It is amazing how everyone can jump on this wave of political bandwagon, including the government in Zimbabwe, without really acknowledging the irony that much more terrible things have happened in Zimbabwe in the past 20 years without nearly the same outcry. Massive hyperinflation, people starving to death, and we suddenly have tears in the West over "Cecile the lion". The corrupt government of Zimbabwe is quick to wipe away our tears and assure us that this will never happen again, all the while continuing to neglect their human citizens. I can agree that big game hunting is stupid and wasteful, but killing a lion simply isn't that big of a deal, not in the grand scheme of things, and not when we rely every day on the deaths of millions of cattle to provide us food. That's just cognitive dissonance. If anything, the doctor was paying a high price for a stupid hobby, which ultimately benefits the local people of Zimbabwe. How many people in Zimbabwe can be fed for $25,000, the price of hunting a male lion?
Basically "Vivid, flesh and blood-victims are often more powerful sources of persuasion than abstract statistic". Most people love Lions and think they are awesome, and hate seeing them caged in zoos. Now we hear about this one lion minding it's own business being lured from a preserve and being killed by some rich American guy .... the lion becomes the flesh and blood victim. Problem like hyperinflation and massive death, while obviously much worse (and horrible) are much harder for the human mind to understand and just become a statistic.
It is extremely scary that this is a problem but it is fairly well known and studied. Stalin even knew about the problem:
"one man's death is a tragedy, a millions deaths are a statistic"
I obviously agree with you, just pointing you to why it is happening.
The Upside of Irrationality really works to pinpoint so many things happening in the world. The number of times I've quoted that book in discussions leaves me flabbergasted.
The elephant in the living room is that the outcry about Cecil the Lion was a form of 'Virtue Signaling.' When people express outrage over something that 'no good person could be for' they do it as a way of forming in-group cohesion.
The article this thread is associated with shows that different groups can rally around different values. If you were from that man's family in Zimbabwe you clearly would have a different take on it and use different 'virtue signals.'
I could never put it into words before but I think this is the reason I dislike Facebook and social media in general. It looks like a big contest of who can show how much they believe in x and it all seems so fake.
But people have not been ignoring it. I have been hearing about it for years. Why is no American actually up in arms about the Zimbabwean government?
1) It is an ongoing problem, not an isolated incident.
2) There is an easy resolution to people from the U.S. flying down there to go hunting that the dept of Justice can implement. Solving the Zimbabwean government's corruption requires more resources than the DoD and state department have available. Americans, particularly those who came of age politically in 2003-2007 are deeply suspicious of our ability to enact regime change.
3) This was the straightforward fault of an American. However the U.S. bears zero responsibility for Mugabe's actions unless you blame the U.S. for pressuring Ian Smith to resign.
4) There are small numbers of Americans that are upset about the fall of the Rhodesian government, but they irredeemably associated with murderous racism in the eyes of most Americans. Thus, there is no simple narrative that mainstream Americans can put forth as a solution or thing-that-should-have-been-done.
EDIT:
People with no responsibility for causing the situation, no clear path to fix the situation, and only the power to create an atrociously bloody mess of the situation cannot be faulted for only being passively aware of the situation.
It is not invalid to care about something just because there are also more important things in the world.
It is not invalid to be saddened by something just because there are worse things happening in the world.
Hopefully, though, this will shed some light on the situation in Zimbabwe. Seems like the country's a mess and lions don't have much to do with it either way.
>It is not invalid to care about something just because there are also more important things in the world.
But the lack of displaying caring behavior about the bigger issue while displaying caring behavior about the smaller issue can be a basis by which to question if they really care, or if the behavior is being expressed for some other reason. Many sibling posts here have other reasons for displaying caring behavior other than actually caring (some which have some scientific basis).
I just wonder why people care about this one specific lion. Cause it had a nickname and was "famous"? No one cares about animals being killed on mass so we can eat them, i know i don't, but oh no, a lion is killed, they are running out of those in Zimbabwe. Is it because it had a dramatic story line? Everyone will forget about this "massive tragedy" in a few weeks anyway.
> No one cares about animals being killed on mass so we can eat them, i know i don't, but oh no, a lion is killed, they are running out of those in Zimbabwe.
It's not about animal death, it's about killing an iconic animal (a lion) which we're already in danger of losing entirely. And -- to make it worse -- killing it for no other reason than for some kind of misguided personal glory. And on top of that doing so in a way that smacks of old school rapacious colonialism.
> Everyone will forget about this "massive tragedy" in a few weeks anyway.
Sadly, yes. And when you finally see that news report in a few decades about how the last wild lion finally got poached, well, you can rest assured that we'll all forget about that "massive tragedy" in a few weeks, as well. No harm, no foul.
Census 2004: Total estimates between 660 and 1415 Lions remaining in the protected (well studied) areas of Zimbabwe. Includes 15 big locations for this small country.
Source:
Bauer, Chardonet & Nowell (2006)
Status and distribution of the lion in E-S Africa.
Bauer,H.(2003) Lion conservation in West and Central Africa. PhD Thesis, Leiden University, The Netherlands
My outcry stems from the fact that a wild lion is a rare, beautiful creature and we should be extra careful with them because I think we all would like to live in a world where out children, grandchildren, and people far into the future can continue to experience and admire these creatures.
So if you're asking if I care about people hunting lions legally? I don't like it and find it offensive, cruel, and destructive.
If you're asking whether I care about people hunting deer or rabbits? I don't like it, but I also recognize that it's much more complicated. And I don't think we're in danger of hunting those species out of existence, so it's a bit of a lesser issue. Also, eating when you've hunted does change the equation. I'm not a vegetarian. I understand that animals die so I can eat meat. Whether that's moral is a completely different issue.
> My outcry stems from the fact that a wild lion is a rare, beautiful creature and we should be extra careful with them because I think we all would like to live in a world where out children, grandchildren, and people far into the future can continue to experience and admire these creatures.
So it's again just about "us", about our own perverse pleasure of experiencing and projecting our own suppressed wilderness fantasies onto other sentient beings? And if the creature isn't "beautiful" by some random standard, well, sucks to be them? That's the exact "logic" all the trophy hunters have, they want to experience the majestic wilderness and be a part of the "circle of life" by a playing a faked game of life and death with a powerful beast. After all, where's the grandeur in hunting a mere cow, right? Of course, all in a highly controlled and for them completely safe and alienated fashion, with practically zero risk of being killed themselves.
> Also, eating when you've hunted does change the equation.
Unless you're in a specific situation where you're environmentally forced to hunt in order to survive, I don't see how it changes anything. Would you be willing to let your cat or dog be hunted by your neighbors on the condition that they eat them?
So it's again just about "you" and your own perverse desire to not hunt and eat my cat? And if a creature isn't "my cat" by some random standard, well, sucks to be them?
Heh, I actually wanted to placate that post with disclaimers along the lines of "or any other animal, regardless of 'legal' status and 'ownership', and I do not condone hunting and/or eating said animals by others". I know you're kidding, but ... yeah, geekish pseudo-OCD. Aaaand do note that in my original post I was referring to your neighbor specifically, you're the one who implicated me into this whole mess!
A lion is well edible. So is a cat, a dog, and just about any other creature people in various cultures regard as "pets".
As far as suffering goes, milk cows in particular suffer their whole lives being literally raped, having suction devices affixed to their nipples, and their children taken away from them almost as soon as they're born.
No, dishonorable because the guy lured the lion out of the zoo with a piece of meat, then shot it with an arrow from his Jeep. Then the animal bled for 40 hours before they finally caught up to it and killed it. Then he bragged about how he's an amazing hunter.
Any facts to back "forming bonds with"? I have many anecdotal stories of people related and unrelated forming bonds as strong as dogs with chickens and pigs which were later slaughtered and eaten.
I think there's a risk of dismissing a sentiment you don't understand as therefore being irrational vs being something that you simply don't understand. To play Devil's advocate here we have always had the problems you mention and most likely always will; at least for a very long time. But there's a very real chance (and very soon) that we won't have these magnificent creatures like Lions/Rhinos/Elephants etc. The killing of a lion like Cecil (tagged, well known) increases that sense of urgency and concern that we seem unable to save these creatures from hunters and poachers. These are not renewable resources like cattle or chicken.
Secondly so many big problems are complex with multiple contributing factors and it's hard to tell the victim from the perpetrator and often times those roles change over time. Cecil's killing, much like the killing of a child, is very black and white. He was lured with game, shot with an arrow, suffered pain for 40 hours and was then shot and beheaded. There's no shades of gray in there like "Was he or she in the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they do something to contribute to their own demise via their behaviour? Are we going to find out some new fact in this case in 72 hours or at the trial that makes us realize there's more to this victim than we thought?"
I think it's this sense of losing for ever combined with the lack of any ambiguity that creates such a strong response. To address your post it is logical and explainable. You may not agree with it but it's certainly not irrational behavior.
It's not at all amazing: it is because Cecil's story is representative of just how flagrantly fucked up a situation exists, and Cecil's story is, of the countless such involving people and culture and animals, so very easy to tell.
Is it valid to go meta and ask the same questions about the incredulity about the coverage? I.e. there are numerous more egregious examples of people getting outraged about relatively unimportant stuff while ignoring important stuff, so why is everybody getting upset at the disproportionate outrage over Cecil the Lion?
> It is amazing how everyone can jump on this wave of political bandwagon, including the government in Zimbabwe
The government isn't, really. They're issuing a temporary moratorium until the media attention dies down. They don't actually care; they're just playing the media.
In other words, they're doing the cynical thing to get the media off their backs until the story blows over, and then it'll be business as usual again (and like any other tempest in a teapot, nobody's going to care anymore by the end of August).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if worse things were being caused in Zimbabwe by a rich American dentist then they would probably have caused their own band wagon. It's not just the poaching, it's that it was literally a holiday for a rich white guy who wanted to kill something.
No it's because it's useless. "Oh this is terrible" - well great, propose some solutions?
In the case of Cecil the Lion it's "stop shooting endangered species you stupid rich Americans" - it highlights the very real poaching problem which is destroying large wildlife in Africa, and which costs actual human lives to (something like 5000 park rangers have been murdered by poachers over the last 10 years).
Fix Zimbabwe's government? Well we tried that in Afgahnistan and Iraq and it didn't work. And we certainly have been trying things in Africa - I have an uncle who was there for years as part of the various support and aid missions the UK run in commonwealth countries which fund things like schools.
One of these problems we could not have our own citizens fall ass-backwards into making it worse (and have some scope to actually prevent). The other we're working on but feeling "the full force of the tragedy" every day is wildly unproductive.
>In the case of Cecil the Lion it's "stop shooting endangered species you stupid rich Americans"
Except offering controlled hunts can be used to the benefit of the endangered species. Direct benefits such as removing the male in charge once they have become too old to the indirect benefit such as the sale of such hunting rights providing funds to help the species in question.
> removing the male in charge once they have become too old
This seems a bit far-fetched to me. I doubt that hunting parties care particularly about targeting males that have "become too old" (define too old). Also, to the extent that this would be a problem in the first place, nature has been handling this situation with what I can assume is remarkable efficiency for millions of years without relying on humans.
The second point you raise makes more sense; however, I'd find it hard to rely on a famously corrupt government to distribute funds from hunting to protect species and feed their citizens rather than protect and feed themselves.
The ideal is that hunting these animals are in general illegal and you are given permission only for a single pre-selected individual. The licenses for such would go on bid and the highest bidder wins the right. I think this has been done before to some success.
>nature has been handling this situation with what I can assume is remarkable efficiency for millions of years without relying on humans.
And in many cases nature has allowed a species to go extinct as well. The specific case would be a patriarch that prevents younger more fertile males from propagating while his own genetics is weakened from age (consider in humans how age of either parent correlates with birth defects). It is an overall rare case, but the idea is that permission to legally hunt an endangered animal will sale for a high price if for no other reason than because it is so rare.
>I'd find it hard to rely on a famously corrupt government to distribute funds from hunting to protect species and feed their citizens rather than protect and feed themselves.
Yeah, it only works if you have a decent enough government. Which brings in the question of if fixing the government may be more important a goal not just because of how it benefits humans but how it can benefit the endangered species. (Not to say we have any good way to do such.)
I'm glad there are people in this world like your uncle. I admire those who try to help those whose lives seem insignificant to most. If we all did the same I'm sure it wouldn't be "useless".
But as they say suffering is part of the human condition.
I think that people channel their repressed opinions of the world, my job, diet, lifestyle, etc. is killing the planet, burning the ozone, supporting child slavery, whatever, into causes where they have the rare ability to have their real and ideal values match. I haven't hunted a lion and therefore I can speak from a moral high ground, blah blah blah.
The hunt was illegal, hence both "guides" being imprisoned in Zimbabwe. The chance that a single penny went to helping the country or its people is precisely zero.
Economy is creeping simple. This is not earning $25,000, is a monetary disaster.
Lets forget all about destroying a scientific work of decades just for fun; If you sell only 6 photographic safaris each year just because this particular lion permited turists to be at 10 m you earn about $29,000 each year. (I think that just doing 6 photo safaris in a single year is a ridiculous low and ultra-conservative estimate).
Multiply this for the last 13 years and you'll have earned at least 375,000 dollars (If we assume only a single jeep and tour-operator doing business in the park, something that is false, obviously). Just a pale shadow of the real monetary value of the animal. Is not unreasonable to asume a damage over the million dollars here.
So if we cry for starving people, this single animal has been feeding african toddlers and their families, for its entire life and could continue doing this for other 3 or 5 years maybe, except because it was killed, just for fun, and his head is converted to a valuable object that can be re-selled maybe tomorrow. For the hunter's point of view, is an investment.
I also want to do some charity. Will you sell me the liberty statue for a 0,01% of its real value please?. Hey, is for a good cause... be richer. I'll give valuable facebook likes to the poor starving children of Minessota also. I promise.
The cognitive dissonance you cite disappears completely if we accept the uncomfortable elephant in the room: we value the remaining animals far more than we value human life. And isn't that normal when there are 7 billion of us and 30 000 of them?
How many humans do there need to be before I can own one and keep it in a cage (even if regulations require it to be a big cage)? I'm thinking of putting the cage on display and calling it something. Maybe a yoo.
My point being, we seem to value them more in our actual interactions, but when it comes to discussing rights and laws, we still value them less. So my actual question is why do we have this discrepancy. We cry on the death of a lion more than a human, yet putting another lion in a cage for our own amusement is allowed but doing the same with a human is considered extremely wrong.
You have correctly identified the contradiction. We love animals but our instincts are even stronger. The only rational conclusion is that we are not rational creatures - we are creatures of instinctive survival/domination. Therein lies the dissonance, because we refuse the rational conclusion which would be explicitly to value human lives less than those of animals.
For those most opposed, I would agree. But I suspect that most of those involved in this outcry are not so opposed (they may be opposed to any caging, but they would be fine with some level of caging).
The right number is the one which nature will support, and sadly, that probably means we'll push out the wildlife entirely. My point was that there is a contradiction between a) our stated desire to protect remaining wildlife, and b) our failure to master our own instincts.
Our strongest instinct is survival, closely followed by resource appropriation. Both are the enemy of wildlife, yet we love wildlife. To remove the contradiction we'd have to dominate our survival instinct and reduce our own population, with all the awful moral and ethical consequences (for humans) that that would entail.
Because, over the long term, a single lion is infinitely more important to the survival of our own species/planet than a single human or even several million of them.
We could kill off nearly every other species on the planet, including many of which we have domesticated and breed for product (bees, cows, etc.) and humans would be just fine.
The only sad thing about a species going extinct is it is one less species for us to study and learn from. It's a drastic loss for science and the only hypothetical loss for people at large is if there was something of value lost (e.g. discovery of a gene that cures a disease that only the now-extinct animal naturally produced)
You can especially kill off most apex predators without issue. Which is why the loss of a lion isn't a big deal.
Now if all producers were to go extinct and the bottom feeders of the food chain(s) such as plankton were to vanish from the Earth? Most, if not all, life as we know it would die from starvation. The animals with the most adaptive and most abundant food sources would live the longest, but eventually they would also run out of food!
A lion isn't a producer nor is it the bottom of the food chain. So a lion dying or lions going extinct really doesn't matter outside of scientific studies.
Please explain. Millions of species have gone extinct over the course of history, yet the world continues on. What is it about the loss of lions that will result in a catastrophe?
I'm not saying that avoiding the extinction of a species is not a noble endeavor, I'm just questioning the impact of not doing so.
That is total bullshit and you know it. This whole culture of self-loathing was cute at the beginning, but it's descended into absolute absurdity. You are patently out of your mind if you actually believe what you wrote. You don't, of course, but what's a little hyperbole when you're posturing for imaginary geek cred points on a website amirite?
>Don’t tell us what to do with our animals when you allowed your own mountain lions to be hunted to near extinction in the eastern United States. Don’t bemoan the clear-cutting of our forests when you turned yours into concrete jungles.
So don't learn from our mistakes, basically?
This is among the most ignorant things I have ever read. Terrible article from a person with a terrible mentality.
"We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people."
And the paragraph directly after:
"And please, don’t offer me condolences about Cecil unless you’re also willing to offer me condolences for villagers killed or left hungry by his brethren, by political violence, or by hunger."
"Please don't care about the animals in my country more than you care about me and my countrymen" is a reasonable request. I don't see anything terrible about it. I'm not sure why you dropped the surrounding context.
The sad truth is...we DO care about their people. And there is simply more we can do for their lions than their people. Because you can pass a law saying "don't kill lions," you can ban the trade of lion carcasses/trophies/etc., and you can make a big dent in the numbers of lions killed. But how are we supposed to help feed their people when their corrupt as fuck government takes all of our aid? This isn't the real world we live in, guys.
What good does that do? For example, we fought a war to keep Vietnam free and democratic and failed miserably. The Communist regime only began to make meaningful change once we opened up to them.
First, I agree with your sentiment. Cuba is an excellent example of this. It's one of the last Communist holdouts, and one of the few Communist countries we refused to open up to. Coincidence? I think not.
However, when it came to Vietnam, we merely fought a war to keep Vietnam on our side. South Vietnam was not free and democratic, so there was impossible to "keep" it that way.
It's possible, maybe even likely, that a victorious South Vietnam would have eventually opened up and turned to democracy, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan. But I think it's important to recognize how two-faced US policy was in these places, fighting "for freedom" by propping up dictators.
US doesn't care about freedom in other countries. They may say so, but action say a bit different story - how can they be good friends with places like Saudi Arabia and worse? what they care about is, are you with us or against? any other position is very hard to maintain, albeit possible. you just need a bit extra finance for that.
freedom and good life for vietnamese people was not considered much when that war was planned (beginning by staged US Tonkin gulf accident to get a foot in situation, in good ol' Gleiwitz nazi style). it was all about influence, having foothold out there so soviets don't take it all around, keeping armed forces trained in real life scenarios (train your forces in small war to be prepared for big one) etc. US was very much anything but a good guy there. Saying North vietnamese did worse things doesn't make you automatically a good guy, does it.
Nah, Vietnam is just another topic in US history americans should feel ashamed of. Quite a few I met that are not teenagers actually do. And look at result - they lost the war, they screwed up that country really bad (ie many birth defects many years after the war thanx to Agent Orange spraying), and at the end, country found its way to +-democracy in peaceful way, although it took some serious time. But you can't make that much money from selling arms in peace, can you
I don't think people care more about animals than about people. It was a cruel way to kill an animal, that's what's riling people up. If you baited a person and shot them with a bow and arrow, and then hired hunters to track them down and kill them, people would be much more outraged.
You can't easily compare "unprovoked cruelty against animals" with "everyday life below the poverty line".
If that exact story had happened to a person, it wouldn't be on the news in the West. I don't think people care more about animals more than humans, but I think it's very hard for humans to truly care all that much about humans half-way across the globe.
>"Please don't care about the animals in my country more than you care about me and my countrymen" is a reasonable request.
the animals are defenseless objects of our actions. While people get the life they've built, and specifically what i understand about the Zimbabwe situation - a lot of the issues there are recent (couple decades) self-inflicted by the government upon their people with support of the people. Should US change the government there?
Actually yes, with the support of the majority. Zimbabwe is in it's current situation because Robert Mugabe started a land grab of the minority white farmers' land and promising to redistribute it to the black majority. This was extended to all major businesses afterwards requiring 51% ownership should be handed freely to locals. This was applauded by the masses, until it all came apart.
i was born in the USSR. People have government they want to (except when forced upon by a foreign power). Dictatorships are the people, and the people do all these things. Dictatorships simply fall apart when they loose real support of their people.
I disagree. Dictatorships aren't about single dictators, they're about institutions that lead to the rise of dictatorships. For example in Egypt, Mubarak is gone, but there is another general in place and nothing has changed. Institutions take generations to topple, and not just a season a la the Arab Spring.
Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. Get out of the animals territory and fight for your survival with those other humans not with poor animals.
There are only 3000 tigers left in the wild if a Bengal tiger kills a villager going inside their territory of sundar ban it's the fault of that human not tiger.
Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans.
This article shows the sick mentality of the people who thinks it's alright to encroach on other animals turf since it's easier. They are cowards not able to fight for survival with their own fellow human.
There are no surrounding context in it. It's just talking about villagers encroaching lions rightful forest and pushing them to extinction.
> Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land.
What are you going on about?
A lion will hunt where there is food for it. Even if there's a single village in all of Zimbabwe, it will go there and take the easy meal. There's nothing easier than eating livestock. The livestock is trapped, defenseless, and absolutely tasty.
> There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake.
What mistake? Existing?
> Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans.
Can you help everyone out? Please go to Zimbabwe and feed yourself to a lion. It will help the lion out. It will provide several days worth of sustenance. You're a bit more bony than a cow, but I'm pretty sure the lion won't complain too much. On top of everything, there will be one less human around! Win/win!
Its a different perspective from an actual African. Who are you to say he is more ignorant than you are? Ultimately, the human experience is about survival. And that experience will vary and form your perspective.
I'm not saying he's more or less ignorant than I am. I'm simply saying that he is clearly and objectively an ignorant person. One of the steps we took to stop lion hunting was to have airlines ban the transportation of lion caracasses. That's a pretty easy thing to do. Do you think there's anything similar we could to do to improve the human rights situation in Zimbabwe? Can Delta refuse to transport Mugabe? Will that help?
It simply IS ignorance at the root of his childish complaints. It's ignorance to the fact that one problem - lions - is of a vastly smaller scale than another problem - human rights issues in Zimbawabe - and thus the solutions to said problem are far, far easier to apply. In short, we want to help where we actually CAN help. But decades of failed US intervention have proven one thing time and time again: our help never sticks until you start helping yourself.
I think they are actually saying "Killing one lion is completely insignificant compared to the real issues Zimbabwe faces (thanks to the disastrous policies of the Mugabe government). So much publicity and so many tears in the US, yet virtually no public concern and tears for the complete meltdown of the country over the last 15 years."
You don't need to do or interfere with anything. It's about how much public attention and coverage it's getting. One furry lion being killed trumps the misery and suffering of millions.
Imagine a world where the US economy is reduced to ashes and people are starving in the streets of New York, and the rest of the world is only outraged by somebody shooting a specific moose in Alaska.
First off, you should be ashamed at how ridiculous that analogy is. I'm going to assume you understand that it's completely and utterly inaccurate and irrelevant to this conversation.
Secondly, suffering happens everywhere every day. Are the American people supposed to maintain a constant level of outrage about every single instance of suffering?
I wrote a reply to this, but you know what? No. Just no. You are clearly incapable of taking part in this conversation so just leave me alone. Your level of discourse is more suited for Reddit. Maybe check it out sometime.
I read your original reply before you deleted it, which made it clear that you had misread my post, in particular you missed the word "economy" in "...where the US economy is reduced to ashes...". Reduced to ashes is a (rather common) reference to the Zimbabwean economy not an actual fire.
I'm too low on caffeine and sleep right now to absolutely decide if the second one is Ignoratio elenchi or Illicit major. It could be an example of both arguments at the same time. I think the illicit major argument is stronger as in more closely targetted whereas the ignoratio elenchi argument is broader so the Illicit major argument fits "tighter" which makes it more accurately descriptive. On the other hand he's clearly leading at a I.M. attack but he definitely did a I.E. attack so ... Maybe the right way to phrase it is "it is an I.E. logical fallacy attack that appears to be intended as a I.M. logical fallacy attack".
I've toyed with the idea of tags for social discussion sites that include individual logical fallacies as tags. You know, like venerable ole slashdot and "+1 informative" it would be interesting (for a startup?) to have a social media discussion tagset of the usual logical fallacy arguments, so people can +1 or -1 depending on their personal tastes. I tolerate I.E. attacks in general better than I.M. yet I.M. are so funny they show up in comedy so I'm not even certain which I'd upvote or downvote. Probably a mod like (-1 Ad Hominem) is not too controversial. I would guess the second statement would get both tags, actually the whole comment would get all three tags, most likely. Also this post was a good example of having to handle tags that are both "intended" vs "actual". This makes it hard to figure out how to deploy as a social discussion site modset, and being hard yet obviously useful would make it a good startup germ of an idea. As usual it'll all be in the execution not the mere simple idea.
Yea I love it when people quote the amount of aid these countries are given. The number that is left out is the amount basically stolen. I think for every $1 given like $1.50 is stolen.
Two problems. One, that's our fault (as a superpower) for not doing a better job of ensuring aid flows to where it needs to get. Two, that's the fault of the people. We can't do all the work.
But we did solve our own problems, that's my point. I'm from Indiana, where at one point 99% of the state was clear cut. Now if you look around there are forests and trees everywhere. Rebuilding nature wasn't easy, and it doesn't "rebuild" exactly what you had before. It is the absolute height of ignorance and idiocy to suggest that they should be allowed to destroy their country as well and be forced to expend huge resources rebuilding it instead of just NOT DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
More like: don't criticize others for not learning from their mistakes when you're making a point of not learning from making the same mistakes yourself.
He's pointing out the hypocrisy of berating others' treatment of nature when you live where everything natural has been bulldozed and paved over for hundreds of square miles.
The author commits the same sins they rail against. Jingoist application of morals.
Instead of using their time in the spotlight to draw attention to what they would consider to be more worthy pursuits, they are indignant that we are not already familiar with their country's most pressing issues and equally outraged about them.
A guy writes down one point you disagree with and you dismiss the article and person. While, I agree with your point that this sort of hypocrisy calling doesn't help anything, I can't agree with your overall conclusion.
This article is import, even if it isn't particularly well-written or well thought out. It's important because it resonates a very important idea that the west is psychologically disconnected from Africa and Africans in the cruelest of ways. It reminds us that Africans must really scratch their heads as they struggle to figure out our unique branch of apathy/concern that's both cruel and emotionally unbalanced.
> This is among the most ignorant things I have ever read. Terrible article from a person with a terrible mentality.
Comments like this violate the HN guidelines, which say:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.
The comment would be better if shortened in this way, and perhaps also if it made its substantive point (about learning from mistakes) a bit more substantively.
it is true, though, that the west has a "holier than thou" attitude towards most if not all of the developing world while deploying blatantly hypocritical policies.
If people are hitting the paywall the gist of the article is that lions are dangerous animals. People living in rural village are terrorized by lions and it has a serious impact on their way of life. Zimbabweans have a lot of respect for wild animals but aren't opposed to them being hunted. America once again stirred up a social media frenzy when they don't understand the issue at all.
> America once again stirred up a social media frenzy when they don't understand the issue at all.
Except that America stirred up this issue only because it was done by a rich American. Zimbabwe aided by claiming it was an illegal poaching, arresting the guides and then asking America to arrest and extradite Walter Palmer.
Lions are scary when they aren't in a national park and being monitored by research scientists, but that's not what happened. This would be like a foreign tourist luring a wolf out of Yellowstone and then killing it outside of the park boundaries. It's straight up illegal poaching.
I'm glad we've had a trial, in which reliable facts were presented under oath and a complete and accurate description of Zimbabwe's hunting laws was made available to a dedicated jury, who then found that the facts indicated certain people were guilty of violating the law. Thanks to that important process, you're able to come here and make this statement for our benefit.
That's exactly what Zimbabwe is trying to accomplish with the arrest of the guides and requested extradition of the American hunter... If a Zimbabwean national had lured a wolf out of Yellowstone and taken its head and skin as a trophy you can bet the US would try and do the same (even though wolves are scary and the US has bigger problems than poaching).
My point was that we assert that someone's actions were criminal after the facts are presented at trial, not before. That is, unless we personally witnessed the act and are in possession of the facts. I didn't happen to be in Zimbabwe at the time, I haven't inspected the licenses and other relevant paperwork, and I'm not familiar with Zimbabwe's laws (but, realistically, I'm skeptical that they're properly enforced and that the judiciary is independent and professional). I'm certainly not going to substitute whatever partial/exaggerated/fabricated tales the media choose to present for those facts.
Saying that someone committed a crime is a Big Deal. In many jurisdictions, it is considered slander or libel unless you are making a formal charge. You need something a lot stronger than something you read in a newspaper to back it up.
I take issue with the thought of conservation only being necessary for cute, cuddly animals. There are significant benefits of maintaining biodiversity in the various biomes.
You just need to look at wildlife re-introduction to see this is the case. Return wolves to an area (yellowstone) and Elk populations that were ruining new forest growth starts to come under control. The new growth encourages beavers to return to an ara, beavers improve wayerways, which improves fish stocks. Wolf killed elk also improve things for eagles, bears, coyotes and other scavengers.
I agree. Especially when those "cute" animals have long ceased to have any significant role in their ecosystem due to their reduced numbers. I think conservation efforts should primarily focus on the ecosystem not single species. In fact it is not uncommon for environmentalist organizations to follow this approach, to the apparent detriment of the ability to stir up any interest among the wider public. Biological corridors? Mangrove forests? Too many humans take this as faceless abstract technical entities, even when their face is more often than not also a human face.
This is what people understand - Lion Conservation status: Vulnerable
"The lion is a vulnerable species, having seen a major population decline in its African range of 30–50% per two decades during the second half of the 20th century. Lion populations are untenable outside designated reserves and national parks. Although the cause of the decline is not fully understood, habitat loss and conflicts with humans are currently the greatest causes of concern."
I would say that the locals dont understand the issue any further than how it affects their own personal bubble.
They dont own the Lions, the Lions happen to live within the same lines drawn on a map as they do. The Lions neither know about or care about these lines. That in no way makes these Lions the propery of people from Zimbabwe.
In the same way that the rainforest destruction is everyones problem, not just a problem for those living in the rainforest.
What is the point of arguing who owns what? Does that refute the idea that people who are most directly affected should have a greater say?
Also the world hardly operates according to that concept of owning that you mention with regards to environmental protection. Is the international community pledging resources to support countries that choose to protect the environment instead of seeking so-called economic development? See for example this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuní-ITT_Initiative
> People living in rural village are terrorized by lions and it has a serious impact on their way of life.
Isn't this due to the explosion of human population levels though? We're encroaching more and more on the natural habitat of pretty much every species on the planet except for those in the deep ocean and even they are affected by us in other ways.
I sincerely believe that people would rather humans die than animals. Its really bizarre and should be studied. Is that people see other people as a competition for resources? It's really fascinating the stir over the death(or murder) of 1 animal vs death(or murder) of hundreds or even thousands of people per day.
Objectively, lions and other apex predators do a lot of good in maintaining species population balance in their respective ecosystems. And, objectively, humans are extremely destructive forces, both to every ecosystem into which they've expanded their range and to each other through excessive population density, wars, oppression, loss of frontier, and in many other ways.
This is simply another form of ecosystem imbalance; we kill lions, we use medicine to encourage unfit humans to survive and reproduce and intensive agriculture to produce many times more food than could be grown using natural methods. The effect is the same as with any other predator-prey imbalance: the prey animal populations expand far beyond the ecosystem's carrying capacity, leading to stress, disease, weakness, starvation, and numerous other ills among the prey population. Eventually the prey population is reduced dramatically as nature kills off huge numbers of unfit animals.
You're welcome to call me callous, but I choose not to cry for humans, African or otherwise.
I don't think you are alone in your perspective. But I do cry for humans. There is nothing more powerful that I know of then the human brain. The potential for humans to do destructive things is great but so is the potential to do incredibly positive things. I mourn that lost potential.
As far as humans vs. animals, its all part of the whole elite/Malthusian belief system that values only some people and regards most lower classes as little more than animals. Its sort of a 60s eco-warrior wildlife management mentality applied to human population.
That belief system is missing the reality of the similarity between individuals in different classes, the current trends which seem to actually aim toward inverted population movement, massive resource efficiency improvements possible with better application of technology to society, and the inherent value of human life vs. lower life (see ideas like the noosphere).
Is that people see other people as a competition for resources?
People are more socially capable than that, so I wouldn't look to such a base motivation first. Especially for people who don't deal with the scarcity of resources in day to day life. In general people are just taught to hate eachother.
Whether it's the countrymen of a foreign land when our government is mad at their government; or our next door neighbors that don't share the rigid political ideological of our favorite bloggers. We are taught to hate every single day.
I know what you mean but it really on extends to certain animals and only at certain times and only in certain cultures.
I think human life in general is held in higher regard than animal life by the majority of the humans on the planet if you really stop and think about it.
There's also PEPFAR which is notable for how many lives it has saved for Africans with HIV.
Still, I'm pretty sure that the average American neither knows nor cares about either program and wouldn't raise a finger if either went away. But they care a shitload about the lion.
Apparently they care enough s.t. a native Zimbabwean went out of his way to write an op-ed complaining about it, and the good people at the NY Times obliged themselves to publish it.
Honestly Zimbabwe has so many problems a lion dying is not a big issue. Hell Zimbabwe children were being tied up and set on fire a few months ago in South Africa[0].
the animals aren't yours or anybody else's. They belong to that planet which we just happen to share. Human race, having achieved the ability to destroy the planet's eco-sphere, thus got a duty of steward of the eco-sphere which it has been carrying poorly so far.
Anyway, killing big game this days is a serious mental sickness.
Big game hunting. Important words you dropped. And the reason it is a mental sickness is because they're not hunting for food or survival, they're hunting for the sake of destroying life.
You act as if these are inherently different. Things necessary for survival sometimes became pleasurable to do. This seems like just labeling behavior/desires one doesn't like as a mental illness.
> This seems like just labeling behavior/desires one doesn't like as a mental illness.
There is difference between desires and behavior. Inability to control desires resulting in a behavior intentionally damaging another sentient being(s) is a mental illness. Lack of empathy is a characteristic of psychopaths.
In which case, our over consumption of meat makes us a society of mostly psychopaths (not even counting the non-eating things vegans do that can harm animals).
I'm not to say you are fully without a point. Consider manual breeding of animals and what exactly is involved, which is done primarily for profit and which would be considered very anti-social behavior if done for more personal reasons. I dare say this is one place we are hypocritical as a society (compare treatment of dogs and pigs).
>our over consumption of meat makes us a society of mostly psychopaths
well, once the artificial meat comes into our life, only psychopaths would be consuming meat.
> (compare treatment of dogs and pigs)
things change. 10 years ago i was laughing at vegetarians, while since then i've stopped eating pork, beef, lamb, etc. because it is highly sentient beings. ( still eat poultry though. The day will come here too.)
>well, once the artificial meat comes into our life, only psychopaths would be consuming meat.
As a species, we have a well documented history of not going with scientific advancement and sticking to the old way. Also, why aren't they already psychopaths for eating pork (a very intelligent animal) when fowl and beans will provide them the needed nutrients?
>Also, why aren't they already psychopaths for eating pork (a very intelligent animal) when fowl and beans will provide them the needed nutrients?
Psychopathy is when injury/harm is caused intentionally. Most people just don't recognize what they are doing (in many situations they think it is acceptable to cause injuries to or to harm even fellow humans whom they value more than animals, and just 100 years ago it was ok to perform dissections on live animals without anesthesia). From my personal experience - it dawns slowly on you. I was a happy pork eater in the past. And at some point, when i really saw the intelligence of the animals (an amazing feeling by the way) - i have to credit my cat here, being among the most intelligent creatures i've met he taught me to see the intelligence of others - i backed off the mammals meat at least.
Homo Sapiens doesn't possess those built-in impulses. Some sick members of society imprint that it on some others (usually early in their life), and with society putting some effort into it, that bad habit will be exterminated.
judging by your other comments, talking about evidence you probably mean your personal experience. Well, by the same token one would expect that people dealing with rapists would with the same validity talk about such Homo Sapiens built-in impulse too.
Most definitions of mental illness, include, in one form or another, the question of whether the behaviour creates obstacles to live in a society. So, is it a mental illness or not, depends, by definition, on whether the society accepts this behaviour or not.
Cyanobacteria achieved the ability to destroy the ecosphere and actually did it, leading to one of the greatest mass extinctions in history.
Did they have the "duty of a steward" regarding the ecosphere?
No. Neither do humans. There is no such duty.
We would be wise to maintain an ecosphere we find livable and convenient. Possibly, even probably, this includes protecting natural diversity and endangered species. We don't have to, of course. Humans are organisms like any other and organisms often engage in behavior that leads to their eventual extinction. I personally would also prefer that we try to maintain 'natural' ecosystems and diversity as much as possible. But that is merely a preference.
In nature, might makes right. We're a part of nature like any other. Killing big game (even for recreation, not just for food), a human behavior that goes back hundreds of thousands of years, is certainly not a mental illness. It might be wise (if you have the preferences mentioned above) to institute laws and norms against engaging in that behavior, particularly towards vulnerable species, but that doesn't make it an illness.
>Cyanobacteria achieved the ability to destroy the ecosphere and actually did it, leading to one of the greatest mass extinctions in history.
>Did they have the "duty of a steward" regarding the ecosphere?
>No. Neither do humans. There is no such duty.
How about the alien civilization controlling our sector of the galaxy - do they have the stewardship duty, in particular not damping toxic waste onto our planet, not hunting us?
>In nature, might makes right.
until a species develops to the stage when it recognizes that "right" has different definition.
>Killing big game (even for recreation, not just for food), a human behavior that goes back hundreds of thousands of years, is certainly not a mental illness.
Mental illness is a deviation from reasonable behavior for the species. It may have been reasonable yesterday, and not hunting was sign of abnormality back then. Time change and species change with it. We left a lot of things in the past which today would be considered a sign of mental illness, like human sacrifice for example.
> How about the alien civilization controlling our sector of the galaxy - do they have the stewardship duty, in particular not damping toxic waste onto our planet, not hunting us?
No. I would certainly hope they don't hunt us or use Earth as a dump, but there is no duty for them to not do so, or some kind of inherent right enshrined in cosmic law for us to have undisturbed development.
> until a species develops to the stage when it recognizes that "right" has different definition.
There is no development towards some kind of ideal morality. That's a colossally egocentric view to take. I'd say it's even rather ethnocentric since there are some cultures who, generally speaking, have quite different views than you do.
> We left a lot of things in the past which today would be considered a sign of mental illness, like human sacrifice for example.
Did we really?
Perhaps the rituals and names have changed, but imaginary alien anthropologists would not see much difference between abortion, martyrdom, death penalties, mob killings, voluntary euthanasia, some kinds of homicide, and the kinds of human sacrifice that occurred in our past. To be sure we would make our excuses, but the peoples of the past who committed human sacrifice also did not consider it abnormal or wrong and sometimes were so convinced of their duty they volunteered themselves for sacrifice.
It's a pity there is so much confusion between 1) how foreigners reacted to the incident, 2) the problem of endangered species and violated habitats and 3) the poor situation of the locals. It seems nearly impossible to have a rational conversation about a damn lion while these three things aren't considered separately first. Yeah, I've tried to read the article's comments, my bad...
I've been trying for weeks to start an honest discussion on the Internet about a hunter's role in conservation. At almost every turn I get hit with the "he's a poacher" stick!
Can we just forget about the dentist? He's not a poacher! Maybe he's just a bad person?! No one really knows. But he's not a poacher.
/*
If you want to see what a poacher does and if you don't want to sleep for a few days then just ask me for a video of a live Rhino, suffering, with half it's face chainsawed off for his horn... (Brings me half to tears to just describe the video!)
*/
He's not what's important here. People are loving the animals that they care about to death. They're so against someone killing them that they're hurting the hunting, and in turn, the conservation industry.
One of the most beloved people on Earth, Nelson Mandela, hunted and described the benefits that hunting had on conversation: http://imgur.com/a/ZJ0QK
Nelson is cited for marketability, for the real numbers there are plenty of credible sources and institutions that'll provide the same information.
... Well except that Zimbabwe is trying to extradite the dentist for poaching. The lion was in a national park that brings in significant tourism dollars for the state, they quite literally were crying for this lion.
> Well except that Zimbabwe is trying to extradite the dentist for poaching.
FYI the author talked about this in the article as he also mentioned their president had a baby elephant slaughtered for his birthday.
> The lion was in a national park that brings in significant tourism dollars for the state, they quite literally were crying for this lion.
While I agree that it seems like the author is missing some perspective from the park / tourism side of things he did offer a different perspective I haven't read about. I'm sure someone from their parks service would have yet another perspective.
Still, it's good to hear about these types of issues from other perspectives for I fear of drowning in an echo-chamber that is American news.
It is way different having to kill a lion that is making life in your village miserable to having this foreigner come in and do it for "fun" disregarding the laws of your country. One thing doesn't excuse the other.
Having said that, he is right on " ... don’t offer me condolences about Cecil unless you’re also willing to offer me condolences for villagers killed ..."
I don't think there are many people who are upset about Cecil's killing that would not also mourn someone killed by a lion. The author's insinuation that we don't care about something we were never given the opportunity to care about is the worst kind of moral fallacy, and is entirely unfair.
True, you are right. But I disagree on "we were never given the opportunity to care about", horrible things have happened in Africa in the last few months that haven't received the same kind of interest from the public. That of course doesn't mean not to be upset about the lion, that I agree would be a fallacy.
The best way to turn me off of a cause is to see a bunch of people soapboxing on facebook/twitter. Regardless of whether or not I agree with Cecil the lion being hunted down, the internet mob is disgusting.
I find all these articles that try to compare and measure sympathy and emotion as pointless. People are comparing the outpouring of grief for Cecil to apathy towards human killings and inhuman treatment of animals in the meat industry. A person can be severely depressed if they lose a dog, and another can show no emotion when they lose a parent. You can't compare human emotion because it's not always rational.
In this specific case though, I would also argue given the declining numbers of lions, the anger is justified.
I tend to think that human emotion was not rational by definition (and by not rational I mean uncorrelated not negatively correlated). Of course "not rational" is not synonymous of bad or superfluous.
I grew up in small town in eastern part of India, where Tigers were rolling on the streets and wild elephants were more dangerous than any other animal. Just dont piss them off, that was told to anyone new in that area. My dad use to take me to elephant(trained off course) rides into the jungle(the real jungle) to watch tigers and all other wild animals. I started to enjoy it more and more. My uncle was a forest ranger and had a tiger cub, so I played with him every weekend or whenever I get a chance to visit him. One day I came to know a tiger was shot dead by "some guy" as kid I felt really bad, I was like "why kill a tiger for no reason?" I was more surprised when the local people were really sad about this. Like, they have develop some kind of affection to this animals, no matter how deadly they can be. An unspoken bond between the people and the wild animals. Off course the government was not going to investigate much about it, because of local corrupt officials. Officials were more concerned about food, jobs, education and medical facilities. Which took more highlight than the killing a tiger, which for majority of people in that locality was a big deal.
I live near Vancouver in BC. We still have large mammal wildlife, grizzly bears, black bears, Cougars. They are killed by park rangers or police if they become comfortable in the human world. You can also pay to go on grizzly hunting trips further north in the province. We have just as far to go as we want Zimbabwe too.
But just because it's the same here, and because there are worse things there, can't we just agree that culling these magnificent animals should be done by officials as the grim task it is, and not by rich for recreation?
Lions that attack villagers do have to be killed sadly, but why not embrace Eco tourism instead of trophy hunting for the ones that are not a threat?
Do Zimbabwe villagers live in denser cover? If so, maybe sport hunting increase the threat by forcing lions closer to villagers? That would add a bit of irony to the situation.
The frankly appalling discussion going on over at the nyt's comments section with first world environmentalists saying the author and the rest of that third world people should just "move to the city" without even the slightness sign of empathy towards people who make less in a year than what many nyt readers make in a day ironically reminds me of the attitude many far-right US nationals have regarding immigration. Basically most of them simply ignore the realities of the immigration process and honestly believe that people can just walk to the nearest US embassy and request a greencard and that the reason there are so many illegals its simply because they wont do that.
Of course even a glimpse at the US visa system shows that there is no such option, that many visas are just temporary and tied to employment or studies that will eventually end, and honestly the only real option left is to just marry a US citizen, an option which is already becoming more and more difficult. The far-right is unwilling to understand this and how if their grandfathers in the 20th century had been faced with these strict immigration rules they would been forced to return home and stay there when in reality many came here unannounced and uninvited, just as illegals do today.
Back to the lion issue, the problem with this line of thinking that rejects the idea that opinions from outside the US hold any value nor should be considered at all is that it doesn't solves the problem. Hunting in Zimbabwe, a dirt-poor country with a collapsed economy, its actually the only way some people have to make a living. US environmentalists much like the far-right don't share that problem with the other side and thus can afford the luxury of disregarding their suffering and even ask the foreigners for further sacrifices so they don't have to admit they were dead wrong.
No problem, you will cry for lions in the future, probably.
"Using the calculations of Hayward et al. (2007), biomass density of preferred lion prey in Gonarezhou national park was calculated... the protected area could support enough preys for between 115 and 357 lions.
... the 2014 census found 33 lions in the protected area.
Lions where positive only in the 5% of the points analyzed in the census.
For the Tuli Safari Area the scientific model predict a population of about 40 lions and the 2014 census found...
zero lions
Source: "Surveys of lions Panthera leo in protected areas in Zimbabwe yield disturbing results: what is driving
the population collapse?" Groom et al. 2014.
Models also predict that the park could support a population of Hyaena of 354 animals... 2014 census found between 400-490 hyaena in the national park instead.
This is hardly a surprise because is the same ecological rule for the whole freaking planet earth: Mesocarnivore liberation. Same that leads to the american coyote, and the english fox and the jackals now expanding to the west and reconquering Europe. You are bassically destroying the big fauna in cascade. A really expensive mistake.
> How many people in Zimbabwe can be fed for $25,000, the price of hunting a male lion?
This will depend on how many money and goats they have still after figthing the strange new hyaenas plague. And don't forget the bovine tuberculosis also.
Ok I have one idea, If we wipped the local lion pride we could kill also those 50 new hyaenas!.
(some months later) end of the hyaena problem, hum, how this new 500 jackals appeared?
Though I don't care much about the subject in general, I'm already tired of this backlash against the backlash. :/
However yes, we can be angry about the Cecil incident. It went viral for whatever reason, other incidents didn't. That's the nature of social media, you'll have to get used to it. No, we don't have to "fix" Zimbabwe or the world before being angry at one needless death, thanks.
The author's point about lions scaring villagers when he was young is interesting yet not a justification, these lions are now in a reserve and the species is now vulnerable, if not soon to be endangered.
Of course behind the words there is always the lingering self-serving idea that people are so much more important than our cousins in the animal kingdom. Well, guess what at 7 billion vs. 25k lions, which population could use a little thinning?
I'll never forget our tour guide in Zimbabwe saying his last paycheck before dollarization was 4 quadrillion Zimbabwean dollars. For a tour guide. So yeah, they might have bigger problems than Cecil the Lion.
Sure, there may have been much worse things happened in Zimbabwe than a beloved wildlife Cecil, but the fact that this event raises awareness about wildlife conservation is a BIG DEAL! [1]
Translation: "you imperialist westerners are out of touch, soft, and basically, anti-Africa (a stop short of 'racist'). How can you love a dangerous creature more than all us poor Africans"?
Because there are 7 billion of us on the planet and only 30k lions left. We have had it really good (including Zimbabwe in terms of population growth) for 150 years, yet we have decimated our kindred animals using excuses like "conservation" or "danger". This article takes an instinct that was relevant 300 years ago and shamelessly punts it into our modern age, circumstances having changed enormously, in order ultimately to push another agenda.
Still not really the issue though. People care plenty for Africans. But if he's got a new take on how we can deal with decades of government corruption without getting a whole lot more Africans killed in the process, everyone, everywhere, is all ears.
I duplicated your comment, making an opposite point. There's also http://www.pepfar.gov, one of Bush's (43) positive legacies. Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain that the average American does not think or care much about USAID or PEPFAR.
You could say though that USAID is not Americans, per se, but the American government caring about African people, and anyway it could also be raised that in relative terms not that much goes to foreign aid, and also that not all of it is employed solely for humanitarian reasons.
> You could say though that USAID is not Americans, per se, but the American government caring about African people,
I agree, and I thought of that before posting it, but the reality is, I assume I'm sending aid to Africa already. I imagine most American's assume that is the case as well. We may not know about USAID specifically, but we assume we are sending it. So, it's not something we need to get worked up over.
Most of Zimbabwe's problems are not America's fault, and quite frankly, there's not much we can do about them. But Cecil's corpse is our fault, because he was shot by an American dentist. People tend to care more when they feel implicated, and it's logical to care more when you can actually do something about it. It's easier to boycott the dentist than to hope for a coup that ousts Mugabe.
Humans are intelligent creatures and villagers killed are a result of encroaching the animals rightful land. There are no condolescence for those deaths caused by one's own mistake. Get out of the animals territory and fight for your survival with those other humans not with poor animals. There are only 3000 tigers left in the wild if a Bengal tiger kills a villager going inside their territory of sundar ban it's the fault of that human not tiger. Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans. This article shows the sick mentality of the people who thinks it's alright to encroach on other animals turf since it's easier. They are cowards not able to fight for survival with their own fellow human. There are no surrounding context in it. It's just talking about villagers encroaching lions rightful forest and pushing them to extinction.
>Here at least American's are being right to care about 3000 tigers or lions instead of over 7 billion humans.
Assuming the sale of 1 of those 7 billion could save N of those 3000, how big would N be before you support it? If need be, you don't need to pick the 1 at random but can select based on what ever criteria you desire.
