Not this specifically/when there's nothing you can do about it but in general.
If its survival depends on eating this single turtle, it's already dead.
I just think this is kind of a ...removed take to have. It's like "logically, it's just the food chain, why does it matter?" But like... these are still horrible things to be witnessing so it makes sense people would want to help. I mean we have emotions/feelings we aren't just cold logic.
Not this specifically/when there's nothing you can do about it but in general.
I guess people are ok with fucking up the food chain for no reason.
One of the dumbest takes I've ever readI judge a person's character primarily by how they treat animals.
If you have an opportunity to save a living being from death and you don't take it and instead opt to get some TikTok likes, then meh, you deserve to get some shit over it.
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.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.
Doesn't mean we need to add to it because a cuter animal might be eaten by a nasty old carnivore.
You would risk your life trying to steal a shark's meal?I judge a person's character primarily by how they treat animals.
If you have an opportunity to save a living being from death and you don't take it and instead opt to get some TikTok likes, then meh, you deserve to get some shit over it.
Obviously, you jump in the water and just.......how exactly would someone prevent a shark from eating a turtle?
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?
Doesn't mean we need to add to it because a cuter animal might be eaten by a nasty old carnivore.
I judge a person's character primarily by how they treat animals.
If you have an opportunity to save a living being from death and you don't take it and instead opt to get some TikTok likes, then meh, you deserve to get some shit over it.
So your empathy towards animals stops at carnivals? something they can't help being?
To the shark, it's just its lunch.If it were just like a grouper or a school of mackerel then whatever but sea turtles are a little different.
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?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.
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.I just think this is kind of a ...removed take to have. It's like "logically, it's just the food chain, why does it matter?" But like... these are still horrible things to be witnessing so it makes sense people would want to help. I mean we have emotions/feelings we aren't just cold logic.
I judge a person's character primarily by how they treat animals.
If you have an opportunity to save a living being from death and you don't take it and instead opt to get some TikTok likes, then meh, you deserve to get some shit over it.
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.
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.
Maybe convincing the shark to be vegan is the correct action.I judge a person's character primarily by how they treat animals.
If you have an opportunity to save a living being from death and you don't take it and instead opt to get some TikTok likes, then meh, you deserve to get some shit over it.
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.
Sea turtles arent endangered because they occasionally get eaten by sharks.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.
Absolutely, but should we become arbiters of deciding the fate of the turtle and the shark? Do we have a right to?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?
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.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.
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.
You think no one noticed this was from the anime Trigun, but Trigun is pretty mainstream.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.
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.Absolutely, but should we become arbiters of deciding the fate of the turtle and the shark? Do we have a right to?
This too. People are acting like saving one turtle will doom the shark to certain death or something
What I'm reacting to is this thread which seems like shaming people who would rather save the animal than let it be killed.
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.This too. People are acting like saving one turtle will doom the shark to certain death or something
...how exactly would someone prevent a shark from eating a turtle?