Oh, there's the internet gorilla behavior expert. Multiple gorilla experts have already stated that the gorilla was acting extremely agitated, and that the kid could have easily drowned or had his skull cracked open on a rock. Just because he was grabbing the kids hand, people think he was trying to be his bestie.
You conflated the two. Implying that the eu perspective is the European perspective. I called you out on it. Idk why I assumed you would get the point.
I think this was really sad how Harambe was killed, but I think they made the right choice to kill him. Tranquilizing him was not an option in my opinion, since they can take 7 minutes or more to take effect, and being tranquilized may of agitated Harambe even more, making it so he may of killed the boy. It is really sad how Harambe had to die because of people being stupid. The parents should of been watching their child more closely, and the zoo should have protected the enclosure more so a child couldn't get in it. But they did make the right choice to shoot him, as they most likely saved the child's live doing this, and we have to realize it's saving a human or saving a gorilla. Endangered or not, the human should come first.
Yes. The parent should have been thrown in by other parents for not jumping in to protect their child...i dont know hoe dumb you have to be to let your chuld jump a 15ft wall into a zoo exhibit but if you are you sure as hell better take your fat ass down there and try to save your damn kid. I know i couldnt stand there if my 4 year old wasi being beaten into a concrete wall by a gorilla.
The killing of Harambe is sad, but it was a obvious choice. A human life will always be chosen over a animal life. The parents are ultimately at fault and are responsible for the loss of the gorilla. Instead of discussing the death of Harambe, we need to ask the simple question: Why was Harambe caged in a zoo in the first place? We should question the ethics of zoos and the notion that animals can be caged (almost) purely for human entertainment.
Without knowing the full situation or being animal experts it's hard to come up with a solid answer to this question. I'll start off by saying there should not have been any way in which someone could have gotten into an enclosure at the zoo. Not by crawling. Not by climbing. Not by jumping. Not by opening a gate and wandering through. Not by squeezing through a hole or whatever else you can think of. Many people are calling to blame the parents. I can understand that. But think back to when you were child. Did your parents have eyes on you every second of every day? Did you ever get into places you weren't supposed to? Or if you have a child, think about them. Do you watch them every second of every day? Do they wait for you to turn around for a second and do something they're not supposed to? I doubt the parents looked a way in the hope their child would some how manage to try make friends with a gorilla. Perhaps the parents should have been keeping a closer eye on their child. That much I will admit. But unfortunately it was a freak accident. One of the worst accidents possible unfortunately. Parents get distracted by other kids, by someone saying something to them etc. Kids always wait for their parent to look away to do something silly. Can you honestly tell me that if you went up to your parent as a 3 year old or your child came up to you and said 'Mum/Dad I'm gunna get into the gorilla enclosure and say hello to the gorillas', you would believe them? You would take them to be 100% serious? Even if the child was being 100% serious they should NEVER have been able to get into the enclosure in the first place. The option to find a way should never have been there. Whether the child was watched constantly by a parent or whether they wandered around on their own, they should never have been able to get in. So should Harambe have been shot? There is no black and white answer. Humans are the superior species. Like it or not it is the way it is. As long as that is the case, the people calling the shots, will always put a human life in front of an animals one. I've looked at a few articles on this topic and there's two alternate views. Some experts say Harambe exhibited aggressive behaviour and killing the animal was the right thing to do. Others have said if Harambe was only investigating the child. As the leader of the group he was curious and had he wanted to kill the child, it would already have been dead. Given the competing views on the matter I decided to do some quick research on gorillas. From what I've found, if a gorilla perceived a threat to his family/group he will beat on his chest, scream, bare his teeth and charge at the threat. They are actually shy animals who aim to protect. The leader of the troops makes the decisions and keeps them safe. I can't imagine a 3 year old posed much of a threat to a 200kg gorilla and I don't believe he ever beat on his chest. He pulled him around a little which appeared to be an attempt to get him away from the screaming humans. But alas, I digress, I am not an animal or behavioural expert. I don't believe there is a right ot wrong in the situation. The zoo tried to make the best decision possible with the information they had. I imagine they had to act fast. Ultimately they'd have rathered the blood of a gorilla on their hands and not one of a humans, as sad and unfortunate as it may be. I hope this never happens again. A child should never have been able to gain any access in the first place and I hope the zoo will be held accountable for that at least. I'd be interested in seeing what other options the zoo considered first. On a side note this reminds of the case of Binti Jua. In 1996 a 3 year old squeezed through a barrier at the Brookefield Zoo in Illinois into the gorilla enclosure. Binti Jua picked up the toddler, cradled him and carried him over to the zookeepers. A very different outcome to Harambe.
And your alternative is? Cage the different humans instead ? Honestly do you think before you write ? If there weren't any zoos what would be next....field museums ? They discriminate the dino bones there.
Why do we need to cage up animals for our entertainment? It's 2016. There are plenty other forms of entertainment out there rather than caging up an animal and having humans ogle at them, bang on their cages and apparently now fall into their enclosures. We don't need to cage animals for our own entertainment. The only time an animal should be kept in captivity is when they are barely any of them left in the wild and we are trying to breed more of their species. And possibly for scientific purposes such as to learn and understand them biologically and behaviorally.
When did the animal kingdom take the human race over in the past? Planet of the apes was a movie not a history lesson
Don't go to the zoo. You'll hate it. Go to the farmers market and pretend you are buying organic food instead.
I've been to the zoo. Several times. Like most of us have. And while it's fun as a kid and it's interesting learning about them and seeing animals you would not normally be able to see in person, it's actually really cruel. There's no need for it. I'll ask again. Why do we need to cage up animals for our entertainment?
What makes human life (in general) far superior? We (in general) destroy our own planet and race on a much larger scale than any living creature we have discovered. Now I understand that a family member's life could be weighed more heavily than an animal you've truly never interacted with, but think about this. If a full grown man (that you dont know)was dragging hitting or stomping on a baby gorrilla, how would that make u feel?
It is a tragedy what happened to Harambe. Killing him decreased his species population by .12% If left alone there is a chance he could have harmed the kid or killed him. But that would decrease the human population by only .0000000135% Yes the kid could grow up to be the next great ___. But let's face it, it's doubtful the kid will ever accomplish much notable in the overall scope of the world. I don't challenge they had to kill the gorilla. If it was my job on the line I probably would have too. However, when the kid says he wants to go into the gorilla's enclosure, and then does so, you have to wonder how his mother allows that to happen. In this case, Harambe's life is far more (monetarily) valuable than the kids. He is part of a dying breed, and offers much more genetic value due to his rarity. It speaks volumes that Harambe died while the kid escaped unharmed, due to the negligence of the kid's parents, and their inability to ensure their child's safety. We out number the silverback almost 10,000,000 to 1. Yet at the rate we are going it looks like in the future they maybe just another animal that only exists in books. I'm not saying tthe kid should have been left for dead... But his parents should be held accountable for his actions.
Humans value their life as more important because we are the dominant species. We can argue that it's wrong or whatever but it is what it is. As long as humans hold the power over other species, we will be the dominant ones. Interesting analogy. I would say that would be considered animal cruelty. But I imagine there would be less outrage in such a situation. Shooting the human wouldn't even cross peoples minds. I agree with some of this but not all of it. The zoo should be held accountable because no person should have been able to find their way into an enclosure (bar from doing something stupid like managing to smash glass or brining a ladder with you). It's interesting you say 'allow that to happen' about the mother. Do you realise how many different things kids say? One day they wanna be an astronaut. The next a princess. The next a soccer player. You get the picture. Can you honestly tell me you'd take your child seriously if they said they wanted to go meet the gorilla? You'd probably either brush it off or tell them they can't do that. No matter whether she could or couldn't have stopped him, that kid should never have been able to find a way in. That is on the zoo. Now I'm not saying the mother shouldn't have been keeping a close eye on her child. She should be. But all it takes is one split second for a child to do something stupid. How the child managed to get in there in the first place, irrespective of whether the mother could have stopped it or not, is the problem. When you enter a zoo you enter into a contract and assume the zoo is safe and secure. The zoo failed to keep the child secure and they failed to protect an endangered species. As negligent as the mother may have been, there should not have been any way into the enclosure.
Wth are you rambling about ? There are no animals on this planet that out way human life. Humans first