5 ms·

It's typical. My theory is the average person doesn't cognitively absorb the human suffering because there's more guilt associated with it.

XorNot 11y ago
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.
- buckbova 11y ago
  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.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >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.
  - thinkpad20 11y ago
    > 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.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >I doubt that hunting parties care particularly 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.)

XorNot 11y ago

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.

buckbova 11y ago
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.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>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.
- thinkpad20 11y ago
  > 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.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I doubt that hunting parties care particularly 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.)