I'll keep an injured bird warm and away from the cat (it was the cat that injured it), but calling animal control for a terrorized sparrow seems like a waste of everyone's resources.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It's probably better just to kill it.
If it was a larger animal like a coyote or raccoon, then calling the animal people would make sense, but not for little birds.
They'll probably just euthanize it anyway. But yes, it can make you feel good if you don't know or think about what'll end up happening.
The bird is probably gong to die anyway. It's probably better just to kill it.
Depends on the injury, actually. A broken wing -- yeah, that bird's not gonna last in the wild. A bite from a cat that misses vital organs and doesn't bleed out, or some scratching? It may well survive that if it can recuperate, clot up, and retain the ability to fly after. Living systems have this weird ability to, y'know, heal from damage inflicted as long as it's not too severe.
Everything's going to die eventually. So are all the people you might ever help. Should you just...
I ended up reading this article about animal suffering by this Christian apologist called William Craig. Forgive the source, please.
He continues the argument here.
How decent do you think this argument is? I don't know where to look to evaluate the core claim, as I know very little neuroscience myself. I'm quite concerned about animal suffering, and choose to be vegetarian largely on the basis of that concern. How much should my decision on that be affected by this argument?
EDIT: David_Gerard wins by doing the basic Google search that I neglected. It seems that the argument is flawed. Particularly, animals apart from primates have pre-frontal cortexes.