Some people ask, why don't pet owners and people who rescue pets use their money to save people？

For people who like pets and have economic ability, it is not strange to spend tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to raise pets, and some people who like pets are willing to run for pets and do their part for stray animals even if they are not so rich. But others say, why not save people when you have the money?

In fact, the person who can ask this question clearly puts people in a more important position than pets and stray animals. Indeed, people-oriented, people are really the most important. But what we need to know is that people who go to the rescue of children in need, or people who go to the rescue of pets, may not weigh these two things on the scale, but simply because of an opportunity.

For example, the person who rescues out-of-school children does not think it is "more noble" than rescuing stray animals, but simply wants to continue his love in the same way because he himself has experienced similar things. Those who rescue stray animals may not feel that the children out of school are not worthy of rescue, but just get in touch with stray animals by chance and touch their feelings in their hearts. So people may do good deeds not because of various trade-offs, but just because of their own experience or feelings, whether it is to save people or animals, is an expression of their own love and even emotional sustenance.

In addition, if really said that the balance of comparison, the so-called rescue of what the problem, may be a no solution. You think the children who drop out of school are more important than stray animals, and there are people in poor areas who don't even have enough to eat or can't even get medical treatment, and these people may be more directly facing the threat of life. What was the loss of school compared with life? Does that mean that if we want to do good, we have to list all the people and things in the world that we need to save?

What's more, this society is not equal, and there are different steps. For example, if we have to save the "most important" one, can't we build a museum or a movie theater until the last homeless person has a home? People in need should be helped in time, but museums and cinemas should also be built.

Another strange thing is that if you don't have a pet or rescue a pet, no one might ask you, "Why don't you save people in need if you have the money?" But if you do, someone might say, "Better to help people than to raise pets." And if you do, shouldn't you ask someone who hasn't done anything? However, in the final analysis, as long as their money is not illegal, what to do is their own business.

What we help, whether it is important or not, is not to see the order in our hearts, but to see the object of assistance. It was important for him to help out-of-school children, who could continue to study; Rescue stray animals, stray animals can continue to live, this is important to it. Our aid is important to the people we help, that's all that matters. That's all.