Is It Worth Shutting Down Two Subway Lines To Save A Couple Of Kittens?
And if so, how about to save a couple (thousand...million?) rats?
The question in the post headline is from NYMag's Dan Amira, who noted that there were a couple of cats scurrying around the subway tracks in Brooklyn.
The MTA shut down the B and Q trains for an hour, but as Amira put it, "Apparently herding cats is as difficult as the idiom implies," because an hour later, when service was restored, the cats remained loose.
Amira lays out the pro and con:
Pro: Who cares if a few thousand people were inconvenienced for a little while? These are beautiful, innocent creatures. We should do what we can to protect them from being electrified by the third rail or crushed by a train. What if they were puppies instead of kittens? You are a monster.Con: The subway is the lifeblood of New York and shouldn't be shut down suddenly except in rare, monumentally significant circumstances. What if some people missed job interviews because of the long, unexpected delay? What if they were late for big meetings? What if they missed important doctor appointments? These things probably happened. It's unfortunate, but animals die sometimes. It's not like they were puppies, anyway.
Your thoughts?
UPDATE -- Hah. Loved this tweet:
@tvjrennie
Neuroethics revisited: Train heading for 2 kittens on tracks. You can save but only by throwing 1 kitten at train.... http://goo.gl/Op9BhC
He's joking about the trolley problem.
Unbelievable.
Rider 1: Subway's delayed
Rider 2: Why?
1: Cats
2: CATS?
1: That's what they said
2: Is that still on Broadway?
1: No, no. Felines. pets.
2: *Facepalm*
Patrick at August 29, 2013 1:15 PM
Are puppies somehow more precious than kittens???
My thought: delaying trains for a few minutes would be acceptable. I've not used New York's trains, but most of the ones I have been on aren't overly punctual, so most people will have a built-in a little bit of wiggle room just in case. So, a few minutes to try and get them would be fine. More than that and I'd say no because the cascade of consequences would be too large.
Shannon M. Howell at August 29, 2013 1:32 PM
This is an interesting case in political moral philosophy (an oxymoron).
• Neutral: Incurring huge expenses for minor moral causes is just what we do in government. The cost and inconvenience are not problems.
• Big plus: Press conference holding up cute kittens, if they are cute and if we can catch them. (Note: Have we ever been able to catch anything?)
• Public Relations: Hold up any two kittens. Forget about the ones on the tracks. If questioned, those on the tracks are rats, not kittens.
• Minus: Public discovers that the full force of government can't catch kittens.
• Utilitarian: The operational costs cannot be captured as extra income to our guys.
• Utilitarian: Cats don't vote. Run over them.
EasyOpinions
Andrew_M_Garland at August 29, 2013 2:54 PM
Shut down for an hour because of a couple of kittens? Well, why not, it shuts down randomly, trains are delayed, trains get rerouted for a host of a number of reason. Why not for a couple of kittens?
My favorite is when they announce that the train is being delayed in the station for a sick passenger - as a friend of mine says every time that happens (and if you live in NYC you know it happens all the time) - "Hey, people, if you feel sick, don't get on the fucking train!"
On second thought, this was on the B line, I swear that the "B" stands for "B"roken. It NEVERS runs on time anyway.
Charles at August 29, 2013 3:09 PM
It seems likely that these were feral cats rather than lost pets. In that case, they are essentially wild animals that cannot be domesticated - these aren't cuddly kittens that can be adopted out to starry eyed orphans.
Feral cats are wildly overpopulated and impossible to eradicate - I'm not saying wantonly kill them just for the hell of it, but we're better off with fewer of these cats not more.
Gbdub at August 29, 2013 3:38 PM
That first respondent in the thread is NOT me.
Again, Patrick, if you're a new arrival, I would appreciate you calling yourself something different.
Patrick at August 29, 2013 4:32 PM
What normal people see when we read this:
Who cares if a few thousand people were inconvenienced for a little while? These are beautiful, innocent creatures. We should do what we can to protect them from being electrified by the third rail or crushed by a train. What if they were puppies instead of kittens? You are a monster.
What crazy cat people see:
Who cares if a few thousand people were inconvenienced for a little while? These are beautiful, innocent CHILDREN. We should do what we can to protect them from being electrified by the third rail or crushed by a train. What if they were HUMANS instead of kittens? You are a monster.
NakkiNyan at August 29, 2013 4:54 PM
About the only thing that should stop a train is a deer, alligator, or a moose. But cats, dogs, or anything else is fair game. If they aren't rare, they are fair game.
Jim P. at August 29, 2013 5:43 PM
Feral cats are wildly overpopulated and impossible to eradicate - I'm not saying wantonly kill them just for the hell of it, but we're better off with fewer of these cats not more.
Posted by: Gbdub at August 29, 2013 3:38 PM
____________________________
I wonder about that - after all, don't they keep the rodent population down? Without poisons?
lenona at August 31, 2013 10:57 AM
Oh yes - forgot to say - I DON'T approve of feral cats or outdoor domestic cats outside of the city - thousands of songbirds gets destroyed every year that way.
lenona at August 31, 2013 10:58 AM
Leave a comment