This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
India award for burning elephant photo - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-41899103
I look at this and wish the human race was wiped out now, forever.
I look at this and wish the human race was wiped out now, forever.
22
3
6
2
7
1
2
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Awful image , conflict between elephants and rural communities commonly result in human casualties, it maybe that this is part of that conflict, difficult to see where big animals fit in a world of 7 billion humans.
Grim
Awful image , conflict between elephants and rural communities commonly result in human casualties, it maybe that this is part of that conflict, difficult to see where big animals fit in a world of 7 billion humans.
Grim
6
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Tragic. I understand the locals' fear & dislike of elephants if they've killed villagers (Europeans did the same to the wolf), but you'd hope a country like India would be able to formulate and implement a sympathetic solution.
> India award for burning elephant photo - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-41899103
Tragic. I understand the locals' fear & dislike of elephants if they've killed villagers (Europeans did the same to the wolf), but you'd hope a country like India would be able to formulate and implement a sympathetic solution.
5
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I cant muster the words. It breaks my heart on so many levels.
I remember a case I read about 20 years ago of a young, brilliant man in his early twenties who ended his life, not because of a bad upbringing or abuse but because he could no longer deal wih the world's suffering. I look at this and wish that I could end all my senses so that I no longer have to deal with it.
Nature evolves to live in harmony with its surroundings. Why do humans abuse and destroy everything. I long to have silence so that I dont have images like this implanted in my mind, which I cant now forget.
> Awful image , conflict between elephants and rural communities commonly result in human casualties, it maybe that this is part of that conflict, difficult to see where big animals fit in a world of 7 billion humans.
> Grim
I cant muster the words. It breaks my heart on so many levels.
I remember a case I read about 20 years ago of a young, brilliant man in his early twenties who ended his life, not because of a bad upbringing or abuse but because he could no longer deal wih the world's suffering. I look at this and wish that I could end all my senses so that I no longer have to deal with it.
Nature evolves to live in harmony with its surroundings. Why do humans abuse and destroy everything. I long to have silence so that I dont have images like this implanted in my mind, which I cant now forget.
6
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You can do stuff to make things better, go save something, doesn't have to be as big as elephant,chin up crack on, need help pm me
You can do stuff to make things better, go save something, doesn't have to be as big as elephant,chin up crack on, need help pm me
15
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You have succumbed to the naturalistic fallacy, I'm afraid. One passage extracted from 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins), is particularly haunting, and touches on suffering and conflict:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored".
Don't lose sight of the fact that you clearly have empathy. You can do good things. You are not powerless.
> Nature evolves to live in harmony with its surroundings. Why do humans abuse and destroy everything. I long to have silence so that I dont have images like this implanted in my mind, which I cant now forget.
You have succumbed to the naturalistic fallacy, I'm afraid. One passage extracted from 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins), is particularly haunting, and touches on suffering and conflict:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored".
Don't lose sight of the fact that you clearly have empathy. You can do good things. You are not powerless.
Post edited at 22:13
26
In reply to Shani:
I understand this, as a fan of RD. The organisms you describe, however (with the possible exception of orca and suchlike), do this not from pleasure or recrimination but from genetic survival and necessity.
We are observing a baying crowd, throwing sticky burning material at a baby and its mother because they needed to eat. The material is in flame, stuck to the baby which must be in horrendous pain, with an intelligent mother helpless to intervene. The crowd cheers and delight in the suffering. I nearly puked when I saw it.
We have a choice, we are too numerous and exact destruction on species which gets in our way.
> You have succumbed to the naturalistic fallacy, I'm afraid. One passage extracted from 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins), is particularly haunting, and touches on suffering and conflict:
> "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored".
> Don't lose sight of the fact that you clearly have empathy. You can do good things. You are not powerless.
I understand this, as a fan of RD. The organisms you describe, however (with the possible exception of orca and suchlike), do this not from pleasure or recrimination but from genetic survival and necessity.
We are observing a baying crowd, throwing sticky burning material at a baby and its mother because they needed to eat. The material is in flame, stuck to the baby which must be in horrendous pain, with an intelligent mother helpless to intervene. The crowd cheers and delight in the suffering. I nearly puked when I saw it.
We have a choice, we are too numerous and exact destruction on species which gets in our way.
Post edited at 22:21
13
In reply to Shani:
I'm not being an arse, at least not deliberately, but...what do you mean by "a country like India", in this context? Genuinely curious, not being provocative etc.
> but you'd hope a country like India
I'm not being an arse, at least not deliberately, but...what do you mean by "a country like India", in this context? Genuinely curious, not being provocative etc.
1
In reply to John Kelly:
Yes mate!
> You can do stuff to make things better, go save something, doesn't have to be as big as elephant,chin up crack on, need help pm me
Yes mate!
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Do something about it then! Chuck some cash at an elephant charity, or volunteer close to home at an animal sanctuary. You are not responsible for all the world's suffering - that's too big a burden for anybody. You can't control the chaos.
You can control what your contribution is.
Living with hope and positive energy, that's what you need.
Cheers,
BB
Do something about it then! Chuck some cash at an elephant charity, or volunteer close to home at an animal sanctuary. You are not responsible for all the world's suffering - that's too big a burden for anybody. You can't control the chaos.
You can control what your contribution is.
Living with hope and positive energy, that's what you need.
Cheers,
BB
5
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Hey, no problem Blue. A mean a country with great wealth, a highly educated population, a space program, and a developed tourist industry.
My clumsy phraseology arises from the fact that i know that wealth, education and tourism are not evenly distributed across the country - so not sure how they apply specifically to the region in question.
> I'm not being an arse, at least not deliberately, but...what do you mean by "a country like India", in this context? Genuinely curious, not being provocative etc.
Hey, no problem Blue. A mean a country with great wealth, a highly educated population, a space program, and a developed tourist industry.
My clumsy phraseology arises from the fact that i know that wealth, education and tourism are not evenly distributed across the country - so not sure how they apply specifically to the region in question.
6
In reply to Shani:
Your passage from Dawkins is absolutely right, of course. However, it is also the case that, in covering so much of the planet and exploiting so many ecosystems so completely, humans really aren't part of any balanced ecosphere any more. It is also true, and this is more pertinent to the baker's distress, that humans, in their supremely advanced exploitation are able to dish out stress and suffering in a way which is also rather 'unnatural'. Most animals live 'on the edge', in some sense, most of the time but their stress responses are not in continuously heightened states. The more humans interact with wildlife (and domestic animals much more so, of course), the more they raise the stress on both organisms (in a physiological sense) and ecosystems (in a more general sense). The elephants are subject to the laws of nature, no doubt, but without human-animal conflict they wouldn't automatically experience all the same stressors with such frequency.
Your passage from Dawkins is absolutely right, of course. However, it is also the case that, in covering so much of the planet and exploiting so many ecosystems so completely, humans really aren't part of any balanced ecosphere any more. It is also true, and this is more pertinent to the baker's distress, that humans, in their supremely advanced exploitation are able to dish out stress and suffering in a way which is also rather 'unnatural'. Most animals live 'on the edge', in some sense, most of the time but their stress responses are not in continuously heightened states. The more humans interact with wildlife (and domestic animals much more so, of course), the more they raise the stress on both organisms (in a physiological sense) and ecosystems (in a more general sense). The elephants are subject to the laws of nature, no doubt, but without human-animal conflict they wouldn't automatically experience all the same stressors with such frequency.
8
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: .
Yeah, i get you. It is horribly cruel. I don't mean to downplay it.
> We are observing a baying crowd, throwing sticky burning material at a baby and its mother because they needed to eat. The material is in flame, stuck to the baby which must be in horrendous pain, with an intelligent mother helpless to intervene. The crowd cheers and delight in the suffering. I nearly puked when I saw it.
Yeah, i get you. It is horribly cruel. I don't mean to downplay it.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It's lucky that we live in the more civilised western world where we have accepted that we need to live alongside wildlife without unecessary, cruel or illegal persecutions.
Unless you count foxes, badgers, hen Harriers, peregrines etc.....
It's lucky that we live in the more civilised western world where we have accepted that we need to live alongside wildlife without unecessary, cruel or illegal persecutions.
Unless you count foxes, badgers, hen Harriers, peregrines etc.....
18
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It is all too easy to condemn this outright from the comfort of our western homes from which we can go about our daily business without fear of losing our livelihood or lives to wild animals (our ancestors long ago wiped out the animals which competed for space with us). The video linked to the picture says that 1400 people have been killed by elephants in India since 2013 along with the 100 elephants killed by people. Obviously the suffering of the elephants is horrible but I think it is possible to have some understanding of the peoples' actions - they are not just doing it for a laugh. As so often things are too complicated for a knee jerk reaction and solutions are not entirely obvious.
> I look at this and wish the human race was wiped out now, forever.
It is all too easy to condemn this outright from the comfort of our western homes from which we can go about our daily business without fear of losing our livelihood or lives to wild animals (our ancestors long ago wiped out the animals which competed for space with us). The video linked to the picture says that 1400 people have been killed by elephants in India since 2013 along with the 100 elephants killed by people. Obviously the suffering of the elephants is horrible but I think it is possible to have some understanding of the peoples' actions - they are not just doing it for a laugh. As so often things are too complicated for a knee jerk reaction and solutions are not entirely obvious.
11
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes it it very easy to condemn the torture of a infant wild animal through the sticking of burning tar to its body whilst a laughing and baying crowd looks on doing nothing in the same way that I would condemn it of any other animal. 1400 people may have sadly been killed by elephants but I can assure you that this would have been a spooked creature and not a malicious one. It would have been a hungry creature, not one hell bent on revenge. There is not one single justification for these actions, which are apparently commonplace and I have no sympathy for the plight of these people if this is their reaction. Not one.
> It is all too easy to condemn this outright from the comfort of our western homes from which we can go about our daily business without fear of losing our livelihood or lives to wild animals (our ancestors long ago wiped out the animals which competed for space with us). The video linked to the picture says that 1400 people have been killed by elephants in India since 2013 along with the 100 elephants killed by people. Obviously the suffering of the elephants is horrible but I think it is possible to have some understanding of the peoples' actions - they are not just doing it for a laugh. As so often things are too complicated for a knee jerk reaction and solutions are not entirely obvious.
Yes it it very easy to condemn the torture of a infant wild animal through the sticking of burning tar to its body whilst a laughing and baying crowd looks on doing nothing in the same way that I would condemn it of any other animal. 1400 people may have sadly been killed by elephants but I can assure you that this would have been a spooked creature and not a malicious one. It would have been a hungry creature, not one hell bent on revenge. There is not one single justification for these actions, which are apparently commonplace and I have no sympathy for the plight of these people if this is their reaction. Not one.
14
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Doing what we have always done.
Human invasion of a new part of the world is directly correlated with the disappearance of large fauna.
Read "Sapiens".
Doing what we have always done.
Human invasion of a new part of the world is directly correlated with the disappearance of large fauna.
Read "Sapiens".
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Wonder how many humans have been killed by cars in India in the same period?
Wonder how many humans have been killed by cars in India in the same period?
6
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Obviously. But, to understand the situation I think you need to imagine putting yourself in the position of a poor villager whose crops, house, livelihood and family are being directly threatened by large, dangerous animals and want to be rid of them.
Don't get me wrong; I think elephants are wonderful creatures deserving of proper protection.
> I can assure you that this would have been a spooked creature and not a malicious one. It would have been a hungry creature, not one hell bent on revenge.
Obviously. But, to understand the situation I think you need to imagine putting yourself in the position of a poor villager whose crops, house, livelihood and family are being directly threatened by large, dangerous animals and want to be rid of them.
Don't get me wrong; I think elephants are wonderful creatures deserving of proper protection.
Post edited at 09:21
4
2
In reply to Shani:
"I mean a country with great wealth....", not "A mean a country with great wealth....."!
> Hey, no problem Blue. A mean a country with great wealth, a highly educated population, a space program, and a developed tourist industry.
> My clumsy phraseology arises from the fact that i know that wealth, education and tourism are not evenly distributed across the country - so not sure how they apply specifically to the region in question.
"I mean a country with great wealth....", not "A mean a country with great wealth....."!
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Based on what do you make that assurance? Some idea that humans can be malicious but mere animals aren't capable? Elephants are smart and dangerous. What we've got here is a conflict between two animal species over food. If you don't have a crowd of people shouting the elephants aren't scared, with that they're pretty brave and just shouting isn't enough. They don't run away, they charge. Should the people just run, let the elephants eat all of their food, and then starve?
It's horrible to our eyes, where we have no concerns over food and a nice comfortable life, life isn't like that for everyone. Try and have some empathy for the people, as well as for the elephants.
> Yes it it very easy to condemn the torture of a infant wild animal through the sticking of burning tar to its body whilst a laughing and baying crowd looks on doing nothing in the same way that I would condemn it of any other animal. 1400 people may have sadly been killed by elephants but I can assure you that this would have been a spooked creature and not a malicious one.
Based on what do you make that assurance? Some idea that humans can be malicious but mere animals aren't capable? Elephants are smart and dangerous. What we've got here is a conflict between two animal species over food. If you don't have a crowd of people shouting the elephants aren't scared, with that they're pretty brave and just shouting isn't enough. They don't run away, they charge. Should the people just run, let the elephants eat all of their food, and then starve?
> It would have been a hungry creature, not one hell bent on revenge. There is not one single justification for these actions, which are apparently commonplace and I have no sympathy for the plight of these people if this is their reaction. Not one.
It's horrible to our eyes, where we have no concerns over food and a nice comfortable life, life isn't like that for everyone. Try and have some empathy for the people, as well as for the elephants.
7
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
Not as smart and not nearly as dangerous as us.
> Elephants are smart and dangerous.
Not as smart and not nearly as dangerous as us.
9
In reply to Shani:
It is a very upsetting picture, and I am appalled. However having been to India and seen the poverty people live in there, Maslows Hierachy is brought to mind, so I am not surprised that more is not being done.
I wonder how this fits in with Hinduism, I could not imagine them treating a Cow like this.
> Tragic. I understand the locals' fear & dislike of elephants if they've killed villagers (Europeans did the same to the wolf), but you'd hope a country like India would be able to formulate and implement a sympathetic solution.
It is a very upsetting picture, and I am appalled. However having been to India and seen the poverty people live in there, Maslows Hierachy is brought to mind, so I am not surprised that more is not being done.
I wonder how this fits in with Hinduism, I could not imagine them treating a Cow like this.
Post edited at 10:12
1
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
It's also easy for us to condemn when we have, to some degree, offshored our need for habitat destruction.
Would be interesting to get the mob's views in a bit more detail than a sentence. If their existence is no less tenuous than that of the Pachys, perhaps they really are in direct conflict. Still can't get my head around how anyone could do something like that and not feel horror though.
> Unless you count foxes, badgers, hen Harriers, peregrines etc.....
It's also easy for us to condemn when we have, to some degree, offshored our need for habitat destruction.
Would be interesting to get the mob's views in a bit more detail than a sentence. If their existence is no less tenuous than that of the Pachys, perhaps they really are in direct conflict. Still can't get my head around how anyone could do something like that and not feel horror though.
1
In reply to David Martin:
Have you watched the video linked at the bottom of the article?
They clearly are.
> Would be interesting to get the mob's views in a bit more detail than a sentence.
Have you watched the video linked at the bottom of the article?
> If their existence is no less tenuous than that of the Pachys, perhaps they really are in direct conflict.
They clearly are.
In reply to Robert Durran:
No, should I be afraid? I felt deeply uncomfortable just seeing the pictures more than once.
I meant the question to query the degree of conflict. If an elephant rampaged through my vege patch I'd rightly be miffed and could point to conflict. But if I'm a subsistence farmer, and that vege patch is my season's poverty line income, then the conflict is a bit more real. Its a bit hard to tell from the article, but I suspect somewhere in between. My grandfather would probably happily have killed any insect or animal that chomped his tomato vines.
> Have you watched the video linked at the bottom of the article?
No, should I be afraid? I felt deeply uncomfortable just seeing the pictures more than once.
> They clearly are.
I meant the question to query the degree of conflict. If an elephant rampaged through my vege patch I'd rightly be miffed and could point to conflict. But if I'm a subsistence farmer, and that vege patch is my season's poverty line income, then the conflict is a bit more real. Its a bit hard to tell from the article, but I suspect somewhere in between. My grandfather would probably happily have killed any insect or animal that chomped his tomato vines.
In reply to David Martin:
The video features people whose relatives went to work and were killed by elephants and people whose houses were destroyed by elephants (as well as scenes of people chasing off elephants). Seems like serious conflict to me.
The video features people whose relatives went to work and were killed by elephants and people whose houses were destroyed by elephants (as well as scenes of people chasing off elephants). Seems like serious conflict to me.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Very few. Many more humans are killed by drivers.
> Wonder how many humans have been killed by cars in India in the same period?
Very few. Many more humans are killed by drivers.
2
1
http://www.businessinsider.com/humans-dominate-earths-land-mammals-2014-3?IR=T
Scrolling to the 1 minute mark in this video shows how humans used to be 1% of worldwide mammal weight and now wild mammals are just 1% of the total.
https://www.populationmatters.org/families-planet-video-news/
Loss of living space seems to be the main cause of loss of wildlife, putting wild animals in conflict with encroaching people.
Post edited at 20:58
In reply to Robert Durran:
Serious conflict indeed. But could they have not shot the elephant/elephants that caused the issue, rather than taking this action?
Grim.
Serious conflict indeed. But could they have not shot the elephant/elephants that caused the issue, rather than taking this action?
Grim.
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
'Nature evolves to live in harmony with its surroundings'
This story seems pretty grim but frankly you could not be more wrong.
To quote Dawkins, 'the amount of suffering in the world is beyond decent contemplation.' As you read this, thousands - probably millions - of animals are dying in varying levels of pain and terror. That is the reality of nature.
'Nature evolves to live in harmony with its surroundings'
This story seems pretty grim but frankly you could not be more wrong.
To quote Dawkins, 'the amount of suffering in the world is beyond decent contemplation.' As you read this, thousands - probably millions - of animals are dying in varying levels of pain and terror. That is the reality of nature.
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I agree, the planet would b far better off without us !
Go on don, drop it
I agree, the planet would b far better off without us !
Go on don, drop it
1
1
In reply to steve taylor:
That would kill them, and it's all elephants that cause the issue not specific ones. They're trying to scare them off, it might look bad but it's better than killing them all.
> Serious conflict indeed. But could they have not shot the elephant/elephants that caused the issue, rather than taking this action?
That would kill them, and it's all elephants that cause the issue not specific ones. They're trying to scare them off, it might look bad but it's better than killing them all.
1
In reply to steve taylor:
Maybe they don't have legal access to guns and it might not solve the problem anyway; maybe the tactics they do use are those they have found most effective in scaring off whole herds so they don't come back. It sounds like they are unimpressed with the way government are dealing with the issue so have had to take the matter into their own hands. Anyway, I'm sure it's far from a black and white issue.
> Serious conflict indeed. But could they have not shot the elephant/elephants that caused the issue, rather than taking this action?
Maybe they don't have legal access to guns and it might not solve the problem anyway; maybe the tactics they do use are those they have found most effective in scaring off whole herds so they don't come back. It sounds like they are unimpressed with the way government are dealing with the issue so have had to take the matter into their own hands. Anyway, I'm sure it's far from a black and white issue.
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Would you like to be the first in rank together with your most loved ones?
I would never do anythink like it to an animal so why do you wish me annihilation?
> I look at this and wish the human race was wiped out now, forever.
Would you like to be the first in rank together with your most loved ones?
I would never do anythink like it to an animal so why do you wish me annihilation?
1
The problem could have been a lot smaller if good family planning had been made available in India forty years ago.
There were 650 million fewer people there then.
It takes a lot of land to support 650 million people. They have occupied most of the land which used to be habitat for wildlife.
Post edited at 18:54
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...