Yeah, I feel worse for innocents getting hurt than willing participants. So, animals and kids, I guess. My empathy doesn't extend far enough that I can't watch, though.

This really makes me wonder about the role of both early learning on this issue.

Americans I know are hardcore trained to cherish, enjoy and protect small animals far earlier in life than we are trained to value each other.

Our responses as adults might be semi-conscious knee-jerks.

There is a line in The Thorn Birds that touches on this topic. I wonder if I can find it.

I suspect there's some throughline here between people's reaction to infants, rather than "innocent human" more broadly. Not just innocence, because innocent bystanders are in jeopardy all the time. Infants and for some, animals, are innocence that comes along with a responsibility to protect.

Re infants I would say that is something hardwired biologically, and I could see animals being much more a cultural thing. And, obviously, IRL there's an extreme difference between the two that doesn't play out the way the TV reaction does.

Less woo-wooey, I think there's a factor of awareness that we are watching actors - their characters may be innocent but the actors signed up for (and are cognizant of) whatever is going on. And even though there are protections for animals on set, I think that plays into it.

Not saying this is at all rational, or particularly well thought out.

For us, they are tools. Some of us really like their tools, but they are tools.

Well, that was the case 25 years ago. American culture, instead of seeping in, is breaking like a wave over our heads. I guess some people might have teacup dogs by now, but I would wager most adults are "Oh, that is a shame" as the upper ceiling of their reaction to the death of an animal (read: dog, guard or pest control).

I think there's a factor of awareness that we are watching actors - their characters may be innocent but the actors signed up for (and are cognizant of) whatever is going on

But these days, the actors are going to have worse conditions (and by worse I certainly don't mean anything non consensual or usually extreme--there are lower paid stunt people for that) than animals. There isn't really an OSHA for actors, but animals are stringently protected in comparison (on set--I can't begin to say how they are trained).

I do wonder how the wolf fight in Bourne Legacy was staged. That was some of the best and most realistic fighting with a wild animal I've seen in a movie, but I couldn't work out how the animal wasn't stressed and the actor/stunt double wasn't in extra danger.

The United States Humane society (which protects animals) had a total budget around 174 million in 2012. [link]

The Children's Defense Fund's budget for 2011-2012 was around 18.4 million. [link]

I would be willing to bet that doing similar comparisons in the UK and Canada would have similar results.

Add in the budgets for CPS and the foster system and portions of Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, dependent and childcare deductions etc that go the the support of children, etc. and, to be fair Animal Control and now how does it line up?

Which is not to suggest that the support of children in this country (especially, among your examples) is remotely where it should be. But that's not really a fair comparison, and those organizations are not equivalent.)

I'm comparing private charity to private charity. I would be really shocked if private charity to support children was anywhere close to private charity to support animals.

And the Humane Society isn't the only one protecting animals. I don't think it's possible to sum up the differences between treatment of children and animals offhand.