I think what this illustrates above that the purpose of animal charities should be to contribute to human good through animals, rather than animal good through humans.
I.E., keeping dangerous animals off the streets, serving as a place for people to acquire healthy animals, spreading knowledge about how animals can best benefit people and people best take care of their animals, etc.
The focus or orientation of these charities is generally simply -wrong-, missing the target.
What animal charities often are nowadays are places where people take care of animals for the animal’s sake at the expense of humanity, and where money is spent putting animals above humans, or equal to humans in importance, sometimes in advertising sometimes politically. It seems as if the movement is contaminated by people with a sentimental and emotional view towards animals that is disordered, against humanity.
Which is basically a subset of the environmental movement that has gone this way, putting the environment of more importance than human beings – so that they would rather see technological progress done away with, and react badly to all things that for sentimentalist reasons they see as enemies – DDT, hunting, cutting down trees, etc. when actually all these serve the environment properly done.
A properly ordered view of taking care of animals is one of God>man>animal rather than animal>man>God, the latter equation of which seems to be the popular view of the mainstream of the movement.
Sounds like one of those upside down end times poems really.
