Should've the gorilla been shot?

[mikey3000]

If some drunk idiot adult climbed into that gorilla pit, I'd really have to think hard before injuring the gorilla, but we were talking about a child here. That child could go on to greatly serve human kind in one form or another. The right choice was made.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Reasons aren't always justifications.

Of course not. But the topic of this thread, and the discussion therein, pertains to justifications of our behavior.

Should the gorilla have been shot?

If we're only describing reasons why the gorilla was shot, the proper title of this thread, and the discussion therein, would be something like "How was the gorilla shot?".

You would then say, well, we are apex predators and that's what apex predators do: they dominate and kill. But that reply does not justify the doings of the apex predators, it merely describes them.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Absolutely!

A few years back me and my family were persistently dive bombed by a Robin in my backyard who was just protecting her young. Most days I felt like getting a tennis racquet and teaching her who mays the mortgage, but I didn't. Instead I used the oppourtunity to teach my kids about nature. On five occasions I have risked my life by jumping into traffic and rescuing various animals that have ended up in the roads, twice almost being killed myself. I passionately love nature and hope to pass that on to my kids. But, I love my kids more. If my (or anyone else's) kids are ever in peril, I will do anything to save them, including kill. It is our animal instinct.

My instinct is to hit you with a tennis racket. (Kidding.)

Is that a meaningful reason why I should?

 

[zoltanspawn]

That child could go on to greatly serve human kind in one form or another.

Every parent hopes their kid is going to be a Gandhi or an Einstein.

A review of the evidence indicates their hopes are in vain.

 

[mikey3000]

But...every genius, environmentalist, human rights activist, scientist, artist and philosopher was once a child.

 

[Cormac135]

If some drunk idiot adult climbed into that gorilla pit, I'd really have to think hard before injuring the gorilla, but we were talking about a child here. That child could go on to greatly serve human kind in one form or another. The right choice was made.

Of course he could grow up to be the next Hitler, then we'll have wished the ape had chewed his head off.

 

[zoltanspawn]

But...every genius, environmentalist, human rights activist, scientist, artist and philosopher was once a child.

And so was every rapist, murderer, genocidal maniac, half-wit, robber baron and cultist.

It's always a gamble.

People may hope their offspring will be the good ones, but there's hardly anything like a guarantee.

The one thing that is certain at this point in time is that their lives will always contribute to the destruction of other species and complex ecosystems.

 

[mikey3000]

If you feel so strongly about it, they why are you still here consuming resources?

 

[Alnitak]

Every parent hopes their kid is going to be a Gandhi or an Einstein.

A review of the evidence indicates their hopes are in vain.

They could have been. Most people don't reach their full potential.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not. But the topic of this thread, and the discussion therein, pertains to justifications of our behavior.

Should the gorilla have been shot?

If we're only describing reasons why the gorilla was shot, the proper title of this thread, and the discussion therein, would be something like "How was the gorilla shot?".

You would then say, well, we are apex predators and that's what apex predators do: they dominate and kill. But that reply does not justify the doings of the apex predators, it merely describes them.

Fair enough.

 

[kev]

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem here.

And since we are going to play this game of "you're not a Parent so you can't criticize." If haven't worked in a Zoo then you don't have room to complain about what the Zoo did and didn't do. That sounds really dumb and it should because people don't always have to be a Parent to criticize one.

With all respect, go back and reread what I wrote. I have never said that "if you are not a parent that you cannot criticize" or have an opinion. I understand that there are parents who do not watch their kids closely and those kids can get into trouble. I am saying do not judge harshly until you have walked in those shoes. Become a parent and see how easy it is. Nothing is stopping you.

And your notion that I must be involved (or worked) in a zoo to pass judgement on its safety just doesn't wash. I have never built a bridge (or designed one) but I can sure opine as to whether they should hold my car up when I drive over it. And I have never owned a restaurant, but I can sure opine as to whether the food should be free of botulinum. And I have never designed or built an airplane, but I can sure opine as to whether the landing gear should not collapse on landing.

This could go on forever.

 

[zoltanspawn]

If you feel so strongly about it, they why are you still here consuming resources?

Because the prevention of more life entails no suffering, but the cessation of life does.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Numbers are not the only criteria. The IUCN also looks at rate of decline and habitat loss, seriousness of threats, and sensitivity to population loss. Some populations bounce right back after being decimated, especially fish species. Others, e.g. the extinct passenger pigeon, condor, right whale, or gorilla, do not.

Hence my comment about the cockroaches. Still, all the moreso that a long-lived simian like a gorilla numbers 200,000. Then there is the whole problem with the habitat being so wild that half that number lived unnumbered until 2008 when a census recognized them. I'm not impugning the whole endangered species system, but that's an astounding error. It's not like that some random herd. It's a wide ranging population of gorillas over a large area.

If some drunk idiot adult climbed into that gorilla pit, I'd really have to think hard before injuring the gorilla, but we were talking about a child here. That child could go on to greatly serve human kind in one form or another. The right choice was made.

I disagree that it is about the potential of the child. It is really still a biased calculation made in favor of the human. If a drunken teenager, or old man, had made his way into the pit, I think the population would be less sympathetic, but the zookeepers would have come to the same decision. In the public's mind, instinctively we side more with the child due to the age of accountability, on top of the instinctive protective mode that Nature has programmed into us. Observing drunkenness might invoke moral judgments by some into the scenario, but those would come downstream and likely not affect the decision to shoot by those charged with public safety at the zoo.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

If some drunk idiot adult climbed into that gorilla pit, I'd really have to think hard before injuring the gorilla, but we were talking about a child here. That child could go on to greatly serve human kind in one form or another. The right choice was made.

So if we knew the child was going to be a burden on society or a murderer then it would have been OK to not shoot the Gorilla?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, thankfully, common sense prevailed and the parents will not be charged. Now, let's see if the zoo is sued, as rightly so.

It's not the zoo that should be sued, it's the "experts" who told them the enclosure design was fine.

Engineers and whoever that are designing something should design not for common sense, but to accommodate idiots.

 

[gsdx]

Don't blame the kid, the parents, or the zoo. It happens to grown-ups, too, all by themselves:

A man has died after falling into a hot spring at Yellowstone National Park in the US state of Wyoming.

Colin Nathaniel Scott, 23, of Portland, Oregon, was with his sister and had walked more than 200 yards away from the designated boardwalk when he slipped and fell into the acidic hot spring in the Norris Geyser Basin, park officials said.

His sister reported his fall and rangers tried to navigate the highly-fragile crust of the geyser basin to recover his body, but they have now suspended efforts "due to the extreme nature and futility of it all".

A spokeswoman from the park said: "They were able to recover a few personal effects. There were no remains left to recover."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-dies-yellowstone-hot-spring-fall-074000355.html

 

[Alistair]

It's not the zoo that should be sued, it's the "experts" who told them the enclosure design was fine.

Engineers and whoever that are designing something should design not for common sense, but to accommodate idiots.

Trust me, every day I try to make things idiot proof, and every day people prove to be bigger idiots than I expect them to be.

 

[Alistair]

Lucky kid..........and lion