Except, of course, it doesn’t. We’re not nearly so crackers about animals as we’re supposed to be. In fact, the real delusion is among those who believe that the beastly British have lost their tiny minds.

Take the other zoological saga of the last few days — Pen Farthing and Operation Ark. Did we really leave people behind in Kabul so that a bunch of cats and dogs could be airlifted to safety? If we did, then that would indeed be an outrage.

But as far as we know, what actually happened was rather different. The aircraft was a private charter. The animals were in the hold. And human beings took the seats. That’s a net gain for Homo sapiens.

It does seem that a Special Advisor in Whitehall was spoken to rudely, but Farthing has apologised for that. Meanwhile an “MoD source” has said that any assistance given was not at the expense of the official evacuation effort.

Suggested article

Afghanistan always defeats the West

By William Dalrymple

What intrigues me is the reaction of the commentariat. It’s not the criticism of Operation Ark (or the British Government) that stands out, but a deep unease at what this affair reveals about the British and our moral priorities.

“I don’t like it,” said Charlotte Ivers in the Sunday Times, “I don’t like it at all. And I really don’t like what it says about our country.” For the Spectator, Sam Ashworth-Hayes concluded that “Britain chose the picture of the sad puppy over people fearing for their lives.”

“What a story to tell the world about ourselves,” laments Gaby Hinsliff in the Guardian. And even Henry Hill — who is never knowingly under-patriotic — condemned “our weird attitude to animals” on UnHerd.

A new poll from YouGov provides apparent proof. Asked a question about the value of lives, only 49% of those asked said that “human lives are worth more than animal lives”. Meanwhile, 40% said that “human lives are worth the same as animal lives.” 3% said “human lives are worth less than animal lives” and the rest didn’t know.

So there you go: half the country is nuts. How can any self-respecting “voice of reason” stay silent about that?

What’s more, some parts of society are nuttier than others. Among those most likely to say that human and animal lives are worth the same are Leave voters, northerners and blue-collar workers. So for metropolitan types who believe the Brexit British have gone mad, this looks like further confirmation. More generally, this is a great issue on which to signal one’s superior rationality: I am humane; you are sentimental; she is a mad cat lady.

Suggested article

The media enabled Afghanistan's collapse

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

But opinion polls are not to be taken too literally. Public answers to pollsters’ questions should be interpreted as an opportunity to make a point. So when people say that humans and animals are of equal value, what are they really saying? In all likelihood, most of them are making the point that animal lives matter as well as human lives — but not, in fact, as much.

After all, if people really did believe that “animals are people too” then they’d stop eating them. Or, if already vegetarian, they wouldn’t be so relaxed about other people eating them. I don’t eat meat (for animal welfare reasons), but I’m a lot less upset by my meat-eating friends than I would be if they took up cannibalism.

Here’s another example. In 2001, the Labour government dealt with the foot-and-mouth outbreak by ordering a mass slaughter of livestock. Across the country, millions of dead farm animals were incinerated on flaming pyres. The nation was horrified — and yet in the subsequent general election the politicians responsible were returned to power with a thumping majority.

Now can you imagine the current government using similar tactics to halt spread of Covid? Obviously, it’s unthinkable. And that’s because, whatever people might say in polls, they recognise the vast gulf between man and beast.

But that being the case, how does one explain or justify the existence of animal welfare charities? Why are there so many of them in this country, when so much human need is still unmet?

The first thing to say is that, contrary to popular opinion, charitable giving in this country isn’t dominated by donkey sanctuaries. In fact, less than one donated pound in every ten goes to a charity that primarily benefits animals.

Nevertheless, there are those who resent the very existence of charitable juggernauts like the RSPCA. It was founded in 1824 as the plain old Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals — the first animal welfare charity anywhere in the world. In 1840 it added the R to its initials after Queen Victoria became a patron.

But this is a long running bone of contention. Why is the RSPCA “Royal” and the NSPCC merely “National”? Doesn’t this show that the British accord a higher value to preventing cruelty to animals than to children? It’s a fatuous comparison, of course — an accident of history that says nothing about the overall allocation of money and status in our society.

More from this author

How Tony Blair gets away with it

By Peter Franklin

Still the essential problem remains. Why should animals get any help at all, when people need it too?

The reason why the Operation Ark story made such an impact is that — as perceived by the critics — it symbolised this moral dilemma. Spaces on a plane are limited, but so are other resources — from money given by donors to time given by volunteers. Shouldn’t it all be allocated according to rational priorities?

Then again, why limit this question to charitable work? It surely also applies to spending on pets — which currently runs at £8 billion a year in the UK. In fact, never mind the animals, there’s a hierarchy of need among human beings too. Does your child really need that new bicycle when the money could go to Afghan children? Or what about the fripperies you buy for yourself — couldn’t those resources be better allocated?

If Pen Farthing didn’t exist, then, for the sake of our troubled consciences, it would be necessary to invent him. Indeed the entire charitable sector provides a convenient distraction from the spending decisions we make in our own lives.

We’re losing sight of the true meaning of charity, which transcends the merely rational. The concept of “effective altruism” — that is, methodically working out where philanthropic resources can be most productively allocated — has its place; but we need to remember that compassion is also about the relationship between the helper and the helped. The word literally means “to suffer with”.

A compassionate act is, therefore, good in and of itself. It cannot be dispassionately judged on the basis of outcome alone — still less as a comparison of theoretical outcomes.

Compassion brings the strong down to the level of the weak, the rich to the poor, the healthy to the sick, the happy to the sad. And because it does so without coercion, it is profoundly humanising, even when the recipient is an animal.

Between 2006 and 2015, 1,112,756 Pangolins were poached and trafficked. It’s done on such a scale that their bodies are initially bought and sold in bales and sacks – entire truckloads of them – before being broken down into scales and pieces of meat for pseudo-curatives within traditional Chinese medicine. They are the most trafficked animal in the world.

All eight species of Pangolin are now threatened with extinction, which means that to trade in them is completely illegal. Ever since 1975 an international convention – CITES – has stopped all trade in species that are endangered. Almost every country in the world is a signatory of it, and all have a responsibility to act.

More from this author

The dangers of a digital life

By Carl Miller

One of the problems is that, like so many crimes, the buying and selling of endangered wildlife like pangolins has gone digital. Online order forms for pangolin scales, auctions for pangolin products, and quack medical sites describing in tedious detail the bogus science behind pangolin medicine all support this criminal industry. But while individual cases have been building up, it’s been difficult to know exactly how much of it is happening, and where.

That is why, for a year, I and a group of technologists have been building a way to detect this – and other kinds of – online environmental crime.

It wasn’t an easy task: we had to create a technical process that could identify the language of the endangered animals market; scour the internet looking for examples of it; and then train an entire architecture of algorithms to filter out the vast number of sites that probably weren’t involved. And because we also knew the practice would change over time, we needed to make the whole system dynamic, so it would learn from what it found in order to find more. (If online research methodology is your thing, you can read about the nuts and bolts of the project here.)

We ended up finding almost 5,000 web pages that were (likely: it’s not an exact science) part of the online Pangolin trafficking world. Included in this were sites that enabled buying and selling, as well as sites that featured commentaries, articles and reviews about products containing Pangolin body parts. Casting the net wider, we found even more: our tech detected 7,800 web pages related to the online sale of ivory, and over 1,000 pages on eBay selling a restricted species of orchid. This, we’re sure, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Suggested reading

Can Zuckerberg control his monster?

By Ian Birrell

We did this work in order to shed light on a neglected issue. Media organisations need to report and investigate it. Tech companies need to be embarrassed. Politicians need to get angry and law enforcement agencies need to feel under pressure to act. But this work ties into a more fundamental concern.

Ever since the 1990s, when it crept out of labs and militaries and into our homes, the internet has posed a basic challenge to society. From starting a business to giving to charity, it has made countless kinds of positive behaviour easier to perform. But it’s brought with it a scary catch: an array of bad, destructive behaviour has also been made easier, cheaper, and more convenient to perform.

Serious reform by tech companies and governments to tackle these problems began around a decade ago. First came action against online child sexual exploitation, followed by widespread efforts to kick terrorists off the internet, or at least its most popular parts. Then, a little later, platforms began to wrestle with the problem of how they were being used to form and spread far-Right politics, hate speech, misogyny and xenophobia. Parliament is now confronting a new problem: the production of ‘fake news’ and disinformation.

Throughout this time, it has largely been the very public exposure of harmful influences that has spurred both governments and technology companies to act. There has been a solid link between the visibility of a problem and how much is done to fix it, creating an overall process that we could call enforcement-through-media embarrassment.

More from this author

Who commands the internet?

By Carl Miller

This approach is an incredibly crude way for sophisticated political systems to prioritise dealing with online problems. Pressure is something that normally happens in a small space – against a small number of platforms.

Take the recent DCMS report on disinformation and fake news. Facebook is mentioned 500 times in that report. YouTube, an absolute hotbed of conspiracy theories and disinformation, just twice. Online gaming is another venue where harm is disseminated in great quantity, but it is barely dealt with at all.

Pressure can also exist only for a remarkably narrow range of issues. In article after article, event after event, the same examples are used endlessly: Cambridge Analytica; fake news; Russian hacking, echo chambers. Issues, let’s be honest, that pop up on journalists’ Twitter feeds, and are on the radar of politicians, writers and television producers.

The result, of course, is that lower profile problems haven’t been fixed. From the general political and chattering class, there is an absolutely astounding lack of hunger to uncover and shout about the much broader set of problems that exist. And no other problem has been more neglected than the use of the internet to trade endangered wildlife.

The most visible problems are not always going to be the most harmful. And the biggest platforms aren’t going to be the only places where that harm happens. Reform through pressure and media exposure is always going to leave huge gaps, and it is in those gaps that problems like environmental crime exist – and you can be certain that there are many others. The worst examples of online life will rarely be those you’ve seen on the front page.