10 ms·

I have vacillated on whether or not I should write this comment. I am writing this because most of the comments are focused on the man's prose and prowess. I a

I have vacillated on whether or not I should write this comment. I am writing this because most of the comments are focused on the man's prose and prowess. I am on the leopard's side here. Leopards, and most members of the Felidae (cat) family, are sentient, and we hunted some members of this family to near extinction because of accounts like these. Accounts that glorified the "adventure" of going into their habitats, killing their prey, and then shooting them with gun powder and a metal slug. This man wasn't a scientist. He was a thrill seeker. One who killed sentient beings for amusement and then donated the carcasses to a museum. If he was a scientist, quietly observing the fauna, and taking notes, I would have had no objections to him killing the leopard in self defense. Instead, he encroached on a sentient being's habitat + territory with hostile intentions. And was attacked for it. I do not wish him harm, but I feel more for the leopard than I do for him. - If you doubt that these are animals capable of joy, I'd suggest watching this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWuFoPguAlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWuFoPguAlE Of course, they're still wild animals and you should stay away, but they are sentient and should be treated with care.

technothrasher 5y ago
Victorian hunters in Africa were pretty brutal. But to be fair to Akeley, he actually had a change of heart near the end of his life after he moved further north to hunt gorillas, and was instrumental to creating Africa's first national park, in the DRC, to preserve and protect the gorillas.
- coyotespike 5y ago
  And for what it's worth, apparently he was in fact a scientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Akeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Akeley Everyone in that era including scientists killed too many animals imo. Glad he helped get a park going though!
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Yes, there were basically cults of people, who made a sport of mass killing. The more and bigger the better. Not to eat, but to hang their heads on the wall. What Akeley did, was more the scientific way.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  It wasnt just Victorian hunters, the whole country was pretty brutal, sayings existed like "children should be seen and not heard", "stiff upper lip" that sort of thing, and you dont get to run an empire by being nice. That mentality still exists in large parts of the british establishment even today. This is a lion being reunited with the guy who bought it from Harrods as a cub. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHdp_dL5Uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHdp_dL5Uk Its surprising how hormone profiles alter one's perspective on life as aging occurs.
  - martindale 5y ago
    Can you explain what about "that sort of thing" is so repulsive to you, perchance?
jmnicolas 5y ago
The sentient leopard wouldn't have such pity for you, you're just a meal. While I don't condone free kills either, let's not idealize animals. I wish I could find the article that dispelled myths about animals (where you among other things learn that dolphins and sea otters have rapists amongst their ranks).
- Layke1123 5y ago
  Careful, there could be an alien out there thinking the same about what you just wrote.
- mauvehaus 5y ago
  Sure, but as the species that claims greater intelligence, surely the onus is on the humans to not put themselves into a situation where they become a meal. Blindly shooting at an unknown target doesn't exactly suggest taking this responsibility seriously. I'd have been a-ok with the leopard making a meal of him for his foolishness. If we take it as a given that animals have no morality, or at least different morality than our own, surely it's incumbent upon us to act accordingly among them. Incidentally: while backpacking on Isle Royale, which has a robust wolf/moose ecosystem I asked a ranger why the wolves didn't just eat the plentiful, slow, weak humans instead of the moose. The ranger said humans aren't tasty to wolves.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    I mostly agree with you, but don't forget that this story happened about a hundred years ago. People had different mentalities back then, less empathy. > The ranger said humans aren't tasty to wolves. I'm pretty sure it's BS. I'd bet more on wolves being afraid of humans (which is a good survival trait! Here in western Europe they have been hunted to extinction). I saw a YT video where a woman is recording a wolf that didn't see her. When it realize she's there, the wolf is startled and runs away.
    - kayodelycaon 5y ago
      Having volunteered at a wolf sanctuary and interacted with a few of the human-friendly ones, they are as skittish as startled deer. Toss a deer leg in the pen and they run for the back fence. Not all though. Some of the “lower ranked” ones realized what was happening and took the opportunity to grab food they usually would have to wait for.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjtheblunt 5y ago
I have a conjecture I can not prove, built up over decades: we are all wild animals, in personally varying degrees, regardless of species (for those normally labelled as such). One example of this is people living with pet tigers and lions, who behave exactly like domestic sized felines, but of course are bigger than humans so can actually hurt you when wrestling in play, etc. . People kill other people out of fear, a wild animal sort of thing itself. Anyway, I just have not thought of a counterexample to the assertion that wild animals extend into the realm of things called domestic.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  It sounds like you're just redefining "domestic" to mean "not at all related to other animals". Domestication usually signifies that the species has gone through significant human caused changes from their wild ancestors, not that they've been completely divorced from all wild behaviors. As for us homans, sure, of course we're evolutionarly related to other animals, and are going to exhibit some of the same behaviors.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> Accounts that glorified the "adventure" of going into their habitats, killing their prey, and then shooting them with gun powder and a metal slug. Except for the gun powder and metal slugs, that “adventure” is the story of humanity’s rise and spread. Humans are native to only a very small part of the world. We became the way we are because humans did go into new habitats, challenged the apex predators, took their prey, and displaced the previous apex predators. That story of adventure resonates because it has resonated for millennia (consider the myths and paintings and sculptures). That story resonates, because you and I are descendants of people just like that who entered new habitats and outthought, outorganized, and outfought, all the predators that would want to kill them. So my sympathies are with the man and not the leopard.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > that “adventure” is the story of humanity’s rise and spread. It is a very different story when one kills a predator to make a new safe living space for themselves and their family. The person in question had a safe and comfortable place to live and went out of their way to kill a sentient being and then left the area thus secured. One is about necessity and the other is a blood sport.
  - lazide 5y ago
    How do you figure humanity spreads if it never leaves those safe spaces?
    - krisoft 5y ago
      It sounds like you are not reading what I wrote. Humanity does not spread by going from A to B, killing things in B and then returning to A. That is tourism and not spreading. Also where does it say that humanity have to spread? I’m sympathetic with people whose current location become undesirable and they have to move to a new place. But “spreading” is not the goal.
      - dbsmith83 5y ago
cheese_goddess 5y ago
I don't know about any of that sentience stuff. I'm with the leopard because it's a beautiful, wild cat and that other guy who won is an ugly, bald ape with a bushy beard. That's enough for me to root for the wild beast in its natural habitat, against my own kind even, and I don't care about your morality of not harming sentient beings. The ugly bald ape with the bushy beard is a sentient being, too, and I wouldn't mind if the leopard ate his stupid face off.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wvlia5 5y ago
I agree

technothrasher 5y ago

Victorian hunters in Africa were pretty brutal. But to be fair to Akeley, he actually had a change of heart near the end of his life after he moved further north to hunt gorillas, and was instrumental to creating Africa's first national park, in the DRC, to preserve and protect the gorillas.

coyotespike 5y ago
And for what it's worth, apparently he was in fact a scientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Akeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Akeley Everyone in that era including scientists killed too many animals imo. Glad he helped get a park going though!
hutzlibu 5y ago
Yes, there were basically cults of people, who made a sport of mass killing. The more and bigger the better. Not to eat, but to hang their heads on the wall. What Akeley did, was more the scientific way.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Terry_Roll 5y ago
It wasnt just Victorian hunters, the whole country was pretty brutal, sayings existed like "children should be seen and not heard", "stiff upper lip" that sort of thing, and you dont get to run an empire by being nice. That mentality still exists in large parts of the british establishment even today. This is a lion being reunited with the guy who bought it from Harrods as a cub. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHdp_dL5Uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHdp_dL5Uk Its surprising how hormone profiles alter one's perspective on life as aging occurs.
- martindale 5y ago
  Can you explain what about "that sort of thing" is so repulsive to you, perchance?

jmnicolas 5y ago

The sentient leopard wouldn't have such pity for you, you're just a meal. While I don't condone free kills either, let's not idealize animals. I wish I could find the article that dispelled myths about animals (where you among other things learn that dolphins and sea otters have rapists amongst their ranks).

Layke1123 5y ago
Careful, there could be an alien out there thinking the same about what you just wrote.
mauvehaus 5y ago
Sure, but as the species that claims greater intelligence, surely the onus is on the humans to not put themselves into a situation where they become a meal. Blindly shooting at an unknown target doesn't exactly suggest taking this responsibility seriously. I'd have been a-ok with the leopard making a meal of him for his foolishness. If we take it as a given that animals have no morality, or at least different morality than our own, surely it's incumbent upon us to act accordingly among them. Incidentally: while backpacking on Isle Royale, which has a robust wolf/moose ecosystem I asked a ranger why the wolves didn't just eat the plentiful, slow, weak humans instead of the moose. The ranger said humans aren't tasty to wolves.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but don't forget that this story happened about a hundred years ago. People had different mentalities back then, less empathy. > The ranger said humans aren't tasty to wolves. I'm pretty sure it's BS. I'd bet more on wolves being afraid of humans (which is a good survival trait! Here in western Europe they have been hunted to extinction). I saw a YT video where a woman is recording a wolf that didn't see her. When it realize she's there, the wolf is startled and runs away.
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    Having volunteered at a wolf sanctuary and interacted with a few of the human-friendly ones, they are as skittish as startled deer. Toss a deer leg in the pen and they run for the back fence. Not all though. Some of the “lower ranked” ones realized what was happening and took the opportunity to grab food they usually would have to wait for.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jjtheblunt 5y ago

I have a conjecture I can not prove, built up over decades: we are all wild animals, in personally varying degrees, regardless of species (for those normally labelled as such). One example of this is people living with pet tigers and lions, who behave exactly like domestic sized felines, but of course are bigger than humans so can actually hurt you when wrestling in play, etc. . People kill other people out of fear, a wild animal sort of thing itself. Anyway, I just have not thought of a counterexample to the assertion that wild animals extend into the realm of things called domestic.

technothrasher 5y ago
It sounds like you're just redefining "domestic" to mean "not at all related to other animals". Domestication usually signifies that the species has gone through significant human caused changes from their wild ancestors, not that they've been completely divorced from all wild behaviors. As for us homans, sure, of course we're evolutionarly related to other animals, and are going to exhibit some of the same behaviors.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> Accounts that glorified the "adventure" of going into their habitats, killing their prey, and then shooting them with gun powder and a metal slug. Except for the gun powder and metal slugs, that “adventure” is the story of humanity’s rise and spread. Humans are native to only a very small part of the world. We became the way we are because humans did go into new habitats, challenged the apex predators, took their prey, and displaced the previous apex predators. That story of adventure resonates because it has resonated for millennia (consider the myths and paintings and sculptures). That story resonates, because you and I are descendants of people just like that who entered new habitats and outthought, outorganized, and outfought, all the predators that would want to kill them. So my sympathies are with the man and not the leopard.

krisoft 5y ago
> that “adventure” is the story of humanity’s rise and spread. It is a very different story when one kills a predator to make a new safe living space for themselves and their family. The person in question had a safe and comfortable place to live and went out of their way to kill a sentient being and then left the area thus secured. One is about necessity and the other is a blood sport.
- lazide 5y ago
  How do you figure humanity spreads if it never leaves those safe spaces?
  - krisoft 5y ago
    It sounds like you are not reading what I wrote. Humanity does not spread by going from A to B, killing things in B and then returning to A. That is tourism and not spreading. Also where does it say that humanity have to spread? I’m sympathetic with people whose current location become undesirable and they have to move to a new place. But “spreading” is not the goal.
    - dbsmith83 5y ago

cheese_goddess 5y ago

I don't know about any of that sentience stuff. I'm with the leopard because it's a beautiful, wild cat and that other guy who won is an ugly, bald ape with a bushy beard. That's enough for me to root for the wild beast in its natural habitat, against my own kind even, and I don't care about your morality of not harming sentient beings. The ugly bald ape with the bushy beard is a sentient being, too, and I wouldn't mind if the leopard ate his stupid face off.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wvlia5 5y ago

I agree