To contrast, I think maybe you're being a bit overly cynical. What evidence is there of that happening? Even if they did, is that such a bad thing? Can the guy not want to both save the dogs and make a cool video? They're not mutually exclusive.
And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing, where billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares, because it's not a particular animal in a particular situation that we can stand behind and do cool saving off to show our "humanity".
I think it's pretty lame to say "Well, we shouldn't save one particular being because we're not maximally saving the most beings!".
Accept what we can get, and work with that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Exterminate cows to prevent cow suffering? Or farm them to maximize their population?
Many people do care, and show it in various ways, from paying extra for free-range eggs, to going vegetarian or vegan. I agree with the other commenter that you're being overly cynical.
For every vegetarian, vegan, or anyone just willing to scale down, there are hundreds who would happily consume more of that sweet subsidized meat, even if it kills them.
Sorry for the rant
It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.
In any case, what I meant was that while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not. And, implicitly, that I am more than a tiny bit annoyed by people who desperately try to offset anyone's efforts just because they can. Consume, consume, consume. As being able is a justification enough in itself.
You now brought up a separate issue, which seems to be rooted in a philosophical disagreement. If you think the 'desperate consumers' are causing harm, I invite you to convince them to change their ways. As an incrementalist, I see each small improvement as virtuous.
Yes, I firmly believe my own efforts are easily offset by pretty much any of my peers who don't share my concerns. That's about 99 people out of 100, if that. I cannot seriously consider doing anything as "virtuous". Not a word I'd use unironically. We're just doing what we like. That's my take on it.
My point is that "individual efforts" is really the only thing that exists. Policies and other structures are emergent properties of individual efforts.
There is no change at the policy level that ultimately is not initiated by individuals doing things. A government or corporation has no independent physical embodiment. It's all made of humans making choices.
I believe things will change due to economics. Expecting the great masses to "do the right thing" is not going to work because not everyone shares your values on this topic. Price, quality and availability is what is going to drive change for some animal species.
In many respects, the "rational" response would be to shoot the dogs with a rifle and donate the rescue funds to an animal shelter.
In this case, there may be an argument that the resources directed towards rescuing the dogs could be better put towards mitigating the hazards of volcanic eruptions in general, but I wouldn't and won't be the one to make that call.
I hope the net is very big, they’d have to do dry runs with the net with the food in it, get them used to going into the net for the food. The hard part is going to be (well every part is hard), but if both dogs come into the net, that’s going to be a failed attempt.
Sadly I think they may only get one dog out, unless the dogs have different sleeping patterns, grab the awake one. I have no idea, this is heart breaking.
Maybe send a huge net with 4 drones to ensure if both dogs come in, they can carry the load out.
If they pull it off, take all the free marketing you can eat.
Yes, I am fucking hypocrite.
Huge difference between a pet that has developed human companionship bonds over thousands of years and a chicken or a cow that would be extinct had it not been delicious.