A friend alerted me to this article by Nicholas Kristof about dogs and refugees:

"Last Thursday, our beloved family dog, Katie, died at the age of 12. She was a gentle giant who respectfully deferred even to any mite-size puppy with a prior claim to a bone. Katie might have won the Nobel Peace Prize if not for her weakness for squirrels.

I mourned Katie’s passing on social media and received a torrent of touching condolences, easing my ache at the loss of a member of the family. Yet on the same day that Katie died, I published a column calling for greater international efforts to end Syria’s suffering and civil war, which has claimed perhaps 470,000 lives so far. That column led to a different torrent of comments, many laced with a harsh indifference: Why should we help them?

These mingled on my Twitter feed: heartfelt sympathy for an American dog who expired of old age, and what felt to me like callousness toward millions of Syrian children facing starvation or bombing. If only, I thought, we valued kids in Aleppo as much as we did our terriers!"

Read the article here.

In general people care more about pets than about the other, the Latino, the black man, the refugee, the Arab, the poor man, the rich man, et cetera.

The logical consequence of this preference should be that we look for an exit strategy for the human race. Let the animals take over.

Or do we believe that humans will one day stop killing animals? Not to speak of other humans.