A Message from a Guildie

May I quote the website originally mentioned:
http://www.charitybuzz.com/area.do?id=897
In reality, all it does is build shelters, advocate adoptions, and feed dogs. We already established that only feeding the dogs will not do much, and neither will building shelters. Thus, really the only thing I see from that list that helps is setting up the dogs for adoption, but I highly doubt ALL the dogs can be adopted by someone, especially not in a time of economic crisis.

All we're doing in Africa is build shelters, feed people, and advocate local society norms. We already established that feeding people will not do much [for the impoverished, diseased, and starving people], and neither will building shelters. Thus, really the only thing I see from that list that helps is setting up their children for adoption, but I highly doubt ALL the children can be adopted by someone [in well-to-do countries], especially not in a time of economic crisis.

Hypothetically, you could start a breed on a plot of land that is free of predation but then the ones left in Puerto Rico will once again reproduce massively (as it would be free of competition), and soon enough, nothing will be solved as the dogs in Puerto Rico once again reach their carrying capacity. Then you'll see such organizations popping up again telling people to help these dogs from being "starved, diseased, and murdered".

Those guys don't like seeing the inconvenient truth. Let them do what they want. Or you could get an overwhelming base of opinion and shove it in their face. Especially since these dogs aren't part of a national park or zoo.

Eh, you're interested in your neighbor to engage in illegal activities? I see...

Or just surviving and stabbing you because you're hoarding all of the food to be found on the island. Hypothetically speaking.

Or you could try advocating peace. I'm pretty sure that not everyone goes to war with the intention of dying. Why would someone go die for a cause should they not live to see the effects of their actions?

Ask the people who sacrifice themselves for their loved ones or the ones they care about.

As for peaceful examples, they don't illustrate the point very well. I would say government regulations (especially socialism and communism) and charities if you really want examples.

People who go to war either choose to based on some sense of "patriotism" in which they felt obligated,

Hey look! Society being stronger than individual humans! Social instinct IS stronger! It also proves that human survival instinct is degraded.

or they did not live adequate enough lives to do anything but serve in that field, or they decided that the chances of them dying were not enough to consider a gamble. Whatever the reason, they realized that they would either live on a winning side or losing side, and losing side meant a worse living condition or death.

Society is funny like that. It's not like you or me where we have our own set of ideas and behaviors. Society is like a melting pot of stuff, where you might have your lipids at the top and water in the middle and acid at the bottom. And of course, society isn't that segregated.

Also, no one said life was fair, was it? Those dogs certainly didn't get the winning side of the (passive) war against each other.

There must be a greater intention at play, and as you mentioned, it's dying for a specific cause such as abolishing slavery or religion. For a cause to trump individual need for survival must mean that human cognitive development is a retrograde.

Bingo!!

Perhaps what I said on human cognition being self-defeating is true after all.

Anyways, I don't see in any way, how what I wrote could possibly frustrate you.

Well, self-defeating isn't exactly correct. It's just that society usually wins. And then there's society whose people keep blasting themselves back into the stone age or something; those guys you can say are self-defeating.