3 ms·
In what sense do you mean? It seems reasonable that the money might be better used saving people than feeding monkeys.
by harimau777 7y ago
In what sense do you mean? It seems reasonable that the money might be better used saving people than feeding monkeys.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoFirst of all the cost is probably pretty low and second you have a responsibility to care for an animal once you take it on. You can’t just throw them away once you are done using them. I think this is extremely callous behavior.
- ars 7y agoAccording to article it costs half a million annually. That doesn't seem low cost to me.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoThere's an implicit moral obligation, surely.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI agree. Animals are not just disposable tools.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoIt's certainly effective, but "hey, so, we're going to let a lot of chimpanzees we made dependent on us starve, so we can save human lives" certainly isn't moral. At the very least pay for them to be euthanized.
- EpicEng 7y agoWhich outweighs helping humans with that same money?