Not this specifically/when there's nothing you can do about it but in general.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The “why didn’t you help X animal” comments annoy me to no end
- Thread starter T-Virus
- Start date
Not this specifically/when there's nothing you can do about it but in general.
Trump delaying the recent stimulus bill is completely fine. If anyone's survival depends on not missing one unemployment check then they were already dead.
You have emotions, that's great. The issue is that in a situation like this you are deciding that the potential survival of one animal is more important than another. Why does the turtle get preferential treatment from your emotions?
So your empathy towards animals stops at carnivals? something they can't help being?
That kind of attitude is why many sharks are endangered. Sharks were portrayed as mean and nasty things who eat us, and got hunted to near extinction. Fuck that shit, keep your dumbass nose out of it and quit interfering in nature. As a species we interfere FAR too much already by destroying habitats and introducing species where they wouldn't normally be. Saw a news clip of a fisherman defending hunting sharks because they eat seals and dolphins, and those animals are cute. It was fucked up.
Do those idiots leaving those comments send hate to the makers of wildlife documentaries too? Predators gotta eat.
Do those idiots leaving those comments send hate to the makers of wildlife documentaries too? Predators gotta eat.
This idea that intervening is going to totally shatter the natural balance and condemn the shark to death seems hyperbolic to me. Not that I know anything, but it makes it sound like nature is something that exists apart from humans. Isn't a human using their brain and making an emotional decision to intervene also part of the natural order? Like obviously if your small dog was snatched by a coyote you wouldn't just be like "Aw shucks, I wouldn't want to upset nature here. That coyote has to eat too!" Why is it seen as natural for a human to intervene there, but choosing to intervene for a wild animal is upsetting the natural balance of things? It seems to me that humans making arbitrary distinctions and decisions about wild animals is also part of nature.
Also, here's a question for everybody set on uprooting the ecosystem. Are you out there stopping a turtle from eating insects and fish in situations where its now the predator?
If it's two wild animals, meh. Nature gonna nature.
If it's a domesticated animal, like a stray cat or dog, and it's being hunted or something and you opt to sit back and watch. You're trash. They dont know how to adequately provide for themself, and shouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
If it's a domesticated animal, like a stray cat or dog, and it's being hunted or something and you opt to sit back and watch. You're trash. They dont know how to adequately provide for themself, and shouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
The dog in that scenario is my family member and it's also been domesticated (i.e. we as humans have already ruined its chance of survival). Obviously, intervention in that situation makes sense.
Doesn't mean we need to add to it because a cuter animal might be eaten by a nasty old carnivore.
I'm having a hard time parsing everyone laughing off those who are feeling bad about this. Most sea turtles are endangered. Sharks can eat like, anything. I don't think I would've stepped in, and I don't expect the tiktokker to have done anything, but it's not horrible to wonder if something could have been done. If it were just like a grouper or a school of mackerel then whatever but sea turtles are a little different.
edit: Also, nature or not, I hate seeing videos of animals being killed. It's fucked up.
edit: Also, nature or not, I hate seeing videos of animals being killed. It's fucked up.
It's like some of you don't understand that observing and appreciating nature means you don't interfere with it.
There's a reason crew in nature documentaries don't interact to "save the baby gazelle from the cheetah". It does have consequences and a knock on impact.
There's a reason crew in nature documentaries don't interact to "save the baby gazelle from the cheetah". It does have consequences and a knock on impact.
Because it's the one that looks like it's immediate danger? If I see something getting attacked I'm not stopping to long term analyze how this would affect both animals. It's just in the moment, this animal looks like it needs help and I'd feel bad for it
Agreed, but talking about "nature" while we exterminate so many species for money or sport is weird.
We should just leave wild animals alone.
It's been a while since i've read such a dumb comment on Era.
I understand that people love animals, but sometimes you gotta use your brain.
To the shark, it's just its lunch.
Sea turtles are endangered because of our actions, so the counter point is that we have an obligation to step in and protect it... but, a lot of shark species are also endangered because of our actions. Inaction or action, we're more guilty as a species than just that one interaction.
Sure, we're guilty as a species for endangering most endangered species. Wouldn't you say that would obligate us to try and save those species? One by one or systemically, or otherwise?
If a person wants to interfere in a situation where a wild animal is trying to eat another wild animal, I mean, that's their choice, I guess. But it isn't an explicitly noble or moral act, because nature doesn't operate within the bounds of human thought and sentiment (which is also why I don't care when folks like Timothy Treadwell fuck around with predators and get eaten; we're animals too and still part of the food chain). Frankly it's hypocritical from the context of animal welfare- carnivores, especially obligate carnivores like sharks, have to eat, and eventually you're going to have to let it kill something if you actually give a damn. Prioritizing certain specimens' safety over any others before or after such an intervention is ultimately just a waste of yours and the predator's energy, energy that predator needs to properly hunt to live. As a result, going a step beyond to shame others for deciding not to interfere is legitimately juvenile, the peak of useless sentiment and fragility. Such people should save that trite concern for their fellow man- the poor, the sick, the destitute, and the oppressed who not only actually need your help and empathy, but can actually reciprocate it and perhaps turn around and help make the world just a little bit better for all, human and animal alike.
Saving prey from a predator is not a good way to treat animals though. So might be time to look in a mirror and judge your own character.
Sharks Endangered - Shark Facts and Information
Many types of sharks are at risk of becoming extinct which is why conservation efforts are in place. Keeping pollution and human food items out of the waters is
www.sharks-world.com
There are 470 species of sharks that are endangered, 20 close to extinction.
I would be sad for the turtle. I would be arrogantly sad I didn't do enough to save it from pain and terror (because I would most likely fail at any attempt to save a turtle in this situation). I would also be arrogantly projecting my system of morals and empathy on an ecological system that doesn't think about me at all. This arrogance is in my nature.
This too. People are acting like saving one turtle will doom the shark to certain death or something
You've got to kill the spiders to save the butterflies.
This is a quote from a series villain. Don't do this you clod.
I take your point about domesticated animals, but choosing to intervene and save the dog is something people do bc they have an emotional attachment to their pet, not bc they feel bad it's a domesticated animal. Saying it's a member of your family is just an arbitrary distinction made for the dog. We have an emotional attachment to dogs, so we say it's okay for us to make emotional decisions about them and intervene in a situation like that. I don't see how that's anymore justifiable than someone wanting to save the sea turtle because they thought it was cute. Humans intervening because they decide to for whatever reason is part of nature too.
Sea turtles arent endangered because they occasionally get eaten by sharks.
People should be wondering about protecting both species from an even worse predator: people.
Absolutely, but should we become arbiters of deciding the fate of the turtle and the shark? Do we have a right to?
On top of that, I consider myself an animal lover as well, and I think an argument can be made that it's animal cruelty to deprive the shark of its meal.
What I'm reacting to is this thread which seems like shaming people who would rather save the animal than let it be killed.
Would rather toss these people in with the hungry shark if they want to stop it from feeding itself so badly. Tiger Sharks eat turtles. Anyone interfering with predation regardless of your empathy is a fool, full stop. If you see other people messing with turtles, sure go for it. If you're saving your pet go for that too, but if it's a wild animal being eaten by its natural predator, there's no reason whatsoever to interfere with a predator hunting. I've seen these dumbass comments from people upset over Hyenas eating a Zebra alive and condemning the camera people from going out there to save the Zebra.
You think no one noticed this was from the anime Trigun, but Trigun is pretty mainstream.
On topic: absolutely amazed at all these armchair ecologists. The correct action is ALWAYS to not interfere with nature unless it's to correct a previous mistake caused by another person.
Examples when to interfere: when you see a duck that has its foot caught in plastic
When not: when a predator is hunting prey it would naturally.
Interfering in this situation is just as likely to kill or harm one or both of the animals AND risk your own life.
If I had to make a snap-decision I'd save the turtle, if it were feasible. No, we don't have a right to, yes, humans are responsible for fucking shit up. But that's at a scale much larger than me, saving a turtle. It's corporations and industry fucking up animals, not one person saving a turtle to live another day, forcing the shark to go find some other meal.
The point is that saving the turtle is essentially a morally neutral action and it's extremely silly to judge a person for not doing so.
It's ultimately not about the one shark. It's about the fact that a lot of misguided human intervention in nature, bleeding hearts "just trying to help," can at best, lead to the death of animals that become too dependent upon human kindness (see the numerous bears needing to be put down because people couldn't heed the "Do not feed" signs), or result in an upset in populations because people like those in this thread think sharks are bastards who deserve whatever is coming to them. Tons of shark populations are vulnerable and endangered too, and no one is shedding tears for them simply because they're not cute enough. Wildlife advocates emphasize as little contact with wild animals as possible. It's because we fuck shit up, regardless of our intentions. Yes, that deserves shaming.
