the imbalance in spending our care and feelings (3/3).

    We talked before about the fact of overstating in our dealing with animals, and in fact what it’s expressing about. Compare that view to the second one now, I watched a document which following the trajectory of the life of elephants, it was interesting to find out about the nature. During the way; one female fell sick when the caravan couldn’t wait it except its son which stayed nearby. Logically I was waiting when I’ll see the help to treat the elephant, but instead to offer that necessary care, they preferred to keep filming the end how it will be for hours to record that dramatic end.

    I don’t mean the situation like to saving a gazelle from a tiger, that’ll be a wrong interference in the nature and breaking the nature’s principal laws, so offering the help when it’s needed (as we said before) doesn’t mean to transgress on the normal process of the nature, also doesn’t mean to overstate in the care, right, but to help a wounded animal is something else and different to the two figures. Here where the animal’s welfare is required, instead of the previous figure that’s definitely legal and lawful.

    I didn’t find an explanation to this doing really, except the personal interest. Of course we have to care about animals –as we do with nature- by the necessary and treat them in proper way with mercy, but we can’t be as good as their lives in nature. We should do that for humans who deserve this kind of care like orphans or refugees of wars –as an example-.

    So when the matter requires care, usually people purely look for their interests without mercy nor care about the things around them. And in the same time they go far in the care and provide all kinds of mercy, whereas the matter can be controlled by keeping the middle distance in the dealing. In my opinion I don’t think it’s the right way to show the suitable care for animals and both are extremists in somehow.

    I my opinion, it’s not more than exaggeration in the two sides to the extremities, and it’s not more than tries to doing changes differently than the usual (when it becomes unbearably boring), and the freedom eased that way to try and be convinced with, maybe certain approbation comes from religious aspects and healthy results that someone get in fact, but not to be in the way that it’s in real life now.

    Recently, I’ve see a report showing some annoyance from animals rights organizations from those who possess animals, because they took them to special saloons, to colour them strangely and apply some weird cut hairs by shaving it. Really it’s not bad to possess animals and to give names to your pet like cat, horse, or dog, of course I don’t see all in black, some studies confirmed that the being with animals is bringing more happiness to elderly, they’ve some advantages surely, like when they give them reasons to move and be active in the life at least on a personal level (while those people are caring about something).

    And what I blamed here is: the dissociation in the social and family ties, furthermore; it’s not bad to care about animals -in reasonable way-, but when we check statistics and see around the world, we can find how many people are in need to help before any exaggeration to do with an animal, just keeping the reason with.

        To care about animals; it’s always necessary of course especially when it’s needed as we see in some governmental programs for protection from the human also (what the strange paradox). But the question for us as individuals; do we do that in the correct way as it should be done? Everyone can find the answer by himself and think about, probably there is something to rectify, don’t you think so?