I love animals but are we getting our priorities wrong?

[Lost4words]

My master takes good care of me. He even leaves the toilet seat up for me to have a drink when he goes out! Woof!

 

[returntosender]

They are God's creation also. In this world if this money was available it would not be put to any better use.

 

[anetazo]

I donate money orders to animal charities. Animals are the Poor. Your honoring God by lending to the poor. Proverbs, The Just reguard the life of a animal. Honor God by helping animals. I'm a Christian, Gods Elect.

 

[Stephen3141]

In the Bible, mere animals are considered to be a different type of
"animal" life than human beings, or spiritual beings (such as angels).

The Bible has never considered mere animals to be on the same level
of value, as human beings. Because the animals are not made in the
image of God.

We appreciate our pets.
But we do not try to evangelize them.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the Bible, mere animals are considered to be a different type of
"animal" life than human beings, or spiritual beings (such as angels).

The Bible has never considered mere animals to be on the same level
of value, as human beings. Because the animals are not made in the
image of God.

We appreciate our pets.
But we do not try to evangelize them.

But does being different from man constitute being inferior to man? Man may have been created in God's image, but their actions don't seem to support that lofty claim.

 

[AlexB23]

If world hunger could be solved with 30 billion dollars, then it begs the question why some people have more than 30 billion dollars or why the world's most wealthy and powerful governments don't spend the money to truly address world hunger.

For one, it's certainly far more complicated than that. Assuming the 30 billion dollar figure is true, it's still going to be more complicated than just having the money and spending it.

For another, why does the US government spend 30 times more than that every year on the military, there is a truly exorbitant amount of money that goes into military spending that far exceeds what any other nation spends, an absurd amount of money. We could cut military spending by half and we'd still be spending more than any other country, we'd still have the world's strongest military.

That I'm over here buying food for my dog isn't the problem, morally, as it pertains to the needs of the hungry. That those with the wealth and the power and the means do nearly nothing is the issue--and that's always been the issue throughout history. Wealth and power are in the hands of the very few, while the majority struggle to survive.

Passing the buck to the little people who are struggling to get by is just an example of the tools the powerful use to absolve themselves of responsibility.

-CryptoLutheran

In an ideal world, we would have laws that impose a $999M wealth cap on all individuals, and billionaires would not be a thing. But 30B dollars does not seem like enough to feed the world. The answer may be over $380B/yr, but as low as $30B per year according to the source mentioned below.

Cost of feeding the world: How much will it cost to end world hunger?

 

[Neogaia777]

Our animals could have the spirits of angels in them, etc, so we could be ministering to, or entertaining angels when we take care of them, or talk to them, etc.

I think this is the way it was in the Garden of Eden, and with Adam and Eve, and is why some select few them, became very, very jealous and envious of Adam and Eve, etc.

Adam and Eve were given a body that was like God's body, but the angels were not, and Adam even got to give them their definitions, or names, etc.

I believe each specific animal type shared one common spirit, or one cheif spirit among them, depecticing different angelic types, etc, that fully defined what each one was like, or how it acted/thought, and/or behaved, etc.

After all the serpent was said to be the most crafty, or slick, or deceptive of all of them, etc. And I think some of them desperately wanted to be how God made Adam and Eve, which was already like how God was already, etc.

After the fall, those angels that rebelled now got to inhabit men, and turn them into behaving like the animal spirits that were now inhabiting them, etc, or much more like beasts, rather than like God/gods, or the way God made man, etc.

And nations and people groups now became like this also, even into mutated beasts, much like depicted in the book of Daniel, or the book of Revelation, etc.

The good angels did not become jealous though, and so some still might still be in some of our furry little friends, etc.

But the bad ones, once they got to inhabit men, became much more mutated, and much more unnatural, and much more grotesque beasts, etc.

But there might still be some cherubim left still maybe, in some of our furry little friends, etc.

And they are God's children, as much as we, lest we forget that maybe, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Clare73]

In an ideal world, we would have laws that impose a $999M wealth cap on all individuals, and billionaires would not be a thing. But 30B dollars does not seem like enough to feed the world. The answer may be over $380B/yr, but as low as $30B per year according to the source mentioned below.

Cost of feeding the world: How much will it cost to end world hunger?

Is it better to give the hungry man a fish, or to teach him to fish?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it better to give the hungry man a fish, or to teach him to fish?

Feed him; then teach him to fish.

 

[QvQ]

In an ideal world, we would have laws that impose a $999M wealth cap on all individuals, and billionaires would not be a thing. But 30B dollars does not seem like enough to feed the world. The answer may be over $380B/yr, but as low as $30B per year according to the source mentioned below.

The only way to end world hunger is to increase food production locally and improve the infrastructure for farm to market.
The other factor is population distribution. Where there are too many people living in a small area, there is homelessness and poverty. In other countries and now in America there is a tendency to concentrate the population in cities. That creates water, housing and food distribution problems.

 

[AlexB23]

Is it better to give the hungry man a fish, or to teach him to fish?

It is best to teach the hungry man how to fish instead of hand him a fish, so we must have programs in the world to help starving communities farm better. A good compromise is to feed the hungry for a year, but during that year, teach them how to increase crop yields, and offer them ways to increase their yield. The movie "Boy Who Harnessed The Wind" was about a boy from Malawi who build a wind turbine to irrigate his village's field during a drought. That movie brought tears to my eyes when I watched it in October 2023, and shows how a little ingenuity can reduce the impact of a drought and increase crop yields by a lot.

Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind (2019) 7.6 | Biography, Drama, History

 

[Open Heart]

I'm a huge animal lover. I must even confess that I probably love animals more than I do most people.
I love cats, dogs, just about anything cute and furry.

But I once heard that all it would take is about 30 billion dollars a year and we'd end world hunger but americans
alone spend 30 billion a year on pet food (dog/cat).

So we are essentially choosing to take care of dogs and cats more than our fellow human beings.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this? Do you think God would be displeased that we care more and spend more money
on our own dogs and cats than we do for hungry and dying human beings?

Also, my part time pastor has 2 cats and spends more time with them than he does with his actual congregation because
he spends 0 time with us. He's not a bad guy. I do like him still, and I realize he's just part-time cuz that's all the church
can afford to pay him but I find it odd that he actually spends more time, energy, and money on his cats than he does his
own sheep at church. Is this concerning?

Ending world hunger would require significant financial resources. According to estimates from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an annual investment of around $267 billion is needed to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030.

 

[seeker2122]

Ending world hunger would require significant financial resources. According to estimates from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an annual investment of around $267 billion is needed to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030.

If you think about it, that's actually not a lot of money and very doable. The US alone spends $766 billion a year on military spending.
The US also gave 75 billion to Ukraine just recently...that's just for 1 war. So 267 billion could easily be covered by the world if they all pitched in and cut back on some of the more unnecessary things compared to hunger. Imagine if the US gave 75 billion to end world hunger. We'd be 1/3 of the way there already!

 

[partinobodycular]

If you think about it, that's actually not a lot of money and very doable. The US alone spends $766 billion a year on military spending.
The US also gave 75 billion to Ukraine just recently...that's just for 1 war. So 267 billion could easily be covered by the world if they all pitched in and cut back on some of the more unnecessary things compared to hunger. Imagine if the US gave 75 billion to end world hunger. We'd be 1/3 of the way there already!

There is of course always option 'B'... reduce the number of people. I'm not suggesting that we actively kill people, rather we simply educate people on the consequences of a high birth rate, and then hope that they'll make socially responsible choices. (Of course birth control wouldn't hurt either)

Your way may seem better, but it has the potential to be unsustainable, in that the fewer people who die of malnutrition, the more people there are to reproduce, therefore it's inevitable that at some point we're going to have to implement Option 'B'. We might as well start now, instead of first trying to find a way to push earth's productivity to the breaking point.

The beauty of Option 'B' is that it doesn't cost us anything. Therefore the logical course of action is Option 'B', because Option 'A' is futile if all that you're doing is kicking the can down the road until mother nature herself finds her own way of implementing Option 'B'... mother nature's tactics ain't always pretty.

 

[seeker2122]

There is of course always option 'B'... reduce the number of people. I'm not suggesting that we actively kill people, rather we simply educate people on the consequences of a high birth rate, and then hope that they'll make socially responsible choices. (Of course birth control wouldn't hurt either)

Your way may seem better, but it has the potential to be unsustainable, in that the fewer people who die of malnutrition, the more people there are to reproduce, therefore it's inevitable that at some point we're going to have to implement Option 'B'. We might as well start now, instead of first trying to find a way to push earth's productivity to the breaking point.

The beauty of Option 'B' is that it doesn't cost us anything. Therefore the logical course of action is Option 'B', because Option 'A' is futile if all that you're doing is kicking the can down the road until mother nature herself finds her own way of implementing Option 'B'... mother nature's tactics ain't always pretty.

Thanks for sharing.
I think most people don't realize the world is actually facing a population decline problem. Fertility rates around the world are dropping fast and going below replacement levels, especially in western / first world nations, while in the developing world, it is still high, but it has been dropping significantly as well.

This means that by 2100 while the world population keeps on rising, it's mainly due to the fact people are living longer so naturally there will be more people on the planet but as fertility rates keep dropping, eventually the world population is going to start to decline and that will happen by 2100 even though fertility rates are dropping right now.

So actually, the world has a population decline problem. We need more people. Hard to believe. Elon Musk also spoke about this and concurs world population decline is a major problem and we don't know it yet because it hasn't hit us. The illusion is looking at sheer population numbers vs fertility rates. So follow the fertility rates because that is the true indicator and not population numbers.

Here's a great explanation of it by world renown population studies expert Hans Rosling (he has several of these talks online but here's one):

The next point to consider is that even if world population decline becomes a major problem, we need to consider the very likely possibility that AI and robots will replace and mitigate the necessity for more people. The world may be sustainable quite easily with far less people because most things will be automated by ai and advanced robotics. Let's also not forget the likelihood we'll be able to mass produce people anytime we want if need by via cloning/genetic manipulation (think of like human factories/banks that mass produce people). So the natural decline in fertility rates and natural births may continue but our ingenious ways to create people or machines / cyborgs / androids u name it, will only increase and get even easier to do. Human mating could very well all but disappear because it would be unnecessary to even procreate.

This however also seems to conflict with what God commanded us to do which is to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. I know that people think 8 billion or 11 billion is too many people on the planet, but God created this planet to be capable of hosting much more than that. Of course we have to be intelligent and responsible in how we take care of the planet and clearly this planet is capable hosting 20-30 billion people easily but we won't get there, at least naturally. If we do, most of them will be space traveling by then (ie. colonizing Mars and beyond).

To take it one step further, if we started to become a multiplanetary species, then suddenly 8 billion or 11 billion humans is much too small for the galaxies. We definitely have a population problem in that it's too little. We would need to multiply and reach hundreds of billions and trillions in order to sustain colonizing multiplanets in the galaxies.

 

[Pommer]

I'm a huge animal lover. I must even confess that I probably love animals more than I do most people.
I love cats, dogs, just about anything cute and furry.

But I once heard that all it would take is about 30 billion dollars a year and we'd end world hunger but americans
alone spend 30 billion a year on pet food (dog/cat).

So we are essentially choosing to take care of dogs and cats more than our fellow human beings.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this? Do you think God would be displeased that we care more and spend more money
on our own dogs and cats than we do for hungry and dying human beings?

Also, my part time pastor has 2 cats and spends more time with them than he does with his actual congregation because
he spends 0 time with us. He's not a bad guy. I do like him still, and I realize he's just part-time cuz that's all the church
can afford to pay him but I find it odd that he actually spends more time, energy, and money on his cats than he does his
own sheep at church. Is this concerning?

How might a rich country stay rich? By keeping $$$ “at home”.
If we have to sacrifice to “give generously” to “end world hunger”, you’re looking for the wrong country.

 

[Pommer]

Humans don't actually differ from other animals in terms of morality- primatologists have already shown apes and monkeys have moral sentiments like fairness. The difference seems to be in terms of self-reflective consciousness and meta-representation (thinking about the thoughts of other people, and attempting to influence other peoples thoughts).

An animal, like a dog, for instance, is conscious... it knows. But only a human being knows it knows.

Dogs live, maybe 15-18 (up to 22, I’ve heard), we wear them out with our “insanity”; we typically have food that we don’t immediately try to consume all in one go. That’s “craziness” to a dog. We’re the “insane ones” and the fact that we think we know how animals “think”, is great proof!

 

[Pommer]

Americans spend:

$250 billion on alcohol.
$150 billion on illegal drugs
Cigarette smoking and it's associated costs are estimated at $600 billion.

Compare that to the fact that the health benefits of having a pet may well exceed the overhead cost. So you tell me, which of these things do you really think we should cut back on?

Maybe if we had a better functioning society that didn’t lure us into escapism-chemicals, to get us “away” from our crappy days in an economy that rewards the top like the biggest M-L-M organization in the history of the world.

Some have opined that we‘re in the second “Gilded Age”; the race to give away fortunes (by investing in the humanities” ) hasn’t begun yet. Maybe when Elmo passes?

 

[Pommer]

See post #29.

Life is only getting harder, and it might be wise for people at certain income or education levels to not be having kids right now, etc...?

And just have pets instead.

God Bless!

This is a (potential) argument for increased immigration, (but I suspect you knew that).

 

[Pommer]

Don't forget Entertainment and tech that we ultimately don't need.

America (USA) is a generous nation, so long as the hoi polloi aren’t inconvenienced in any great way becuase “my rights”, and whatnot.
This is not the “do-with-less” nation, that’s why we’re (currently) at the economic top of the heap.
We’re the richest and we plan to stay there until it all comes crumbling down!
(Because China being #1 is anathema, even though their domestic market has FIVE TIMES the people we do; oh, they’ll still need raw materials and the USA has near monopolies on certain minerals, so we’ll be in a better position since we’ll control “supply”, if we wanna get tough.)