Morality takes different forms. “A zoo in Denmark is asking for donations of small pets as food for its predators. … That way, nothing goes to waste — and we ensure natural behavior, nutrition and well-being of our predators,” the zoo said.
Meanwhile over in Sudan: “‘We’re suffering’: People in Sudan’s el-Fasher eat animal fodder to survive”.
Angaro described how he and his family rely on livestock fodder known as ambaz, a type of animal feed made out of peanut shells. … In recent months, more than half a million people have taken shelter in Tawila, some 60km (37 miles) west of el-Fasher, the state capital, which has been under two months of siege by the RSF rebels.
Some have argued that since Sudan’s conflicts are deeply rooted in complex tribal, ethnic, and regional dynamics, such as the historical marginalization of groups like the Fur, Zaghawa, and Nuba, and the interplay of Arab and non-Arab identities, Western policymakers lack the nuanced understanding needed to navigate these dynamics effectively, risking interventions that exacerbate tensions. For example, misjudging tribal alliances or historical grievances could lead to backing factions that escalate violence rather than resolve it.
In effect, the Sudan is in the “state of nature” from the POV of Western publics, and the victims, whose tribal names are unfamiliar are simply suffering the fate of the small pets that the Danish zoo advocates be fed to their captive predators. Governments can take no sides any more than a naturalist can intervene when a rattlesnake from the reptile house stalks a once domestic rabbit.
By contrast the more familiar combat in the Levant is classed as a war between civilization where rules apply.