Yes, I agree. But it seems like there is a lot of truth to this generalization. Hm, maybe not?
I don't know whether or not it's true as a generalization. I don't think most white people love non-human animals as much as they love, or at least respect and care about, other humans, let alone more. It could be that white Westerners are more likely to think of themselves as 'animal lovers' or even go so far as to identify with the idea of animal equality or animal rights. Either way, we're individuals first and foremost and if you look at us in that way it becomes less relevant what statistical differences there are between groups. I remember reading somewhere that economic security and the satisfaction of basic needs correlates with more 'tolerant', "liberal" attitudes (ie. it could help to explain why homophobia is so rampant in African and Middle Eastern countries, I don't know how much truth there is to that considering how many well off people are prejudiced against gays. I don't think Russia or the Middle East are even considered generally third world. It does help to explain how Western society has become progressively more 'liberal' as the standard of living has gotten higher).
Hindu's regard cows as sacred. In some cultures, rats are highly respected as well. The ancient Egyptians viewed cats in a similar way. Many Native American cultures perform rituals honoring the animals they kill and expressing gratitude to them for their 'sacrifice'. Khoi-San hunters also, when they kill an animal for food, will sometimes apologize to them and explain that they're only trying to feed their families.
But don't infants have the potential for such cognitive ability in the way that many non-human animals do? I believe in respect for animals, but I have serious problems placing them on the same level of humans. I can respect that idea though. I think that it's called ecocentrism. It's also hard to respect an animal that can easily kill you with no fucks given.
Potentiality isn't actuality. Sperm/egg cells and zygotes have the potential for self-awareness but they aren't self-aware. Everyone alive has the potential to be dead but we're not dead yet. I don't know what ecocentrism is. If it's what it sounds like, I care about animals as individuals ; they have value in and of themselves and I don't care what they bring to or detract from the ecosystem as a whole. I have no problem respecting an animal who could easily kill me with no fucks given because a prerequisite for being moral or immoral is the capacity to make rational choices. You can't fault most non-human animals for being aggressive anymore than you can credit them for being affectionate and altruistic, they feel how they feel and they instinctively act on what they feel in the moment without being able to rationally consider alternative actions or the consequences of their behavior (this could be an oversimplification, on my part). To the extent that they are, chimpanzees seem to be the only non-human animals who are capable of our level of cruelty. I don't know how common violent and aggressive behavior is among rats, dolphins, elephants or the other non-human animals who have demonstrated self-awareness.
How do you feel about an infant with a rare medical disorder that prevents them from aging (this was an actual case I read about, a 16 year old girl was physically and mentally an infant).
But then, aren't animal rights activists and similar people so hypocritical in just that way? Again, I think that infants get a pass because they can grow into human adults.
In what way? Not all animal rights activists place infants above non-human animals or some non-human animals over others. I'm sure virtually all of them are 'hypocritical' to some extent but no more so than everyone else is.
It doesn't actually matter whether or not animal rights activists or vegans are hypocritical anymore than whether or not individual abolitionists and racial equality activists were/are. An idea falls or stands on it's own ; the character or the 'idea-action' consistency of the person who ascribes to or promotes that idea is irrelevant. The weakest arguments often focus on the failings of the people presenting the alternative position and not the position itself. I can go out and kill a man and tell other people that doing so is wrong and it's still objectively true that giving your interests more consideration than you give the interests of any other person is morally inconsistent (it's inconsistent even if moral nihilism is true and nothing is objectively good or bad), my hypocrisy doesn't detract from my argument or reasoning.