Animals are....

[Noomi]

Depends what animals you refer to, but I believe they are equal to human life - when speaking of cats and dogs, specifically.

Really?

So if you had to choose between the life of your daughter and the life of your cat, you might choose to save the later?

I would save both, come hell or high water.

 

[Noomi]

I usually avoid feel good videos with the depth and persistence of my evil hardened conservative heart but this one got to me. Is there any doubt that animals improve our lives immensely?Woman Finds Her Dog after the Tornado - YouTube

Heard about that on the radio. Very moving story, and I am so glad she has her beloved pet back.

 

[gslack]

Humans ARE animals but we need them more than they need us.

In fact, they don't need us at all. The best thing that could happen to non-human animals is if we wiped ourselves out.

Don't bother saying that "food" animals or domestic animals would go extinct. Both are man-made but both would survive in some form.

The only animals that overpopulate are humans and the animals that humans control.

Usually when people make those comments its not a real issue but a hypothetical such as here. Hypothetical meaning "safe".

No one is going to come to your door and tell you that your extra kid is causing the death of a certain species of bird, so you can make bold and absolute claims like those. What if it came to pass? What if the extremists are suddenly in charge and instead of writing papers or making videos talking about how evil humanity is and how they should be cut back to a subsistence more attuned to their so-called "natural order", they are suddenly in power and able to manifest these beliefs into policy? What then?

Do you think say the head of the Sierra Club is going to join in the communal living and subsistence small-scale farming he advocates? Of course not he's too valuable right? What if it were your dog that they deemed an unnatural act of slavery to the animal and deprives him of his natural way of life?

It's easy to claim such when it's not a reality and pretty much not going to be anytime soon. It's a lot different when it's real. Right now the claim that cutting back humanity to a few million seems like a fair idea, maybe even a good one. But when you realize who the millions that going to go first are, it may seem a bit different to you.

So who goes and who stays? Who decides that? The guy who is either too important, too powerful, or too wealthy to be included? The people who will go first in any such concept will be the poorest and most unable to fight back. The reason is obvious, it's the most efficient and effective way, and it will be the last to get any real scrutiny.

So please, when you make statements like that, imagine what your supporting first. Take a close look at the people who will be gone. Go to a ball game and imagine 2/3 rds of them gone. Or go to Africa, or India, or anyplace where there are masses of desperately poor, and realize that they will be the hardest hit..