1. kfj Said,

   Very thought provoking as always!

2. Debbie Bird Said,

   What would it cost to adopt a fruit fly? Life span is short! Now there you go, Zach, research that one!
   You always make me proud!
   Mom

3. stoogepie Said,

   Zach, you make me proud, too.

   I am not currently sponsoring either an animal or a child. I had seen those commercials about adopting children, but I didn’t know I could adopt animals. Now, I’m pretty excited about adopting a snowy owl or a polar bear or a gorilla. But not a child.

   Here is my rationale. Snowy Owls are endangered. If I sponsor a Snowy Owl, according to the website to which you conveniently provided a link, I can save one Snowy Owl. It’s true that if I sponsor a child, I can save one child. But children are not endangered. In fact, children are anything but endangered. Let’s take that one step further: children are easily replaceable as a commodity. The same starving people who made the child I would sponsor can and probably will happily make a brand new disadvantaged child whether or not the first one survives. Snowy Owls are not so easily replaceable. If I don’t save that Snowy Owl and it dies, it may very well never be replaced.

   To put it in blunt economic terms, children in third-world nations are a cheaply renewable resource, whereas Snowy Owls in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are a diminishing resource.

   From a purely logical perspective, why would I expend capital preserving a cheaply renewable resource when I could instead devote that capital to the preservation of a dwindling resource? I can’t think of a reason. So, I am excited about sponsoring a Snowy Owl.

   I can’t explain the costs associated with sponsoring a hummingbird, but I will tell you that if I were to put out sugar and tap water where I live, I would be adopting a bunch of ants. So maybe the extra money you pay to save a hummingbird is for insect repellent.

4. Bob Said,

   To pie man:

   Owls aren’t a resource. You don’t use them for anything. If they all die, some tree huggers cry a little and we move on. Maybe there’s ecological imbalance for a while, but frankly that doesn’t really matter.

   A child can be partially viewed as a resource, as it there is a non-zero chance that that child will accomplish something useful. However, this is irrelevant. Children are sapient, and so they take priority over your damn snowy owl any day regardless of whether they are replaceable.

   What you are saying can be applied as follows: If you destroyed a city at a major shipping junction it would almost certainly be rebuilt. If you take a shotgun to a bald eagle, it won’t be. Therefore, if you had to do one or the other, it would be better to destroy the city than to take a shotgun to a bald eagle.

   Personally, I know which choice I would make. I always wanted to know what bald eagle tasted like anyway.

5. stoogepie Said,

   Hi Bob. Thanks for your response.

   You claim that owls are not a resource because we don’t use them for anything, whereas you claim that children can be a resource because they have the potential for accomplishing something useful. Those are two different standards. Owls do have a non-zero chance of accomplishing something useful. And we do not “use” children in third-world nations for anything, at least those among us who do not own sweatshops.

   Your entire argument has an underlying assumption about the value of humans versus the value of owls, so your conclusion is based upon this relative, underlying valuation rather than upon any supported premises. I will discuss this assumption as used in the second part of your argument later, but in the first part, when you say “useful” you mean “useful to human beings” as though that is some unquestionable standard that has meaning without support. If I wrote, “children are not useful to owls, but there is a non-zero chance that owls will be useful to themselves,” is that a less valid criticism of children than your criticism of owls? In other words, it is a foregone conclusion that, if we assume that human beings are the only species on the planet worthy of being served by themselves or other species, of course we will also find that human beings possess the greatest potential for being useful to themselves. And, even if we take for granted that this unsupported assumption is correct, you must, in your argument, make an allowance for children to afford them the benefit of a “potential” non-zero contribution because, frankly, they contribute nothing tangible as children even with all your foundational assumptions.

   But, without any support, let’s go ahead and assume that usefulness to humans is the unassailable standard against which we should measure the relative value of all species. Owls do accomplish something useful in an immediate sense: they control the rodent and small mammal populations in their environments. Without owls those species would overpopulate. So, for instance, mice might thrive, driving up weasel populations. Both mice and weasels can have serious negative impacts, particularly for human farmers. I’ll admit that I just gave a broad generalization as an example, but it does serve to illustrate that owls, at the very least, do have the potential to accomplish something useful for humans, just like children.

   You note that, if all the owls died, there might be some ecological imbalance “for a while.” Why “a while?” Why would the loss of owls not have a sustained ecological impact? And why, in any case, does that not really matter?

   In the end, you find this distinction between useless owls and useful children “irrelevant.” So we agree.

   But then you state, in the second part of your argument and again as though it stands without support, that children are sapient. They are not by any measure. Perhaps you have experience with two-year-olds in third-world countries that I lack, but they are no more wise than barnyard owls. (Owls, in folklore and in potato chips, have a legendary reputation for wisdom that we will ignore.) Perhaps you meant to state that children have sentience, in the metaphysical or sci-fi (rather than animal rights) sense, meaning that children have experiences of self. First, I’m not sure that two-year-olds do, but I will defer to your judgment about that. Second, this is a circular argument, because we might as well just go ahead and define sentience as “personhood.” That is, saying that “children take priority because they are sentient” is the same as saying “children take priority because they are people” is the same as saying “people take priority because they are people.” Meanwhile, all we have done, via circular logic, is return to the same relative valuation of people versus owls, again without support.

   Even if this sentience argument were true — I won’t refute it but not because there aren’t cogent refutations; there is certainly no reason to accept it as true and you provide none — I would rephrase it: children take priority because they, unlike any other species, have the potential to undertake unspeakable evil. That’s exactly the same argument: people take priority because they are people.

   And, just to prove the point that people can imagine evil that other species cannot, your final example is a brilliant play on extremes. Unfortunately, it distorts what I wrote. I’m saying that children in third-world nations are a cheaply renewable resource but endangered species like the bald eagle are not. So, given the choice between diverting economic resources to either, it makes sense to fund the preservation of the finite rather than the preservation of the infinitely renewable. I didn’t say that, if we had to kill either a person or an endangered species, it’s rational to kill the person. (But, lest you misunderstand where I might come down on that choice, I didn’t not say that, either.)

   But your choice of a shipping junction over a bald eagle is fascinating all on its own. Your entire second argument revolves around an intangible characteristic of human beings: they are sentient. First (assuming that owls do not have sentience), why not allow owls the same benefit of their intangible characteristics? Owls may be pretty and graceful and exciting to watch. Owls may be living art. I don’t know if those are characteristics of owls. I’m giving examples that merely may be true. Those are obviously subjective attributes, but what is more subjective than the metaphysical quality of sentience? And why does the intangible sentience trump those other intangibles? Second, sentience, assuming all people have it (and we could get pretty metaphysical about this), provides human beings with the ability to appreciate exactly those intangible qualities like grace and form and beauty that owls may possess. It’s ironic that this last example in support of your argument concludes that, since human beings are endowed with sentience, which allows them to appreciate such things as beauty, the preservation of human beings naturally takes priority over the preservation of the very things sentience allows them to appreciate. So, let’s kill a bald eagle rather than raze a shipping junction. Sentience not only trumps the other intangibles for some unknown reason, but affords us the prerogative to destroy the very gifts it provides us. That’s an interesting perspective and great cynical, ironic food for thought.

   In any case, if we are going to go blowing things up and shooting things and getting all sentient and evil, I would be happy to compare the flavors of third-world children to those of bald eagles with you. My money is on the impoverished children tasting much better.

6. -Zach- Said,

   I’d like to think of it this way. We are the only species on the planet that would rather further another species before our own. If the owls want to help the owls, that’s fine with me. I would praise them for their “owl-itarian” work. It would also be a different story if the owls helped us survive by dropping food at our starving people’s doorstep or making human sanctuaries. If that were the case, it would be respectful to help out the other species. But let’s face it, none of the other species are helping us, we need to take care of our own.

7. stoogepie Said,

   Yo Zach! Thanks for the response and for this post. As usual, it’s thought provoking.

   I think that your response — that “we are the only species on the planet that would rather further another species before our own” — seems reasonable only because of its vagueness. We never further the survival of another species over our own and to do so would be suicide, which is irrational in most contexts. Meanwhile, since other species are only concerned with survival and not with such lofty goals as amassing obscene personal wealth, tourism, or killing for sport, they can’t compete in that noble but vague category of furthering the interests of other species over their own. By virtue of the fact that humans are the only species not always concerned with mere survival, humans are the only animals rationally capable of considering the interests of a different species ahead of their own. So your statement is a truism.

   Or, it would be a truism if only it were true. But it is not. We never further another species ahead of our own. Instead, human beings may forgo short-term non-survival interests for long-term survival or non-survival interests. So, yes, we may designate a wildlife preserve or ban logging in certain forests or donate money to whale preservation. We are merely forgoing a short-term (usually economic) interest in favor of a long-term interest owned by our own species. That interest may be, as Bob pointed out, to avoid an ecological imbalance that would adversely affect us or it may be to maintain a species for food stock or it may be some other tangible interest. Or it may simply be aesthetic: we choose to live in a world with elephants and buffalo rather than having ivory keys on every piano and allowing hunters the joy of killing a species to extinction. But, in every case, we are choosing between our own sets of human interests.

   Zach, your argument has the benefit of seeming more straightforwardly humanistic: children just seem like a great cause. But if everyone is so concerned with the children of the world, shouldn’t we preserve the world as a diverse and biologically balanced place simply so that children can derive the same pleasure and knowledge from it that we have enjoyed? That serves a true human interest. It may inspire action that benefits animals, but is still rational, self-interested action. We alone can appreciate the aesthetic and educational values of biological diversity. In fact, if we did not appreciate biological diversity for its own sake, there would be no zoos, no nature shows, and certainly no Animal Planet.

   You say we need to take care of our own? Well, go right ahead. Conservative estimates state that we produce enough food to feed every human on this planet 2,700 calories/day. See, for example, http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm. We could overfeed the whole world but we choose not to. We would like to believe that it is famine, or drought, or some other natural force that threatens children with starvation, but it isn’t. It’s human greed and waste. We certainly don’t need to take care of our own to the detriment of any other species.

   And when you say that we are willing to further another species over our own, just what is endangering that species in the first place? Is it also some natural force like famine or drought? Nope. It is almost always us saving a species from our own economic interests.

   Would it really be a different story if owls helped us survive by dropping food at our starving people’s doorsteps? Plenty of species help us. Bees help us pollinate plants and produce honey, which we could drop at our starving people’s doorsteps if we chose. We don’t. Those wise old owls reduce the rodent populations that destroy grains, which we could drop at our starving people’s doorsteps if we chose. We don’t. Just as I don’t expect you to deliver your $22/month worth of food personally to some starving Guatemalan child rather than simply sending Children International some cash, don’t you think it’s a bit much to ask the owls to deliver the grain they protect to the starving masses themselves? They do their part and we just aren’t making those deliveries. Is it a different story yet?

   And it still makes logical sense to fund the preservation of the diminishing rather than the preservation of the renewable. In fact, your entire response above is an acknowledgment that animals are only concerned with their own survival and any benefit we derive from them is a by-product of that effort to stay alive. Humans, on the other hand, can conceive of satisfying longer-term goals that undermine short-term goals and benefit other species. In other words, humans can have concerns that transcend mere survival while animals do not. Human beings, as a species, need not be concerned about their survival. Why? Because survival of the human race is simply not threatened unless by its own misdeeds. Human beings are infinitely renewable and also happen to accept and permit the starvation you think your $22 is averting. But some animals are diminishing and threatened. As you wrote in your original post, “Priorities, priorities, priorities.”

   From a purely rational economic perspective, I think it’s clear where you should invest your $22. It’s okay to say, “Yeah, well, maybe we don’t always base our decisions on the rational.” That’s fine. But your determinations that those who sponsor animals may have mixed up priorities, that we “further other species before our own” and that “none of the other species are helping us” seem pretty arguable. For the sake of argument, I could go further: spending your $22 on food we already produce but would otherwise hoard and squander to feed a starving child fuels and perpetuates a system of nutrient-based greed and waste. Some of the causes of both starvation and the destruction of biological diversity — unsustainable development, overconsumption, and overpopulation, for instance — would be mitigated by letting that child starve. And, while your $22 for that child actually enhances the likelihood of future human strife and starvation — he or she will further reproduce while your $22 has helped to justify the international agricultural profiteering that kept food from that child (and will keep food from his or her offspring) in the first place — the same $22 contributed to the formation of a protected habitat for an endangered species is a perpetual fix for that species from the very destructive forces that threaten it. Besides, you could save $2 by sponsoring that hummingbird instead of that child! Oh, come on, now you have to. There’s just no rational excuse.

   Of course, I’m playing the polemic and I hope you don’t mind. As always, you and your readers provide a great many issues that are fun to ponder and debate, and I’m just trying to do my part to keep it interesting. Too bad starving children can’t eat food for thought or you would feed an army.

8. -Zach- Said,

   Thanks for the responses Stoogepie. I appreciate your dedication to keeping these comment sections interesting and always thought provoking.

   Stoogepie says…”Or it may simply be aesthetic: we choose to live in a world with elephants and buffalo rather than having ivory keys on every piano and allowing hunters the joy of killing a species to extinction.”
   I wonder whether the starving people in the world would rather live in a world with elephants or a plate full of food. I agree that many people think that a world without elephants or other exotic wildlife would be a sad and less diversified natural world, but I wonder what percentage of those people eat everyday. 100%?

   There are no great answers, because the natural world can be defined by a struggle between life and death; No matter where you invest your extra resources something will die, or have a greater struggle to stay living. There may not be great answers, but there is in my opinion a “right” answer. I think that humans are set apart from other animals, (despite my obvious bias, of being a human myself) and should be given priority. I do believe laws need to be created and enforced to keep animals regulated and protected. I think that poachers and irresponsible people need to be brought to a harsh justice. Sometimes, however, things get out of hand. I can guarantee that there are thousands of people, if given the choice in private between keeping 1,000,000 Chinese people alive or their family pet, they would not hesitate to kill off the million they would never meet, to keep their 5 year old from shedding a tear.

9. stoogepie Said,

   Hi Zach! Thanks for your eloquent response. Brilliantly put, my dear friend. I have no arguments handy against anything you wrote, even in the interest of pure adversity.

   I would guess, as you do, that 100% of the people with an aesthetic concern for biological diversity are fed well indeed. I am sure that, given the choice between our comfort or survival on the one hand and the survival of any creature on the other, there are very few if any people who would trade places with a starving child for the sake of even the most endangered species.

   And I also agree that there is not much we would not do for any child we personally know, whether our own child or not.

   I still have a question, for you and/or your readers like Bob. Is it children in particular that concern you? In other words, should we sponsor adults as well as children? Is there something special about starving children beyond the raw appeal of their youth? Adults are starving, too. I suspect there is something about children in particular, but it’s hard to put my finger on. We think everyone should have a chance in life, but starving adults in third-world nations have probably had no more of a chance than starving children. Or is it that we think everyone is entitled to a few years on the planet but, after that, they are on their own? Are we punishing parents and potential parents for the suffering they compound by having children but exempting the children themselves? Or maybe I’m dead wrong and there is nothing particular about children. But if there is something about children in particular, maybe we should feed the starving adults to the starving children. Just a thought.

   Here is a hypothetical (and perhaps a very stoopid one, at that). Zach, you may be done with this thread so you know you needn’t answer my dumb questions and hypotheticals. But, as your great evolution post demonstrates, someone may have comments a long way down the road. The problems in third-world countries are numerous: little access to health care and education, not enough clean water and arable land, staggering unemployment with little opportunity for wealth creation, etc. Assuming you made 100x your income, would you be okay with sending one child $2,200/month instead of $22, saving that child for good and giving that one child a real possibility of overcoming these forces for good? Or would you rather keep 100 children alive at a subsistence level? Is there a “right” answer?

   I note that, on Children International’s website, they mention that they sponsor starving children here in the US. Shame on us.

   But bravo for you and your readers, Zach. This blog always makes me think. That’s something of which to be proud.

Add A Comment