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.
Your priorities are a little askew.
I love all my animals, but if it came to a choice between a human and one of my furbabies . . . and there wasn't ANY way to save both . . . sorry, you have to go with the human. Just basic morality there.
(I would however make extraordinary efforts to save both. And I've done some pretty stupid things rescuing animals before . . . in retrospect could have gotten myself hurt or worse. But, all's well that ends well.)
"It's not a zero sum game, TT. IOW, it's not either-or.
It's both."
We always see the same attitude on animal abuse threads.
The " too bad you don't care about aborted babies instead of animals " crowd .
They assume that a person can't be against animal cruelty and pro life at the same time.
It's possible to multitask and save both humans and pets during a disaster.
Like you said, it's not a zero sum game.