8 ms·

I wouldn't have any problem with tigers going extinct in the wild. From Wikipedia: "The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that

by mrob 8y ago

I wouldn't have any problem with tigers going extinct in the wild. From Wikipedia: "The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009, the majority of these attacks occurring in South and Southeast Asia.[1] Over the last five centuries, an estimated 1 million people have been eaten by tigers.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_attack

vixen99 8y ago
No problem at all! So put tigers at the top of your list and work slowly but surely down the the list of 'nasty' animals and plants. Doubtless we can eliminate the whole damn lot if we really try. You'll be a hero! Or maybe not.
- mrob 8y ago
  I'd put malaria carrying mosquitoes at the top of the list, not tigers. The concept of a tiger is an important part of human culture, and it would be a pity if nobody could see a real one, but they breed in captivity, so people can see them in zoos. It's easy to romanticize the idea of "wild tigers" when they live far from you, and you're at no risk of one eating you or your livestock. Humans killed most wild tigers for good reason.
  - Tushon 8y ago
    Would you say the same thing about wolves, re the wolves returning to Yellowstone? https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc...
    - mrob 8y ago
      I oppose the reintroduction of any large predator. The ecosystem benefits can be met by human hunters instead, and if they are skilled they can kill more humanely than wild predators. That said, wolves are much less dangerous than tigers, so I'm not too concerned by that specific case. To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free?
      - Retra 8y ago
        Tigers don't eat humans because tigers roam free, they eat humans because humans roam free. Build a fence around your town and tigers won't eat you. Don't try to build such a general argument on such marginal premises. Humans kill far more humans that Tigers ever have. Tigers are simply not a serious threat to us.
      - opwieurposiu 8y ago
        Well considering the problems caused by human overpopulation, I think we need to release enough tigers to eat about 100million humans a year.
      - quantum_magpie 8y ago
        >To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free? All of them.
        xupybd 8y ago
        Really you’d wipe out the entire human race to see tigers remain in the wild? That’s an odd hypothetical but do you really stand by it or am I missing something.
  - 0xcafecafe 8y ago
    A lot of deaths can be attributed to humans encroaching upon the tiger's territory. If you condone tiger killing due to that then we can extrapolate that to any carnivore capable of killing humans because eventually we do like to take over their land.
    - mrob 8y ago
      To suggest that tigers can own land is a valid argument, but it's a minority opinion. Most people limit animal rights to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty. Vegans are a tiny minority of the world population, and if it's morally acceptable to enslave and kill animals for food (which is unnecessary for human survival), why can't we kill them for safety reasons?
  - 0xcafecafe 8y ago
    Most wild tigers in India were killed for sport under the colonial rule not a good enough reason if you ask me (Thats how the Indian cheetah went extinct as well).
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    Human beings have become destructive apex predators. In nature, apex predators.. even though they are keystone species...have an impact on prey density and regulation of the eco system. They do not destroy the very system that sustains them. Human beings are not supposed to be apex predators but we have taken over that role without embracing the intricacies of the responsibilities involved with it.
honkycat 8y ago
Such a low, ignorant comment. You are fine with tigers going extinct because 2,000 people a year, a MINUSCULE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, for the last 200 years die from tiger attacks? I'm sorry to say you are probably going to get your wish, you dolt. Someday it will just be us and the shopping malls and you can continue to sit inside all day. How many tigers are killed by humans so we can display their skin and eat their flesh for magical purposes?
- mrob 8y ago
  I said "extinct in the wild", not completely extinct. Tigers are popular zoo animals (partly because they're so dangerous), and they will breed in captivity. If things are so bad that even captive tigers go extinct then we have bigger problems to worry about.
  - quantum_magpie 8y ago
    Would you agree to spend your entire life in a prison for no reason? Zoos are incredibly horrible place for animals to live in, and any animal found only in zoo is as good as extinct, since they are no longer able to sustain themselves outside, should they escape the prison.
    - mrob 8y ago
      If I was severely brain damaged to the point where I had tiger-like intelligence and self-awareness, I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life in a well managed but limited environment. A well managed zoo is not a horrible place. The animals have a reliable food supply, and nothing tries to kill them. They have a large enclosure, and cover to hide from humans if they want to. They have medical care if they get sick. There are no tiger philosophers, so none of them care about freedom in the abstract. The romantic idea of "the wild" being intrinsically good is a human idea. Nature is a horrible place for most animals. Certainly there are bad zoos, and I support legislation to enforce high standards of animal welfare, but the only animal I am aware of that is absolutely unsuited to captivity is the killer whale (which IMO might be smart enough to have some philosophical understanding of abstract freedom).

by mrob 8y ago

vixen99 8y ago

No problem at all! So put tigers at the top of your list and work slowly but surely down the the list of 'nasty' animals and plants. Doubtless we can eliminate the whole damn lot if we really try. You'll be a hero! Or maybe not.

mrob 8y ago
I'd put malaria carrying mosquitoes at the top of the list, not tigers. The concept of a tiger is an important part of human culture, and it would be a pity if nobody could see a real one, but they breed in captivity, so people can see them in zoos. It's easy to romanticize the idea of "wild tigers" when they live far from you, and you're at no risk of one eating you or your livestock. Humans killed most wild tigers for good reason.
- Tushon 8y ago
  Would you say the same thing about wolves, re the wolves returning to Yellowstone? https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc...
  - mrob 8y ago
    I oppose the reintroduction of any large predator. The ecosystem benefits can be met by human hunters instead, and if they are skilled they can kill more humanely than wild predators. That said, wolves are much less dangerous than tigers, so I'm not too concerned by that specific case. To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free?
    - Retra 8y ago
      Tigers don't eat humans because tigers roam free, they eat humans because humans roam free. Build a fence around your town and tigers won't eat you. Don't try to build such a general argument on such marginal premises. Humans kill far more humans that Tigers ever have. Tigers are simply not a serious threat to us.
    - opwieurposiu 8y ago
      Well considering the problems caused by human overpopulation, I think we need to release enough tigers to eat about 100million humans a year.
    - quantum_magpie 8y ago
      >To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free? All of them.
      - xupybd 8y ago
        Really you’d wipe out the entire human race to see tigers remain in the wild? That’s an odd hypothetical but do you really stand by it or am I missing something.
- 0xcafecafe 8y ago
  A lot of deaths can be attributed to humans encroaching upon the tiger's territory. If you condone tiger killing due to that then we can extrapolate that to any carnivore capable of killing humans because eventually we do like to take over their land.
  - mrob 8y ago
    To suggest that tigers can own land is a valid argument, but it's a minority opinion. Most people limit animal rights to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty. Vegans are a tiny minority of the world population, and if it's morally acceptable to enslave and kill animals for food (which is unnecessary for human survival), why can't we kill them for safety reasons?
- 0xcafecafe 8y ago
  Most wild tigers in India were killed for sport under the colonial rule not a good enough reason if you ask me (Thats how the Indian cheetah went extinct as well).
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Human beings have become destructive apex predators. In nature, apex predators.. even though they are keystone species...have an impact on prey density and regulation of the eco system. They do not destroy the very system that sustains them. Human beings are not supposed to be apex predators but we have taken over that role without embracing the intricacies of the responsibilities involved with it.

honkycat 8y ago

Such a low, ignorant comment. You are fine with tigers going extinct because 2,000 people a year, a MINUSCULE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, for the last 200 years die from tiger attacks? I'm sorry to say you are probably going to get your wish, you dolt. Someday it will just be us and the shopping malls and you can continue to sit inside all day. How many tigers are killed by humans so we can display their skin and eat their flesh for magical purposes?

mrob 8y ago
I said "extinct in the wild", not completely extinct. Tigers are popular zoo animals (partly because they're so dangerous), and they will breed in captivity. If things are so bad that even captive tigers go extinct then we have bigger problems to worry about.
- quantum_magpie 8y ago
  Would you agree to spend your entire life in a prison for no reason? Zoos are incredibly horrible place for animals to live in, and any animal found only in zoo is as good as extinct, since they are no longer able to sustain themselves outside, should they escape the prison.
  - mrob 8y ago
    If I was severely brain damaged to the point where I had tiger-like intelligence and self-awareness, I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life in a well managed but limited environment. A well managed zoo is not a horrible place. The animals have a reliable food supply, and nothing tries to kill them. They have a large enclosure, and cover to hide from humans if they want to. They have medical care if they get sick. There are no tiger philosophers, so none of them care about freedom in the abstract. The romantic idea of "the wild" being intrinsically good is a human idea. Nature is a horrible place for most animals. Certainly there are bad zoos, and I support legislation to enforce high standards of animal welfare, but the only animal I am aware of that is absolutely unsuited to captivity is the killer whale (which IMO might be smart enough to have some philosophical understanding of abstract freedom).