11/4/2024 3:28 pm | : 3 mins. | Share to: 
I'm not going to dive into this internet drama driven by the right wing around the squirrel. I haven't delved into it and it isn't exactly pertinent to this post. But it did make me think of something that was an eye opening moment for me in college.
I had a girlfriend in college who, at our weekly SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism, essentially historic-themed LARP) group, argued against us doing our annual charity event for the homeless - to instead be for a cat rescue.
Her logic was "Well, the humans can take care of themselves, the cats can't."
This was a sign to me that this relationship was doomed, because I couldn't fathom this line of thinking. Wild animals are much more capable of caring for themselves. But I think that that highlights a different way of thinking (and I sincerely have no idea her political leanings, I think she was liberal, but I honestly don't know) which is present regarding groups and their abilities to "take care of themselves."
Homeless people should be able to stop being homeless if they just work hard enough. Which, in a vacuum and assuming there are no systemic obstacles, makes perfect sense. But that is very rarely the reality of the situation.
And in terms of the comparative good when the choice has to be binary, then helping people does more potential good long term than helping animals.
Now, all that said, this is not against helping pet rescues and shelters. Animals also face challenges to their lives in the modern world and as animals who may not have any real ability to survive "in the wild." But, if faced with a binary choice between the two, and all other mitigating factors bear out to be a toss up between them -- I'll always choose helping the homeless.
