choose both." In the case of choosing animals over people, many feel as though they must choose one or the other, but instead of pitting animals vs. humans, I, for one, choose both. Instead of treating animals worse to show your devotion to humans, I think we should rise up and treat humans as we do animals (because after all, humans are animals too). A lot of people support animals because they feel as though they are of lesser power and lesser control than humans. They are inferior to humans, and our nature is to help those who are lower than us. It is definitely not wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering. Instead, we should hold ourselves to the same standards we do animals. Animal welfare should be just as important to us as human welfare. I agree with Mr. Kristof in that "empathy isn't a zero-sum game." We can empathize both animals and humans at the same time, and it shouldn't be one or the other. And it's not that we only empathize animals and not humans. We as students protested for the lives of the 17 victims that were taken too soon by a gunman. The problem is that there are a lot more human tragedies than animal tragedies, and sometimes it comes with less guilt to focus on the latter.

While donating to a charity for a good cause is empathetic (regardless if it’s for humans or animals), some charities are simply more empathic than others. Human lives should matter more than an animal’s and should receive priority in the public’s eyes, but charities that support both are the most empathetic and the wisest choices for donation (such as The World Wildlife Fund). By helping both humans and animals, the donor would never feel guilt over having to choose one or the other to aid. When you donate money to a human charity for a poorer country, you meet their needs for whatever they require at the present time (ex: mosquito nets) and while this is extremely helpful, it’s inevitable they will have other needs in the unforeseeable future. Charities that support someone’s way of life, create jobs or teaches people valuable skills offer the opportunity to make more money and the ability to purchase more of what individuals need for themselves and their family, without further aid from an organization. This is sustainable and is more empathetic than charities that give aid through private hiring from their origin country that only have the ability to help either humans or animals. In this way, local people who are in need of a job are given a chance to obtain one along with the opportunity to help their own communities (through educational or medical programs) and protect and conserve their land and home.

Throughout time, I have noticed that in occasions I would rather dogs to humans. I believe many people feel more concerned when it comes to animals due to us noticing them as helpless little creatures. During movies, I see people get hurt or die and it doesn’t bother but if a animal dies or anything like that then I will start to ball my eyes out. Human suffering is just as important as mistreating animals. I have a dog now and am about to get another in June. Considering my pets as family is something I take part in. This is why we should treat wild animals and pets just as we do humans. If you truly think about it, animals provide a lot; labor, food, and care. Throughout the article Dieudonne Kembe says, “What’s good for the animals is good for the people.” This statement means that as long as you help the animals it will benefit you. Even if you do the smallest things, for example, giving to a charity, or helping out at a shelter for a while. Maybe this will lead to you getting your own pet.

It's a tough question to ask of people. I can't say that I'm "more dedicated" to helping people or animals, because there's no realistic scenario I can think of that would force me to choose between them. However, as distinctions between social classes increase and people become more uneducated about global issues, there is definitely a disconnect between more privileged people and humans that are suffering due to social inequities, poverty, and catastrophes in other parts of the world. As mentioned in the article, more enraged petitioners vied for the protection of a lion than Tamir Rice, an innocent black child who was unfairly targeted by a white policeman (among many other victims of police brutality fueled by racism). And more people pay out of pocket to try and save endangered species than speak up about the recent airstrikes on Syria, where unprotected civilians have been paying the brutal price for a crime they didn't commit for years. However, that doesn't make fighting for animal rights wrong; it just demonstrates ignorance of social issues. Mr. Kristof says, "Compassion for other species can also nurture compassion for fellow humans." Conservation efforts for endangered species can also benefit third world communities, such as in the Dzanga Sangha Protected Area, where the World Wildlife Fund also supports jobs, health, and education of locals. There is no obligation to choose between humans and animals, but we should be sensitive to the welfare of both.

I believe that when it comes to choosing between humans and animals that most people would choose an animals welfare over that of their fellow humans. I think this is because most people have strong connections to their pets and when they think of animals it reminds them of their own pets. However to answer the question I believe that while animal welfare is rightly important that humans need it more than animals at least in certain scenarios. So unless a species is on the verge of extinction or near to it then I believe that money could go into better furthering human needs. Nicholas Kristof says that he “sometimes feel uneasy. I wonder: Does honoring animal rights come at the expense of human rights?”. In my opinion many will feel the same because at what point do we draw the line at deciding where badly needed money goes; to those in need, or to the animals. However the otherside would stress that not enough is being done to protect valuable species that face extinction because of humanity. I Am in favor of better laws protecting these endangered species but allocating large funds for these animals seems implausible as many humans all over the Earth face their own various forms of extinction.

It’s not something I can just automatically decide just like that. There also shouldn’t be cases where you should decide one over the other. In my eyes they’re as equally as important, humans and animals are both always going to require help in their life. I personally believe it’s because us as humans we have the ability to defend ourselves. While animals don’t really have that ability. People also tend to build a very emotional connection with animals. We feel that it’s our jobs to protect them since they can’t do much for themselves. I don’t certainly believe it’s wrong, but I think that humans they should both have attention. To me animals seem to be praised at such a high level, when they’re killed by the fault of a human they receive so much attention, but it’s not always the same for people. Roxane Gay tweeted “I’m personally going to start wearing a lion costume when I leave my house so if I get shot, people will care.” That’s a lot to take in it’s showing how people are starting to feel that their worth is not valued. The study showed how 40 percent of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist. I understand giving them attention, like for example the last white rhino who had recently died in Kenya for China’s wants, but when a tragedy happens that involves a person, they should receive the same amount of attention since it’s still a life that matters.

I don't think it's a matter of people putting animal welfare above human welfare. People, including myself, are just more inclined to help the animal getting beat with a bat because they can't really help themselves. Humans might not have an easy time defending themselves against a bat either but they can still do more than a dog would be able to. Also, there are many more organizations to help suffering people than there is to help suffering animals so I don't think it's wrong if people want to focus on animal welfare. Furthermore, I agree with Mr. Kristof's statement, we shouldn't compare sympathy for different species. Like I said before, it's not about caring more about one more than the other it's more about trying to protect the much smaller, defenseless party.

I think as people, we should care greatly about saving fellow humans. However, animals are also very important in society. There are definitely a lot of people out there who do not really enjoy being a human, and so many of them also have little sympathy towards people. It is definitely very upsetting to see a suffering or dead animals, maybe because a lot of people see them as mostly defenseless creatures, but so are little kids, and they face a lot of danger every day. Of course, now, people are starting to fight for certain safety issues affecting children, but a lot of voices are being ignored. When Harambe was killed in 2016, people were livid. Some went so far as to even vote for him in the presidential election a few months later. It is a known fact that people tend to blow up over some of the smallest things, but they also get very picky about what is controversial in importance. A lot of people were angry about Harambe being killed, and they even blamed the kid and his parents for him also falling into the gorilla area. There were not enough people on the internet wondering whether the kid was okay- I'm not even an excuse because I jumped onto the meme with all my friends because we thought a child "causing" a gorilla to be shot was funny. Overall, I think it is best that we focus on both animals and humans. We should not favor one species over the other, because in the long run, animals do a lot for us, but we still need to respect our fellow people.

This is an extremely debatable topic depending on how it is seen. It is not wrong to focus on animal welfare because they are very different from humans. Although humans need help as well, humans are responsible for the way other humans are being treated and their welfare. However, we should focus on animal welfare because the most common reason they need help is because of our actions. We kick them out of their homes and use them for our benefit when they were previously living fine before. We are responsible for our actions and the way they impact the animals.

As a vegan and a committed activist/aspiring politician, I don’t think anyone should have to choose between animal and human rights: I try to address both everyday. That being said, I think responses to violence against humans are subdued compared to violence against animals, and Roxane Gay’s statement, “I’m personally going to start wearing a lion costume when I leave my house so if I get shot, people will care,” has a lot of resonance in the wake of the recents shootings of unarmed black men in the United States as they cycle in and out of the news. There is certainly plenty of room for empathy surrounding human rights issues, but it’s not wrong to care about animal rights as well. More than anything I believe we should all try to not just have compassion, but turn that compassion into action, as sympathy alone is not what will make the change we want to see.

To say that an animal or human is more important than the other only further implies the injustice within our system. In my opinion, it is not wrong to focus on animal welfare, as we should care about beings other than ourselves; however, we should not put aside our brotherhood altogether as the safety and well-being of our fellow human is just as important. Those who feel differently typically do so because they believe that we are the reason for an animal's distress, which, is technically true. However, just because we humans have idiotic tendencies, this does not mean that we abandon our own. Who are we to determine the importance of who lives and who dies? We are all a part of this Earth. We have to live together so why not make the best of it instead of attempting war?

When hearing about the study that found humans are more likely to feel sympathy for suffering animals than humans, I was not surprised. I too, fall into the majority of this study, and have always had a soft spot for animals. When I was little, I used to imagine that I would become a well known veterinarian that would help animals all over the world. In the article, Kristoff writes about how the shooting of a lion located in Zimbabwe attracted more outrage than the shooting of a 12 year old by a Cleveland police officer. It is ironic how humans care more about animals than other humans. Animals are beautiful creatures that were created with less abilities than humans. People care more about animals because they were not created with evil intentions. Humans are unpredictable and some have bad intentions. We don’t think of animals as evil. To us, they are harmless creatures and if they attack us, it is in their nature. Animals can take care of themselves in the wild, but if they are captured, they do not know how to protect themselves. My family has not supported circuses just for this reason. The circus has a reputation of abusing the animals, and it is not right for them to be taken from their homes to be obedient. We have animals as pets and love them like our own. Kristoff was correct. Humans have the tendency to feel more sympathetic towards animals because they are unique, special creatures and need our help to be saved.

In my honest opinion, I think that it is important to focus and be empathetic to both humans and animal. I do not think that I prefer one more than the other because I believe that they are both living things and should be treated and protected the same way. I find it to be wrong that people are focused more on the safety of animals rather than humans but it is human nature to want to take care of animals. I think that it is important to care about human welfare as well because even though animals need help there are humans suffering as well. They need help and may need our help just as much or more than the animals so it is important to keep the balance between the two.

Reading this article made me realize that it is completely impossible for humans and animals to both have the same support. At first I thought that humans would be more empathetic toward other humans, but I was wrong. Humans are more empathetic toward animals. In all honesty, I think the reason for that is because humans do not get along with other humans. Humans have emotions that are unexplainable and also do actions that are unexplainable, while animals are here just being themselves, doing what they need to do. Animals have a reason for everything while humans do things “just because.” Also, we are not interested in humans as much because we are surrounded by them every minute of every day whether it’s through a screen or in person. We see people suffering all the time on the streets and in other countries but do nothing to help because we have become so familiar with seeing that. Seeing that all the time does not have an impact on us anymore. We are not around to see animals hurting all of the time, so when we do see that, we notice that we are not familiarized with that concept, making us more empathetic toward the animals suffering.

It is not wrong to focus on animal welfare. Neither the well-being of animals or humans are to be placed or ranked higher than the other. In agreement with Kristof’s Point, caring for animals may create compassion for other humans. Both humans and animals are mammals, we inhabit the same earth. Keeping each other safe and respecting one another is needed for more peaceful society. The one to judge the person in the theoretical scenario who saved their pet over a tourist negatively, would be the person with a selfish mindset that human life trumps animal life. All lives are equal. Yes, one should save another human life. No, one should not ignore the life of an animal. Let us not judge one another over a scenario that is not real. It was made up, and is unrealistic to hold the answer to value of life within a theoretical event.

The reason why so many people are more empathetic toward the suffering of animals rather than humans is because animals cannot help themselves or does not have as much of an ability to change a drastic situation when compared to humans. Humans have an ability to talk and to think independently and act on their own so people view other humans having that ability to help themselves. Animals can't take care of themselves like humans can. For example, in Kristof's example of when an animal is being beat up by a bat, most dogs can't fight back or oppose that abuse; they cannot call for help nor they can say anything back. Humans, on the other hand, have that ability to effectively oppose such abuses and to change such conditions. It solely is due to the ability of each species to protect themselves.

When comparing humans and other animals, one thing becomes apparent: humans are especially vile. Never has an animal so deliberately devastated an environment for personal gain nor exterminated entire populations (even some of its own) based on superstition such as racism or sexuality. This is important in finding why humans care more for animals than their own kind as humans have other interests, mainly profit, that will trample over others of their own species. Humanity’s role as the “dominant life form” also gives it a “calling” to defend “lesser beings”, we can see this in politics; the U.S. defends weaker nations like Israel and South Korea (some would even say it does this while neglecting its own people) despite the very few unique benefits they would bring. Animal welfare opens the door for human welfare; it’s not uncommon for breakthroughs in animal treatment to make its way into the treatment of people (the Animal Welfare act of 1966 gave ethical guidelines for the testing of subjects and in the ‘70s push for ethical treatment of human subjects became common).

Many people are more empathetic to animals who are unable to speak and properly communicate with them, than they are to other people. But showing more empathy to those of another species doesn’t qualify someone as sociopathic or cruel, it is actually quite rational. As people we witness the evils of other people; murder, terrorism, violence. So, it’s understandable that one could feel little emotion upon hearing that a member of our species is suffering. Animals, on the other hand, very rarely commit atrocities with malicious intent. In fact, any “wrongdoings” of animals are typically motivated by a feeling of obligation to protect their fellows. Generally, animals are more compassionate and kinder-spirited than humans. Therefore it makes sense that some people are more reactive to the pain of a dog who bites in order to protect its puppies, than they are towards a human whose great grandfather probably bought people to use as slaves. So a better question might be: why are people more empathetic to the pain of Sadie the Sock-Chewer than they are to the pain of Randy the Rapist?

I’m more dedicated on helping humans than animals. I’m a christian and christians are supposed to care for one another. Animals can be a really good company but they don’t care about us humans one bit. Animals just want food and someone to play with. Why should a human help an animal over another human if the animal would not do the same for them?

People are more sympathetic towards animals because they are innocent. Animals do not deserve to be in a scenario where they could be hurt because they do not know any better, unlike humans. An animal should never be in the situation of getting beat by a bat, as hypothetically proposed by the article, but a human made choices that led them to that situation. It is almost the same as being more sympathetic towards a child, since they are also unable to know how to get out of the situation.

I am more dedicated to helping humans more than animals. I say this because humans are merely animals that possess common sense, which is something we need in this world. We can help humans help animals by educating them on hunting regulation and the importance of the animals to our world and its food chain. Our main focus should be to help humans that suffering especially in countries like Nigeria, Libya, and Afganistan. These three countries and many more are among those facing terrorism, human-trafficking, and even slavery. I believe that the lives of the people in these countries are far more important. AS I said before, animals serve a purpose in the food chain, but even if the food chain was to be so extremely affceted that ut would lead to world hunger, it is still possible for scientists to synthesize food. I think that people are more empathetic towards animals because they are more aware of the suffering that animals face. This is most likely because you usually see more about the peril that animals are in on the media. So in my opinion, I do think it would be wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering because even though animals are cute and adorable, there are children all over the world that are starving. I disagree with her statement for that same reason.

I'm not choosing one over the other because humans just as well as animals need help in a day to day basis. If you think about it, humans are destroying theirs lives everyday. Animals have always been on their own since born, all though they might need medication or aid humans do as well. So i'm not saying I would help more the humans but I say it's a 50-50 chance for both of them. It's better to help each other than just one over the other.

I am more dedicated to helping humans than animals, but do feel a large amount of sympathy for animals. I feel guilty about animals, because they were doing just fine before humans came and interfered. The reason animals need protection and help is because of humans. Despite this, I would still help humans because there are innocent people all around the world who are suffering, and children who are starving. People are more empathetic towards animals because they are cute, furry, and entirely innocent. It isn't their actions that put the animals in danger, but ours. I don't believe it is wrong to help animals, many animals would be extinct by now if it weren't for human intervention, and many ecosystems would be off-balance, which would affect human-life as well. It is wrong, however, to focus primarily on animals. There are people all around the world who are starving, and in constant danger, but many people prefer to look at the cute puppies. That is wrong, and I agree with Mr. Kristoff. The world is a dangerous place full of people in animals who need our help, and helping anything is a good thing. It is wrong to call someone out for donating money to a dog shelter, because they are doing a good thing. It is also wrong to ignore the people in countries not as privileged as our own, who can't even afford children's healthcare. Our world is filled with problems, and helping animals or people helps rid the world of some, no matter what exact problem you choose to deal with.

Animals are great. Having a pet is like having a best friend that always has your back. I love all three of my pets, but if it came to it, I would always choose to save a human from danger over my pet. A human’s life is much more valuable than an animal’s life. Humans are able to do so much more than an animal. They can have extremely valuable input into society whereas pets merely serve as companions. This isn't to say that animals aren't important to our everyday life. Just like the article mentioned, animals keep their ecosystems going, and without an ecosystem many groups of people such as the pygmy villagers mentioned would lose both their homes and their culture. The author asked an interesting question, “Is it wrongheaded to fight for elephants and rhinos (or farm animals at home) while five million children still die each year before the age of 5?” yes, but only for the most part. If animals are something you care deeply about you can help them alongside helping the humans in the area. The world would be so much better if everyone who cared so deeply about saving the rhinos put half of their effort into building a new school, establishing a new source of water, or even buying the $5 mosquito net the author wrote about. I agree with the author’s point of view, but I would always prioritize human needs over the needs of animals, endangered or not. With humans suffering around the world it’s our duty to help them before we turn to the elephants and rhinos.

I agree with Kristof all the way. Because even though humans dominate in intelligence. They may have not if it weren't for the resource of other species. So I definitely do not think there is issue when people focus on conserving animals. I think the issue comes into effect when we focus on what is more appreciated. Kristof makes an example of this situation when he compares the death of Cecil the lion versus the death of Tamir Rice. It seems obvious why Cecil's death drew more attention, he was a celebrity, pretty sad. If it were an ordinary lion, we don't know whether he would have received the less or more attention. Kristof makes this conflict easier to understand when he indicates it overseas in countries where wildlife is more connected than our own. Maybe human interactions such as hunting or poaching are simply actions done in order to provide for loved ones if not just themselves. I would compare it to having to slay a farm animal to provide food for you, your family, and your pet. So we need more solutions to the humans versus animals crisis, like Dzanga Sangha. Where humans can help themselves by helping fellow species instead of killing or neglecting. Because without the actual will to want to conserve species from becoming extinct, humans will only lean to the favor of the person or animal closest to them.

Many people are more empathetic toward the suffering of animals than people because they feel that the animals are defenceless. The research showing that "40 percent of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist"(Proulx) shows that people care more about other species. The lack of care towards the tourist proves people think the tourist should be able to take care of themselves. Pets and other animals can't take care of themselves when humans interfere. If the people would leave the animals alone then most of the problems would go away. When elephants get there tusks taken off they are hurt. If people would leave them alone they would be alright which makes it the job for humans to take care of the other species.

Many people are more empathetic towards the suffering of animals than people because they feel that animals are defenseless and are to innocent to be beaten .This is because of the cruel activities that humans are broadcast doing such as kids throwing dogs into the road and them getting hit by cars or throwing the dogs into an alligator infested pond .If humans can’t be humane and treat dogs kindly why should we go out of our way to help them when in the long run they could hurt us more than help us .

When it comes to whether animals need more help than humans, then I would agree that animals do need more protection, however, not in the traditional sense. I am more dedicated to helping animals because they are innocent and the only reason they are in trouble is because of human activity. Also, animals are dying at a faster rate than they reproduce, so every death is one step closer to endangerment and/or extinction. I believe the only way we could help animals is by leaving them alone because human activity and intervention has been a huge factor in the deaths of many animal species.

Focusing more on animal welfare more than focusing on sick humans is something that is absolutely okay. If you think about it most animals are suffering & dying because of us and the changes we’ve made to this world. Maybe that’s also why were more empathetic torwards the suffering of animals. We have some blame in their suffering. Also, animals do nothing to purposely hurt us and have malice in them.

I am more dedicated to helping animals instead of humans because animals lived and thrived on the planet before humans were alive and they will probably be the last ones on Earth as well. Animals also only really have one way of protecting themselves which is biting or clawing so they need people to stand up and speak for them since they can not communicate with humans.

I am not really inclined to helping one more than the other. I think both animals and people need equal attention. If you only focus on people and forget about the animals then, some animals can become extinct and that will hurt the ecosystem. But if you focus only on animals then, people who are sick around the world won’t get the help they need. So finding a balance is key.

Humans feel a responsibility to protect and domesticate animals. This feeling, that almost forces us to help the inferior spiecies, stems from our built in system of social Darwinism. For this reason people are more empathetic towards the helpless animal over a human who made a mistake. Focusing on the welfare of animals more than the welfare of humans, is only a problem, if and only if there is a actual problem amongst humans, Which there isn't.

People are more focused on helping animals first, before humans. They tend to be more empathetic with animals when suffering. The reason for this is, people feel that animals can’t help themselves and fix their own problems. People see animals as helpless. They see animals as adorable and form an emotional connection to them. Humans tend to dislike most other humans which is the reason they jump to the aid of animals before humans.

I feel people empathize with animals more than humans due to many reasons. Maybe it is due to them reconciling what they see to a pet from childhood or one they currently have, or something they’ve seen. In another situation, I also believe it’s due to humans seeing animals as helpless and defenseless, so we “have” to help them. In reality, animals have been functioning on their own for a long time, most of the situations they’re being catapulted into is from human activity. On the other hand, people are desensitized to people. We laugh at one another’s misfortune, make crude jokes, and speak the most corrosive of comments to one another. If it’s an animal, we feel a rush of pity and empathy in comparison to that of a person.

I am more dedicated to helping humans because before human interference, animals were doing fine on their own. I feel that if we just leave animals alone, they would be okay. Humans should focus on helping themselves rather than fixing something that was fine to begin with. I feel that many people are more empathetic toward the suffering of animals than that of people, because people view animals as unable to fend for themselves, as creatures that have no idea of how to take care of themselves. Yes, animals are going extinct but most extinction and endangerment of animals is caused by human interference.

It is the five million children that die each year before the age of 5, that leads to results such as “40 percent of people would save their pet dog over a foreign tourist.” In psychology the availability heuristic is a mental shortcut people use for probability based on how easily something comes to mind; such as thinking murder is more common than deaths from diabetes because amounts news coverage. Something similar appears in this situation, those millions of child deaths lose value when people disconnect from their lives, and just group deaths into statistics. However this implies some amount of human connection with their own pets, and some sort of social break from feeling a similar closeness with other people’s deaths. I also agree with the article’s point that because some animals such as the northern white rhinos are nearly extinct, the death of one is especially important other the death of one in over seven billion. As well, I see how public outcry would be important, as if we were not so outraged over poaching, then it would increase the death rates and we would have a bigger problem. The sad truth is our minds do not think in the way that each human’s death is as important as an animal or pet. However, if we take this into consideration we can do much better of then letting a 12-year-old getting shot fly under the radar of those looking at the death of Cecil the lion.

Compromise is a huge part of life, but no one should have to choose between saving or helping the life of an animal or a human. Why can’t we help both? Like the article says, “empathy is not a zero-sum game”. Many people don’t see it this way though. According to the article, nearly 40% of people would save a dog rather than another human. I think that this is due to the fact that we are so surrounded by the violence of humans towards one another covered in the news that we have become numb to it. People are naturally going to care more about animals who usually do nothing but love humans and mind their own business, rather than humans who have been shown as nothing other than violent, warring creatures. Back to my original point, though, we should not have to choose between helping humans and helping animals. First off, there is not reason that we cannot help both, it’s not like humans don’t have enough resources already. Secondly, Mr. Kristoff states that, in Dzanga Sangha, there is a wildlife protected area, where, as well as providing a safe place for the animals to live, the wildlife protection allows jobs and a safe place for the BaAka Pygmies. This goes to show that it is possible to help humans and animals at the same time. We can, and should, help humans as well as the animals. Neither should be viewed as less important, when our survival goes hand in hand.

Focusing on the protection of animals is a fair argument because they support a specific role in their ecosystem. These ecosystems also impact how humans can live across these continents. Not to mention, we are the reason why these animals started going extinct: white rhinos, elephants, tigers. The focus on stopping poachers from hunting these giants can help prevent the supply and demand of valuable weapons and drugs. It doesn't need to a black and white question, because the two areas can overlap when it comes into our economy and landscapes. They deserve a fair amount of protection since they haven't developed the same intelligence as humans, but in our current status of government, I'm more worried for our future.

I by far care for animals more. Animals are helpless when against us. They are less intelligent and we take advantage of them. I do think human suffering is an important issue as well, don't get me wrong. But most suffering that humans experience is born of their own actions. There are of course exceptions and any sort of abuse toward another human is very, very wrong. But animals cannot fend for themselves. They are wholly helpless and have the exact same right to this planet that we do. They just need our protection more.

Actually I care for both, animals and humans but humans will be the most important to me because humans are the people that share the same mental and physical structure as me. We can solve the humans issue then the animals safety. Animals have lives just like humans but sometimes I think we can't compare the humans life with animals life because I see humans are the origin of life.

People seem to be empathetic towards animals until it affects themselves. People definitely seem to care about animals more than they do suffering humans. Animals are seen as not having a voice, which is true. Animals can only express themselves through actions. Some view this as helplessness, much like see handicapped, the elderly, and babies. We look down on them without realizing it. People use the same high pitched patronizing voice when they're talking to a child as they do when they talk to a puppy. Ironically, the people that "care" more about animals than humans, are the usually the same ones that support the meat industry. Why can we decide to kill animals for our own enjoyment, but when the killer hurts a pet in a movie everybody suddenly cares? If you're going to claim to care more about animals than humans, you care about all of them. I don't care more about an animal's life more than I do a human's. They are both equally valuable, but not equally important in society. If I see a roach indoors, I'm going to kill it because it's unsanitary, etc... but if I have a sick person near me and I killed them what would you say? Would you feel bad for the roach or the human? Obviously the human, but what if it was a rabid dog near me and I killed it? Then who would you feel bad for? Why is it that we claim to care about animals but only care about the ones that are cute, or provide something for us whether it be, aesthetics, a service, entertainment, etc.. ?

Personally I care more about the well being of my fellow humans than animals, humans are the people that share the same mental and physical structure as me. It kills me to see people suffer. Being a human I know the pain and discomfort of sufferin, so when I see someone suffering I can almost feel their pain. This emotion motivates me to help people as much as i can. However I also love and care for animals, just not as much as I care about people. There is nothing wrong with caring about animals, they are beautiful creatures! Although there is something wrong with choosing an animals wellbeing over a persons. According to this NYT article a study found that, “research subjects were more upset by stories of a dog beaten by a baseball bat than of an adult similarly beaten”. I think that most people focus on the welfare of animals because of how cute they are, the tug on our emotions. How could you not care about the welfare of a cute little puppy, or the gentle giants elephants. Another reason I think people choose animals over people is that our society is oblivious to all the people suffering across the world. There are so many people suffering, and it breaks my heart. We need to get our act together. Put it this way, would you rather come together as a society and fight the evils of cancer or come together to stop poaching in Africa. After some deep thought I realized our human race is strong enough to do both, on the other hand we need to keep our priorities straight.

I have stated on multiple occasions that I prefer dogs to humans. A person could die in a movie, and I’ll be fine, but as soon as the dog gets hurt- instant tears. I believe most people feel more sympathetic towards animals because we see them as helpless and without a voice. Who’s going to stand up for them if we don’t? And this isn’t a pick-and-choose matter, we need to advocate for human suffering just as much as the mistreatment of animals. I see my pets as much of a part of my family as I am, so shouldn’t the wildlife be just as much a part of our global community as humans are? In the article Dieudonné Kembé said that what’s good for the animals is good for the people. They add just as much to culture and society as humans do. They provide food, labor, and love. The point of charity and volunteer work is to help those less fortunate, no matter the species, so it doesn’t matter if you write your check out to the animal conservatory or the children’s orphanage, just make sure you pick one of them.

I believe that people are right to worry about animal safety. Humans aren't the only ones on this planet, and we definitely couldn't survive if we were. We depend on animals, whether it be for food, protection, transportation, companionship, entertainment, or many more things, animals are a big part of our lives, so we need to make sure that they are all safe and alive. I also believe that people might worry about animals because they are the defenseless ones against humans and their technology, for people naturally support the underdog.

Perhaps it's a matter of accountability. Humans consider their fellow humans on a more rigorous standard (in the light of the fact that we have similar brain circuits)—and like how a child is treated more leniently for the same offenses a more experienced adult commits, we see animals as deserving of our sympathy and care. Essentially, we're just living up to our roles as stewards of the world. The issue I focus on are very human-centric: politics, human trafficking, accurate science awareness, etc. It's impossible not to care about humans; our lives are structured by the broader context of values like love and honesty, that other people—not necessarily animals—hold in regard. But we often forget how important animal welfare is for human welfare. Consider Mr. Kristof's point that "[when] the animals are gone, economic prospects for humans diminish as well". The vital roles that bees and bats play as pollinators in our agrarian society and the emotional support that pets bring to us, as well as the wealth of engineering inspirations found in proteins and evolution, are all ways that general human life hinges on animal survival and well-being. We can't forget about the issues humanity face—and too many serious and undeniably human problems are not being addressed—but we can realize that animal welfare is, in many cases, an extension of human welfare.

For me, I am definitely more dedicated to helping humans, but I try to help animals in every way I can. I believe that if you help our fellow humans, there will be more people that can go out to help even more people and animals. People tend to be more empathetic toward animals because we see them as being "helpless" and "innocent," while when we see people suffer, we tend to have that the attitude that "they did something to deserve it" or "they will get over it." I don't think that it's wrong to focus on animal welfare. Animals have lives just like humans, and they have real emotions and pain. Not looking out for animals is just humanely wrong. People in general should devote their time to try to help both parties without harming the other.