I'm not saying I adhere to that view or that I endorse it, just explaining my take on why (american) society empathizes more with animals than humans.
It does depend on the situation though. Obviously a dog is going to do better in the woods. But leave a dog and a child unsupervised in a house for several days and the child will most likely (depending on their age) do better — they'll be able to feed themselves and keep a relatively sanitary environment, compared to the dog which will inevitably piss and shit all over and end up digging through the garbage for food. Hell, the kid might even be able to get out of the house or contact someone for help.
What I'm saying is that it depends on the situation — you can't make blanket statements like "all dogs actually have more agency than all children" because it isn't true. A 12-year-old kid left alone in a house for a weekend is going to do better than a dog left alone in a house for a weekend.
And again I don't endorse these views at all — I think children deserve more support than they're given, and at least as much support as any other vulnerable being. I'm just trying to answer your question as to why society empathizes more with animals than other humans (including children) — it's the perception of having more agency — and I don't understand why you're responding to me as if I hold these views personally. Do you think the average american has done any research into feral children?
You do generally develop things like fine motor skills and critical reasoning skills based on age (or at least corollated strongly enough with age that you can you it as a reasonable proxy).
A child who is old enough to have learned "grasp the door handle to exit the building" and "food is in the cabinet" and "I can push some buttons on the phone to summon help" and "i'm supposed to poop in the toilet" is going to have more agency over their surroundings than a dog that pretty much just knows "I should poop outside if I can" and "this smells like food" and "sometimes if I bark loud people will come" in the situation I described.
The perception absolutely is a bad heuristic, but isn't wrong across the board. That's important to acknowledge because it means people are more likely to actually believe it and more likely to disbelieve you if you say "oh but that's 100% wrong all the time". Especially because the cases where it isn't true are more complex. For example, animals in poor households are perceived to have less control over being subject to poverty than the people who live there, when, as we know, poor people (adults and children) also have virtually no control over their economic circumstances.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I'm not saying I adhere to that view or that I endorse it, just explaining my take on why (american) society empathizes more with animals than humans.
It does depend on the situation though. Obviously a dog is going to do better in the woods. But leave a dog and a child unsupervised in a house for several days and the child will most likely (depending on their age) do better — they'll be able to feed themselves and keep a relatively sanitary environment, compared to the dog which will inevitably piss and shit all over and end up digging through the garbage for food. Hell, the kid might even be able to get out of the house or contact someone for help.
deleted by creator
What I'm saying is that it depends on the situation — you can't make blanket statements like "all dogs actually have more agency than all children" because it isn't true. A 12-year-old kid left alone in a house for a weekend is going to do better than a dog left alone in a house for a weekend.
And again I don't endorse these views at all — I think children deserve more support than they're given, and at least as much support as any other vulnerable being. I'm just trying to answer your question as to why society empathizes more with animals than other humans (including children) — it's the perception of having more agency — and I don't understand why you're responding to me as if I hold these views personally. Do you think the average american has done any research into feral children?
deleted by creator
You do generally develop things like fine motor skills and critical reasoning skills based on age (or at least corollated strongly enough with age that you can you it as a reasonable proxy).
A child who is old enough to have learned "grasp the door handle to exit the building" and "food is in the cabinet" and "I can push some buttons on the phone to summon help" and "i'm supposed to poop in the toilet" is going to have more agency over their surroundings than a dog that pretty much just knows "I should poop outside if I can" and "this smells like food" and "sometimes if I bark loud people will come" in the situation I described.
The perception absolutely is a bad heuristic, but isn't wrong across the board. That's important to acknowledge because it means people are more likely to actually believe it and more likely to disbelieve you if you say "oh but that's 100% wrong all the time". Especially because the cases where it isn't true are more complex. For example, animals in poor households are perceived to have less control over being subject to poverty than the people who live there, when, as we know, poor people (adults and children) also have virtually no control over their economic circumstances.