3 ms·
> Human safety comes first. Let's look deeper at the real question they faced: How much risk (of life and limb) is it worth to save a chimpanzee's life? Obvio
by wolverine876 3y ago
> Human safety comes first.
Let's look deeper at the real question they faced: How much risk (of life and limb) is it worth to save a chimpanzee's life?
Obviously the answers aren't 0 or 100%. If it was 0%, then we wouldn't have zoos, zookeepers, pets of many species, farms, etc. 100% means it's worth trading certain death for a human to save a chimpanzee - arguable philosophically, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll rule it out.
The answer is in-between. Everyone takes risks around dogs, horses, cattle - small children play with most of them. Zookeepers take much greater risks, it seems, around wild animals. So do hunters, tourists, etc.
How much risk do we tolerate? Do zookeepers take 1/1000 risk of death over their careers?
- RationalDino 3y agoThe fact that the head of another Swedish wildpark got convicted of manslaughter over the death of a keeper. Given that, it would be hard for those in charge to allow any worker to take risks to save these escaped animals. Even if the worker was willing to do so. That answers how much risk we're willing to tolerate.
- wolverine876 3y agoThat answers how much risk a certain institution is willing to tolerate. Institutional tolerances differ from individuals IME; many institutions are risk-averse because people seek to protect their jobs, especially if it has a culture of blame. Would you risk your life to save a chimpanzee? I would to some extent. A peaceful, friendly chimp; and with instruction from an expert; I might take the risk. An angry chimp would be unlikely to receive aid that involves risk. Forget violence; what about wading into a flood to rescue an unconscious chimp?