I need arguments for yes, and no.
I have to write this essay, and even though I'm neutral, my teacher says you HAVE TO pick a side. So, I need people to help me.
So I say it's wrong to keep pets? Or should I say it's alright to keep pets? And why? This has to be a 700 word essay and I have no arguments what so ever. The fact that I don't keep a pet doens't help, either.
The more opinions, the better. I really need examples, too.
So this is your challenge for this week, to answer this question.
Is it wrong to keep pets when so many humans in the world are starving? and WHY????
...thanks...(I REALLY NEED THIS)
2007-11-08 17:32:40 · 4 answers · asked by Fellen 2 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
Owning pets has nothing to do with people starving in the world. Would they not starve if you did not have a pet? Sadly, they would starve anyway. Starvation in the world today is usually a product of political problems.
The world actually produces more food than humans can eat. Unfortunately, because of politics (dictators, communism/socialism, totalitarianism, etc.) many people do not live in a society that allows them to live freely and to succeed in life.
Countries like the U.S. send billions of dollars in food, money and other aid EVERY YEAR to needy countries, but sadly, this aid often does not end up in the hands (or mouths) of those who need it.
Pets - they have nothing to do with it, except for this. Pet owners purchase pet products (pet food, toys, etc) that are made in poor countries (e.g. China, Indonesia, etc.). Thus, pet owners actually CREATE JOBS for poor people, which enables the poor to buy food and other basic necessities!
2007-11-08 17:48:40 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think if pets weren't already around and we had starving people then it would be greedy to domesticate animals, but the fact is there are too many pets around to just dump them off now.
So I think it isn't wrong to keep pets, even with starving people in the world. I think it's stupid if you buy diamond collars and stuff like that for your pets, but otherwise you're just keeping an animal alive. If we just concentrated on the starving people and dumped off all of our animals then the problem would be starving animals, and since they were domesticated they couldn't fend for themselves.
That's my take on it anyway. It's like trading one bad thing for another. And since I'm a bit of an animal lover I would feel worse for the starving animals.
2007-11-08 17:47:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
to some people their pets are part of the family. What does having a pet have to do with starving people?? eating a cat or dog?? ew. money and food help starving people not having or not having pets.
2007-11-08 17:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by Indie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To some, pets are considered people too.
2007-11-08 17:40:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can find the basis for several points for your essay, in the following articles:
2007-11-08 18:51:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋