Very recently, we have seen serious campaigns to protect endangered species. Governments and the private sector have invested millions of dollars in order to protect and preserve many of these species. The preservation and the protection of the environment is a morally valid reason for such expenditure.

The death of “Sisi” is unforgivable. (Inquirer, 7/11/09) It speaks of the deplorable condition of animals in many Philippine zoos. If the government can’t even take care of its people, what more if we talk of animals in government-maintained zoos and the like. We just have to send these animals back to the wild. It is a scientific fact that these species keep the balance of nature. It is also undeniable that they are a joy to watch. These are very important points. Animal rights advocacy has played a big role in helping create a social consciousness that shows sensitivity and concern for other species.

But it can also be argued that animal rights advocacy also suffers from an overemphasis. We are a Third World country. The death of “Sisi” should remind us not only of the suffering of animals. It should also remind us of how inutile our basic structure is.

Now, this country, just like the rest of the world, has many serious concerns. Hungry people. The poor becoming poorer everyday. Not enough funds to send children to school. Ten million children dying each year because there are not enough funds for vaccines.

Perhaps, there is nothing so serious to argue against environmentalism. But what we can protest is the fact that some people seem to be more serious about donating money, for instance, from a global perspective, to preserve an eagle than donating money to save the lives of street children in the Philippines and people in “vulnerable” places (e.g., Somalia, Congo or Burma).

Are we concerned about each dying child in the war-torn lands of the Philippine south or African continent? Perhaps, but the fact is this is not apparent in the amount of humanitarian aid rich people give to poor nations and conflict areas. Should we be more concerned about the condition of an endangered bat than that of a child on the street?

The greater task of each one of us is to see to it that people, rich and poor, both enjoy the good life. In this regard, nonhuman animals can come next in terms of moral concern. The ideal thing to do is to keep the balance. People matter just as penguins or turtles matter to us. Poor children, however simple the kind of lives they live, also deserve just treatment from governments and their people.

It is abominable that hundreds of millions of dollars can be allotted in order to preserve endangered species and yet, the vaccination of poor infants is never a priority of the First World. The balance that we can speak of is that sufficient funds should be allotted to the cause of saving street children from illegal drugs and violence, including funds for their education and health. We need to save the street children just as we need to save whale sharks from extinction.

—RYAN MABOLOC,
chair, Philosophy,
Ateneo de Davao University;
ryanmaboloc75@yahoo.com