Which is better? Saving 50 people and 0 pets or saving 30 people and 20 pets?
If somebody is going to choose their pets over a human being, they are a disgrace to humanity.
Your proposition is a false choice. It's really not an either/or.
It's not a zero sum game, TT. IOW, it's not either-or.
It's both.
The thing is, many of the people in NO could evacuate; they had cars. They just didn't want to, afraid that their houses would be looted when they got back.
If not for the flood, they would have been.
And, if I were presented with having to save my pet over a human I didn't know, I can't say I'd automatically save the human.
Your statement above is, again, a false choice, as it is perfectly possible to save both.
People can reason and help themselves. Taking on a pet is a sacred trust wherein you agree to be 100% responsible for its well-being.
I'd save my pets, whom I know and love, over humans I don't know or give a damn about.
Guess I'm a disgrace to humanity. I'll take it up with God when the time comes.