Uniting to sustain life, not dividing to kill

The issue of stray animals has been one of the country's top priorities for months. Society has been almost split in two over the question of whether to kill or to sustain life. Those in favor of keeping stray animals alive have taken to the streets, shared their views on social media platforms, and developed proposed solutions. No living creature can be deprived of its right to life simply because it is homeless. Every creature that opens its eyes to the world, adds life to nature, and sprouts from the earth has a right to live. Our duty as humans is to establish a system that makes the world a living space for all creatures.

It is an undeniable fact that stray animals have become a problem. It must also be acknowledged that the issue has reached a breaking point, especially in large cities. Taking precautions has become inevitable. But the question is: Why has this problem been ignored until now, and why were no measures taken? For decades, these creatures have been left on the streets, neglected, abandoned to their own fate, and their unplanned reproduction has been overlooked. When the problem reached a breaking point, the solution proposed was extermination. This is precisely the difference between developed and underdeveloped societies. The rule of development is to make short, medium, and long-term plans and to develop strategies. The point is to have developed a solution before the problem arises. Being able to foresee potential problems and taking precautions in advance is a requirement of a systemic understanding. We have established dozens of states and created systems, but we must somehow still carry the genetics of a nomadic culture, as we have never been able to get rid of the "we'll figure it out as we go" mentality. Moreover, we feed and grow problems, and when they reach a breaking point, instead of thinking about logical and reasonable solutions, we prefer to play the role expected of us by taking sides on the stage of political spectacle. We are not trying to solve problems; we are trying to position ourselves in the stands, to be seen by some, and to curry favor.

If there is a problem, each of us shares a part of the blame. Therefore, each of us must take responsibility for the solution. Wouldn't it be more correct to actively participate in the solution process and contribute instead of sitting where we are, chanting slogans of "let them be killed" or "let them live," and taking sides? Wouldn't it be more humane to strive to sustain life instead of exterminating it?

At this point, the real work falls to society. Since the law has been passed and the issue of taking stray animals off the streets and into shelters—or putting them to sleep—is on the table, we as a society can save them from homelessness. If each of us adopted one and took it under our protection, there would actually be no problem. These animals live among us in the city. The place of each one—the street, avenue, shop, building front, or housing complex where they live—is already known. These are animals that have, in one way or another, adapted to city life within the city. What needs to be done is to adopt them where they live and guarantee their lives. If health checks are performed and care is taken with their feeding and maintenance, these animals will not pose a danger to anyone; on the contrary, they will be a source of morale for people. For people born and raised in an urban environment, it would at least provide an opportunity to have some form of contact with nature.

As Üsküdar University, we first prepared a comprehensive report presenting our stance and suggestions against the legislative proposal that was initially a subject of debate and later became law, and we submitted it to the Office of the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and shared it with the press and relevant public circles. Whether it is taken into account is another matter, but it was important for us to demonstrate our sensitivity regarding the issue. Furthermore, we did not stop there; we took action to make concrete contributions to the solution of the problem and adopted two dogs that have adopted our campuses as their living space. Their IDs were issued, their vaccinations were completed, and their collars were put on. Their care and feeding are being handled with great care. They are a great source of morale for both our students and our faculty. It is not just dogs; there are many cats on our campuses. Their care and feeding are also handled with care. Thus, a natural environment is created on our campuses, and a humane atmosphere of morale is formed. To set an example, we shared the ID and photo of one of the dogs we adopted, our lovely dog Miço, who has adopted our campus as his living space for three years, on social media. The likes and positive feedback made us happy, but I honestly have difficulty understanding the negative reactions. But that is not a problem. We are doing what falls to us, and we will continue to do so. One of the duties of universities is to contribute to the solution of social-level problems in line with their own capabilities. It is important for all individuals and institutions to take responsibility and contribute to a more humane world, or more accurately, a more livable world for all creatures.

For a more livable world, we must choose to unite to sustain life, not to divide to kill.