Hacker News Reader

Comment by 323 | Hacker News Reader

I once read an article which was about how we are willing to spend thousands to save one particular dog, or one particular injured bird, instead of donating that money to "animal habitat preservation" or something similar which will save thousands of diverse animals.

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".

View on HN

People act irrationally when it comes to their feelings on preserving life. Human or animal.

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.

It's not clear that many of these efforts are good at all. A classic example is feeding stray cats. That just increases the carrying capacity so you're creating more stray cats and even more will be hungry.

Exterminate cows to prevent cow suffering? Or farm them to maximize their population?

I mean that's fair, but we're talking about airlifting some poor dogs with a cool drone, not exactly a common thing that will lead to long term problems.

Sure. Not saying this case is harmful to animal welfare, but the idea of anything that seems immediately good being actually good, even a little bit, isn't generally true.

>"...billions of animals are systematically tortured. But nobody cares..."

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.

You're right but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, though.

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

You may discover one day that there is no "grand scheme of things", no final day of reckoning when all of humanity is tallied up to decide once and for all if we're a Good or Bad species.

It's just individuals doing what they can with what they have.

Well, I didn't mean it as some kind of grand cosmic spiritual picture or anything. Frankly, I am not sure what made you believe that.

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 said that efforts to relieve the plight of animals "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things", but I disagree with you, as helping one animal is meaningful. I don't understand how you can believe that animals as a whole deserve better without also believing that each animal deserves better.

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.

You cannot quote me saying animal suffering doesn't matter. That's not even remotely what I said. Please don't do this.

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.

> while individual efforts matter, they're dwarfed by de facto policy, formal or not.

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.

Oh, I know. But I have realized this war cannot be won for the right reasons. The vast majority of people not only have zero concern for animals we use for food, they will actively fight cultured meat and stuff like that for years and years. The war hasn't even begun!

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.

Just because the act is irrational or sub-optimal does not mean it is insincere.

In many respects, the "rational" response would be to shoot the dogs with a rifle and donate the rescue funds to an animal shelter.

There's an entire episode of the HBO Chernobyl TV series dedicated to the decision to kill the animals in the area, rather than trying to rescue them. Yes, many of the animals would have been radiation hazards, or already doomed to death, simply because of their proximity to the reactor explosion and absorption/consumption of radionuclides over time, but the same can be said for the people living and working in area. The decision to destroy all of them rather than trying to work out which ones could be safely rescued saved the resources it would have taken to make the determination and do the rescues. Those resources were probably better used to mitigate the enormous hazards associated with the destroyed reactor.

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.

Perhaps this is "scope insensitivity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_neglect

We would do this for anyone honestly, it’s not just dogs. That’s tough to see. My heart isn’t handling this well and I just heard about it.

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.

I mean, we'd obviously do it for people. I'm not sure we'd do it for many other animals, though.

You're right. I've been thinking how many animals, not just birds, have been killed so that I can provide the birds that come by our window with sunflower, pumpkin or some other kind of seed.

Yes, I am fucking hypocrite.

> And then there's the whole industrial farm-animal raising thing

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com