Most people who contribute very much of their time or money to nonhuman well-being, including both environmental and animal welfare groups, have heard some version of this question: “Why do you want to save dogs (trees/cats/whales) when there are so many people in need?”
This question is so embedded in larger contexts and full of hidden assumptions that it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the first thing to note is that the asker is usually not someone who donates lots of time or money to charities of any sort. At least in my experience, the question is posed most often by people who have chosen not to get involved in any sort of charity or social movement. Their interest in the issue is theoretical. The folks who are dedicating themselves to improving the lives of human beings are usually too busy (and perhaps too compassionate and sensible) to worry about who’s doing what.
That leads to a second issue: Americans volunteer and donate more time than people in any other part of the world, at least as far as surveys can measure, and even here most people do so minimally or not at all. Total giving in 2010 was $290 billion, about a dollar for every man, woman and child. Of that, $211 billion came from individuals (the rest from foundations and corporations). About 26% of all Americans volunteered some of their time in 2010. Of those volunteers, only a small portion spent more than a few hours of their time.
This reminds me of a point made to me by Benjamin, a member of the Board of Directors of the Berkeley Humane Society: Given the fact that most people do not donate much of their time or money to any cause, he said, the issue is not where I am trying to help but the fact that I am doing anything at all for the greater good. And, he added, if I am among that small percentage of generous people, then it should be my choice to spend my time and money where I care the most. Criticism and pointed questions should be directed not at people dedicating themselves to one good cause or another, but at the much larger group of folks who have the means and still do not contribute.
His point is reinforced, I think, by the fact that the vast majority of volunteer time and monetary donations go to help people rather than animals or the natural environment. By far the largest percentage goes to religious groups, about 35% of both time and money in 2010. Most of this giving is by individuals to their local religious congregation. The next largest recipient is education, which receives about 25% of donations and a similar proportion of volunteer time (again, mostly locally). Thus more than half of all giving goes to local churches and schools, benefitting people.
Every other sector measured receives much less. The most complete data I could find was for 2007, and overall giving has declined since then, but the percentages are about the same. In that year, after religion and education, the next biggest sector is human services, which receives about 10% of donations. Health care and “public society benefit” both received about 7.5%. Another 17% went to foundations and unallocated giving. A little over 4% each went to arts, culture and humanities and international affairs. That leaves about 2% of all charitable contributions for groups working on “environment and animals,” lumped together.
Data on volunteer time shows similar priorities. After religion and education, the biggest recipient of volunteer hours was social service groups, with 14% of the total. 8.4 % of the time went to hospitals, 5.5% to civic groups, and 3.4% to sports and arts groups combined. The remaining 7% of volunteer time went to all other organizations, presumable including environmental and animal welfare groups as well as countless others.
So it turns out that the vast majority of donated time and money does go to help people. The question then is why, if only 2% of all contributions go to nonhuman nature and animals, does it bother you so much? The only way to reduce the proportion would be to eliminate giving to causes outside our own species entirely.
Perhaps that is the goal of those hypothetical question askers. They think that nonhuman animals and the environment deserve absolutely no help, because they do not believe that anything outside human life has any value. This assumption denies our responsibility to assist those we have harmed and presumes that a good human life need not include animals and nature.
This position also assumes that animals, nature, and people are mutually exclusive categories. I do not believe this is true in theory, and it certainly is not true in practice. Studies show that many environmental and animal activists also work and donate on behalf of needy kids, hungry adults, and the common good in general. This is certainly true in my own experience. People who are generous in one area tend to be generous, period.
The people who challenge animal and environmental activists assume, usually wrongly, that their targets are not also donating time and money to human-centered causes. I don’t think they have to, or have to justify their choices – any more than people who help children in India rather than children in Gainesville should have to justify themselves. Selfishness, not generosity, is what needs justification.
One of my favorite philosophers, Mary Midgley, put it nicely in her wonderful book Animals and Why They Matter:
"Compassion does not need to be treated hydraulically . . . as a rare and irreplaceable fluid, usable only for exceptionally impressive cases. It is a habit or power of the mind, which grows and develops with use. Such powers (as is obvious in cases like intelligence) are magic fluids which increase with pouring. Effective users do not economize on them."
Maybe the next time someone asks me why I spend so much time on dogs, I’ll just tell them I’m being effective. I feel very effective when I take my rescue dogs to the library, where they help people, including homeless people who need a friendly wag while they wait out the cold as well as children who need a non-judgmental listener while they stumble through a story. They also help dogs by showing that rescue dogs, even victims of cruelty and neglect, can make wonderful friends and companions.
Some of the most efficient dogs in the world are those who were rescued from Michael Vick's fighting operation and now work as therapy dogs. One of the most spectacular, Leo, died this week of a seizure disorder. In the years since he was rescued, Leo brought great joy to seriously ill people in hospitals as well as helping change minds about pit bulls and fighting dogs. His human, Marthina McClay, said this about Leo:
"Even though he didn't have a good start in life he made life for others around him better. Just after arriving to us, Leo quickly turned inhumanity into humanity. He gave love that wasn't even given to him. He worked with cancer patients as a therapy dog. He showed kids that no matter what you can still show love and compassion toward others regardless of how life has treated you. He showed the world that one should not be judged based on what property he lives on but on who you are and what you do as an individual."
That's an obituary to which anyone could aspire. Leo did not dole out his love in tiny helpings to only a chosen few. He helped dogs, he helped people, and he left an inspiring example for the rest of us do-gooders.
