Day 574: Even More Shocking

Dog catchers are instructed to catch and kill pathetic mutts and special breeds alike. Well-fed canines who appear to have owners are shown little clemency. “If any dog owners protest … it is their fault,” Pastika said. “They should keep their dogs at home.”
This policy may explain why that now-viral culling video is so shocking. These dogs don’t bear the typical signs of street life: exposed ribs, flesh eaten by insects and disease. Their fur appears silky. The breeds are pedigree. They look fresh out of the pet shop.
The mass culling amounts to “inhumane slaughter,” according to People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (or PETA). The animal rights group also predicted that “many compassionate people worldwide will avoid traveling to Bali” because of the practice.
Loose dogs caught by the state, of course, face euthanasia all over the world — including in the US. But the scale of Bali’s extermination campaign is remarkable.
Bali’s population is roughly 4 million. That’s comparable to the population of Los Angeles, a city that kills roughly 8,000 dogs per year. Bali, during heavy euthanasia campaigns, has killed an estimated 100,000 dogs in the span of 12 months. - Salon

Before I go on to the absolute horror that people bring down onto so many helpless creatures in the world, I must ask a questions based on what is implied in the article extract above: Is the life of a purebred dog more important than that of a stray?

This question could be superimposed over humanity's own homeless people "problem", where the homeless and poor are treated as having less worth than a person of means and monetary value. This links into how we value things in life. We use money in most cases, but we also use beauty/aesthetic value (cute animals are valued more highly than not cute animals), personal connection (we love what is OURS more than what we don't know / love), and of course cultural/religious beliefs (some cultures value certain animals highly and others regard certain animals as "unclean", "the devil's creature" etc).

So if we are talking about YOUR dog, or something that you love, you will be incredibly passionate about protecting it, but when it comes to people/animals/things that you don't have an emotional bond with then you may only feel some sadness and then go on to shrug your shoulders and bemoan the cruel state of the world. My question is: What is the difference? You could love anything in this world, so why do you not fight for every thing as if you loved it completely? Where is the passion for those nameless, faceless beings who suffer?

I suppose if you don't have to see these terrible things happening and experience them first hand then it's easy to not think about them happening to other beings. You have no personal stake in it (apparently) so you do not act with the conviction that you would have if there was some stake in it. This to me is one of the saddest things in this life. There is so much potential for all of us (people, animals, plants etc) to live in harmony and support each other and regard each other with respect and value - yet we make our worlds only as big as the things we personally love and value. We are limited because we choose to be so, we choose to live inside our little boxes of "the things I like", the rest of the world be damned. This way of living is not sustainable, we must develop a global awareness and consideration for everything on this planet, to create a true network of support and understanding.