[misja111]

I love dogs, but aren't there bigger issues in this world that we should focus on first?

Millions of children on this planet are malnourished or suffering because of wars, climate change or just bad government. Is it ethical to pay a fortune for magnetic brain stimulation of your dog, if somewhere else in the world several people's lives could be saved with that money?

[paulcole]

Yes, obviously there are bigger issues in the world to focus on than dog anxiety.

But if this is your acid test for ethical living then you’re going to quickly discover that everyone with disposable income lives unethically. Which is honestly probably true but nobody wants to hear it.

[cm2012]

Lol 99% of what people buy is not as valuable as the marginal dollar spent on third world malaria nets or whatever. Don't worry about it.

[idopmstuff]

I bet if we spent some time going through your finances, we could find plenty of places where you're spending money needlessly that could be saving lives. Are you eating out at nice restaurants? Do you have a new-ish car that you could trade in for an older model? Did you decide to have children?

Unless you've optimized your life by going into the highest-paying career you can and giving virtually all of your money (minus the bare minimum you need to survive) to help those in need, I don't think this is a reasonable argument to be making.

[jraph]

Textbook (caricatural) whataboutism [1], that's why you are probably getting downvoted.

One of the problem with this argument being that it's not the same set of people that can/will work on these separate issues, and solving one does not prevent solving the other one. Also, the money spent for one issue would not necessarily go to the other issue anyway: they are not linked.

Structural issues with our worldwide distribution of wealth system are causing climate change and poverty, not taking care of the dogs, and this is what needs to be fixed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[antisthenes]

> Millions of children on this planet are malnourished or suffering because of wars, climate change or just bad government.

This assumes every child is a net positive for its immediate group, its local group, its country and the global world as a whole.

While you can argue for the first, the latter 3 are not evident.

> Is it ethical to pay a fortune for magnetic brain stimulation of your dog, if somewhere else in the world several people's lives could be saved with that money?

Is it ethical for you to be typing this comment, whereas you could be working instead to earn money to buy food to save several people's lives somewhere in the world?

[asdfman123]

Not directly related to your comment, but:

I’ve always been weirdly frugal and I think this is the real reason that I don’t admit. Seems unfair to spend a lot of money on anything.

I would say that any kind of expense beyond what you’d pay as a poor college student would fall into this category, though, if you want to be consistent.

I’m not however donating much, though. My plan is to build a pile and donate it when I pass.

[throwaway173738]

Why are you posting here? Shouldn’t you sell your computer and go practice what you preach?

[misja111]

I'm amazed by the cynicism in the reactions here. I was trying to make the point, that if you have heart enough to spend a serious amount of money on your dog's wellbeing, shouldn't you consider spending it on saving somebody's life instead? Or at least some part of it.

The reactions vary from, the dying child is thousands of miles away (and your unhappy dog is not), to, if you're not maximizing your life on donating every possible penny you can spare to charity, you have no right to post a thought like this. Is this really the common view on HN on how we should live our lives?

[cm2012]

You are missing the point like no one's business. You seem smart, I'm sure you can figure out a reason besides cynicism that your comment attracted a bunch of criticism.

[rowanG077]

This is whataboutism at its finest. You aren't wrong that there are other problems. Do you really think that a pet owner taking better care of their dog instead is going to make an impact on child hunger thousands of miles away?

[rhacker]

If everyone that read your comment decided to donate, it might.

[rowanG077]

No chance. Donating is not a solution to world hunger.

[pfannkuchen]

It could be if the money goes towards helping to build food production systems as opposed to buying food. I wonder if charities do this? Buying food just kicks the can down the road for sure.

[bityard]

That won't help either. The problem in those areas is local and national corruption. If you bring farming equipment into an impoverished third-world community and teach them how to use it, the local warlord/drug gang just comes in after you've left and steals or destroys the farming equipment.

It's an unfortunate fact of reality that foreign aid, though very well-intentioned, benefits the rulers and generals of corrupt governments more than it benefits their citizens. See "The Dictator's Handbook" by Mesquita and Smith.

[rowanG077]

No it doesn't. Any food production systems requires significant upkeep and security. As long as it's not solved bottom up the problem will continue to exist. Just look at the dilapidated schools in Africa. The gangs/corrupt governments will simply steal the food production facilities.

The only solution is to uplift the entire country, anything highly targeted will not work.