Crazy old bat leaves $8bn to dogs.

[K. A. Pital]

So how are dogs different from cats? Aren't the cats far more worthy since at least they do not cause danger to humans? Stray dogs and rabies are a danger, but i don't know of stray cat threat.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't think it's the case that human interests always should outweigh non-human interests or that non-human interests don't matter unless humans indirectly benefit. That humans are "smarter" doesn't necessarily make their interests irrelevant either. I think they should be considered, but obviously, I think human suffering would be more pressing when like types of interests collide. Intelligence and awareness levels are indirectly important because it influences the level of suffering possible.

There ought to be equal consideration of like interests. It doesn't necessarily mean equal treatment. Less important human interests could be sacrificed for more important non-human ones. Suffering of animals would trump human inconvenience, but imo, not suffering.

[Justforfun000]

Well cats also fall into the same category..but a little less so then dogs because they are naturally much more independant. Dogs are pack animals, and we are part of their pack.

That said though, cats are domesticated. I feel we have a responsibility towards them as well. At least from a moral standpoint of general consideration. Obviously an animal's life should never be chosen over a human's as a general rule of thumb. Although there are some humans I would have a hard time making that decision for if thrust into am if/or circumstance....

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aren't the cats far more worthy since at least they do not cause danger to humans? Stray dogs and rabies are a danger, but i don't know of stray cat threat.

Technically, feral cats can be a danger too. They also carry diseases. Just not as dangerous.

[Guardsman Bass]

So how are dogs different from cats? Aren't the cats far more worthy since at least they do not cause danger to humans? Stray dogs and rabies are a danger, but i don't know of stray cat threat.

You mean domestic cats? I'm not quibbling over it; had she done the same for domestic cats, then I wouldn't see much of a problem either; cats are another such group of "special" domestic creatures who are symbiotically woven into human existence. Not so much as dogs, but they are in that kind of position.

[K. A. Pital]

Well then this means I'm callous to non-human species I guess. I care for neither cats nor dogs; neither are necessary for human survival.

I just can't bring myself to admit that there's some sort of responsibility because humans in general started domesticating a species. I mean, we put the pandas in the zoo to procreate, their loss would mean extinction, but I can't feel much sympathy for the animals.

I guess that's just me

[Resinence]

Nah, it's not just you. Frankly, I wouldn't care if panda's went extinct either; the eco-system in that area already pretty well functions without them. Dogs were domesticated because they are beneficial to humans, not because we wanted to look after them. When push comes to shove, they should not be pulled along with us, we didn't domesticate them because we wanted them as companions, it was because they were useful to us, companionship is a side-effect.

Yes, the money will go towards alleviating animal suffering, but there is millions of people on the streets suffering just as much, if not more due to their increased mental capacity, and when dealing with such huge sums of money it is disgusting to see ALL of it go towards animals, you may as well just say "fuck humans".

I have a pet dog too, and I like dogs, they are cool. Helping stray's is good. But not to the exclusion of humanity when there is such much suffering already.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well then this means I'm callous to non-human species I guess. I care for neither cats nor dogs; neither are necessary for human survival.

Dogs certainly formed a very important part of survival for early man, they served as working animals for herding, hunting and guarded settlements. That’s why we domesticated them in the first place, dogs as pure pets didn’t come along until later.

As for Pandas, they suck, they are absurdly over specialized, being able to eat only one kind of bamboo in the whole world and with one offspring every two years… not good traits for survival.

[K. A. Pital]

Dogs certainly formed a very important part of survival for early man

Are you saying we hold some moral debt before a non-sentient species that we used for our hunting and herding goals?

[Rye]

Yes, the money will go towards alleviating animal suffering, but there is millions of people on the streets suffering just as much, if not more due to their increased mental capacity, and when dealing with such huge sums of money it is disgusting to see ALL of it go towards animals, you may as well just say "fuck humans".

I have a pet dog too, and I like dogs, they are cool. Helping stray's is good. But not to the exclusion of humanity when there is such much suffering already.

Animal welfare charities get a drop in the bucket compared to the charity and tax money that's spent on humans (or even an election race). This is especially true in countries like India where the memes of animal cruelty as the norm are still alive and well. If someone wants to say "fuck humans" because they want the money they earned to go towards helping animals that usually get skipped over for the dregs of humanity, I don't really have an issue. It's not like far greater amounts of money are not already going towards those people.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Dogs are certainly sentient. It merely means awareness and responsiveness to sensory stimulation; the ability to experience, especially pain or pleasure or other sensations; to feel. Not all sentient organisms are equal. Some more self-aware than others and have more intense, sophisticated senses. This is one reason why human suffering matters more. A fish suffering likely isn't of the intensity of a dog or a human. Therefore, a dog deserves more consideration if compared. A human then compared to a dog likewise--regarding suffering.

Regardless, whether they are directly useful to people is morally irrelevant to how they ought to be treated if they have interests and can feel pain and/or suffer. It's not the case they must be treated equally, because they often aren't. But their interests aren't to be dismissed.

Humans are often selfish and myopic. People don't give a fuck about people either for the same basic reason, except their cut off is race or group or group or tribe or gender or wealth level. They ignore the feelings and interests of others outside the group if they are of no benefit to the group's goals or if there's no relation. The principle of equal consideration of like interests states that all interests matter, not necessarily equally, but they can't be dismissed because it doesn't ultimately benefit you.

If someone tortures pigs for fun, it doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because it's not a human or you might not care personally.

[Sriad]

So how are dogs different from cats? Aren't the cats far more worthy since at least they do not cause danger to humans? Stray dogs and rabies are a danger, but i don't know of stray cat threat.

Dogs are also more helpful: have you ever heard of a seeing eye cat, rescue cat, helper cat, drug-sniffing cat, police cat, or herding cat? Certainly an attacking 60 pound animal will do more damage than an attacking 10 pound animal, but that's further reason to be concerned with dog-welfare over cat, not less.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aren't dogs more intelligent than cats, too?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aren't dogs more intelligent than cats, too?

That's been debated back and forth, and really depends on what metrics you use.

Mind you all, I like hearing what Stas is saying--westerners are to sentimental about animals, and it's always bothered me.

[ArmorPierce]

There really shouldn't be any debate about it. Dogs are easier to train, dogs are pack animals (social animals tend to be smarter). The only debate I see is cat lovers claiming that cats are harder to train is in fact proof that they are smarter because they see themselves above tricks. Domesticated animals do tend to have a smaller brain than their wild ancestors but cats are domesticated too.

Humans and dogs evolved in a symbiotic relationship. Genetic evidence shows that humans have been with the early version of dogs (mostly a wolf back then) for nearly 150,000 years.

This is a cool thing that I found.

Now archaeologists have discovered that 10,000 years ago, just at the point when humans began to give their dogs formal burials, the human brain began to shrink, too. It shrank by 10 percent, just like the dog’s brain. And what’s interesting is what part of the human brain shrank. In all of the domestic animals the forebrain, which holds the frontal lobes, and corpus callosum, which is the connecting tissue between the two sides of the brain, shrank. But in humans it was the midbrain, which handles emotions and sensory data, and the olfactory bulbs, which handle smell, that got smaller while the corpus callosum and the forebrain stayed pretty much the same. Dog brains and human brains specialized: humans took over the planning and organizing tasks, and dogs took over the sensory tasks. Dogs and people coevolved and became even better partners, allies, and friends.

-Grandin, 304-306

Of course it may fall into the correlation vs causation slump.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There really shouldn't be any debate about it. Dogs are easier to train, dogs are pack animals (social animals tend to be smarter). The only debate I see is cat lovers claiming that cats are harder to train is in fact proof that they are smarter because they see themselves above tricks. Domesticated animals do tend to have a smaller brain than their wild ancestors but cats are domesticated too.

Humans and dogs evolved in a symbiotic relationship. Genetic evidence shows that humans have been with the early version of dogs (mostly a wolf back then) for nearly 150,000 years.

I don't see the logic here. How and what would make the above justify favouring dogs over humans?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Aren't dogs more intelligent than cats, too?

That's been debated back and forth, and really depends on what metrics you use.

Mind you all, I like hearing what Stas is saying--westerners are to sentimental about animals, and it's always bothered me.

Oh in Korea they certainly favour dogs, for the Dinner plate.

[General Zod]

I don't see the logic here. How and what would make the above justify favouring dogs over humans?

It makes sense when you realize he was obviously talking about dogs vs cats, not dogs vs humans. . .

[ArmorPierce]

It doesn't and I don't justify favoring dogs over humans. This does not means that we cannot help suffering humans and suffering dogs at the same time and doesn't take away from the fact that much much more is given to end human suffering.

You seem to be in a black white mode. Either you help dogs or you help humans. You're sounding like one of those people that before we try going into space we should try to fix all the problems that we have here on earth.

[ArmorPierce]

and as zod said yes that post was mostly to do with dog intelligence vs cat intelligence.

[Ghost Rider]

I think a few people need to reread:

The late US real estate tycoon Leona Helmsley reportedly wanted her estimated $8bn fortune spent on dogs.

She left instructions that her estate go towards dog welfare

That particular.

She was fucking batty, and it showed until her death and beyond. It's all nice to help dogs, but to go "Fuck the people...here's 8 billion for dogs!" is a new level of gross judgement.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So how are dogs different from cats? Aren't the cats far more worthy since at least they do not cause danger to humans? Stray dogs and rabies are a danger, but i don't know of stray cat threat.

Apples to oranges. In general, cats do not need as much help, a far greater percentage would not only survive, but thrive and spread if dumped in the wild. In fact, as much as I love cats, I think more money should be spent on controlling the spread of cats, rather than helping them out, as feral cats are a *much* greater problem than feral dogs.

Ever since humans developed the sentience required to consciously domesticate another species, dogs have been their primary companion. We made domestic dogs the way they are today, which is pretty much unable to survive without our aid. So I do believe we have a responsibility to, if not help them survive, at least help them die without suffering too much.

As to whether or not this justifies leaving several million to dog charities rather than human charities... I don't know. I think in general, yes, human lives should be given first consideration since it's our bloody species... but there is already a vastly disproportionate amount of attention between humans and dogs as far as charities go, and this donation is *not* going to suddenly tip that balance the other way.

...so no, I don't really have all that much of a problem with this.

[Gil Hamilton]

Frankly, as chronically underfunded as animal welfare tends to be, I really don't mine a large slice of that pie going to helping out shelters and animal welfare groups. If a whole bunch of no-kill shelters get their annual budget paid for a few years for by this, then in my opinion it isn't really a bad thing.

[Mayabird]

Geez, what is with all this binary thinking for animal care? This isn't an either-or thing. Nobody's required to give all their money to only one thing. She could have said, "All my money is going to dogs...except $50 million which I'll give to hospitals in Africa for fistula surgery," and she'd have immensely helped a lot of needy people out while still helping dogs an obscene amount.

Fact is, she was probably stupid as well as crazy for just going "All to dogs!" instead of splitting off at least a fraction for something else. Heck, if she really intended to piss off her grandkids she could've at least said, "Oh, and here's two cents for them," and at least show it was a slap in their face.

[Justforfun000]

Stas Bush Wrote:

Well then this means I'm callous to non-human species I guess. I care for neither cats nor dogs; neither are necessary for human survival.

I just can't bring myself to admit that there's some sort of responsibility because humans in general started domesticating a species. I mean, we put the pandas in the zoo to procreate, their loss would mean extinction, but I can't feel much sympathy for the animals.

I guess that's just me

You would have to own one personally and have a strong bond with them to understand. I owned a red dobermann from the age of 20 until 31 and I was absolutely heartsick when I lost her. I was so attached that I became clinicaly 'depressed' which is highly unusual for me.

I didn't even realize how strong the bond had grown until I lost her. I've grieved over grandparents and fellow classmates that met untimely ends, and what have you, but there is no words to express the grief you can experience when you lose a beloved pet. I actually lost most personal interest in dogs afterwards and I suspect it's because I am blocking off my emotions to them as I do not want to be vulnerable to that kind of hurt.

These days I co-own a green-cheeked conure which has wormed it's way into my heart against my own better judgement. Even these little animals truly surprise you as to personality and the depth of their sentience. You have no idea how huge a personality these creatures can have. You really will not look at them as 'less' then humans in a moral way when you experience them as a living companion. I truly believe that even though science may have us on a pedestal in regards to a sentience 'scale', we are really not THAT much different from these animals. They have the same kind of emotional expressions as we do. Anger, annoyance, love, peevishness, surprise, affection, curiosity, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that people who own pets and bond with them strongly end up feeling like they are like their children. This is not to be lightly dismissed. Animal companionship is something that has a MAJOR effect on you and your life. They've even been documented scientifically to be deliberately helpful to health because they are de-stressors. Look at the many organizations that have hospital visitations for sick people and senior citizens in retirement homes.

Also many people that have become withdrawn from society whether by their choice or social shunning have found acceptance and security in the love of an animal.

So the point here is that animals like dogs and cats ARE owed something because there is a great feal of positive reinforcement they give us as humans. So charities contributing to their welfare are quite worthy because it's not just helping the animals, it's also by proxy helping us as well.

You are at this stage of the game obviously not a particular animal lover and you may never be. There is nothing wrong with this. Some people just aren't built that way. You might only be interested and capable of sharing strong emotions with other humans.

But just try to understand that helping animals in this way also does help humans too. So it's really not that outrageous as a charity choice.