It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Does Man Kill the Tigers?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Sometimes I wonder what it is about humankind that leads us to so much war, division and fear...

Imagine a more primitive time, when people lived in villages instead of concrete cities and man and animal shared the Earth. Read this post and see what comes to you. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

When a tiger comes into a troop of baboons and kills one of the young baboons, the troop will either run to safety or kill that tiger on the spot. They manage the immediate threat. They deal with the tiger that caused the problem.

When a tiger comes into a village of humans, however, and kills a baby, the humans in the village will get together and hunt down the tiger and kill it. But they don't stop there. They proceed to hunt down all the tigers they can find and kill them, too. As if in an attempt to wipe out the threat completely. They don't only kill the tiger that caused the problem, they kill all of his kind, as if they are all somehow responsible...

What is it, in mankind, that makes us want to kill all the tigers?

You may say that the reason is that man has the technology. We're smarter, etc. And yes, that's true, but WHY do we choose to apply that technology to completely eliminating the threat instead of managing it, as the baboon does? Surely baboons are smart enough to organize a hunt. They could choose to kill all tigers.

You may say that it's a protection mechanism and I would agree. But baboons have that protection instinct, too and they don't go hunting down all the tigers they can find. Instead, they check their own behavior and make sure that they are safer the next time a tiger comes around. They might have the larger members of the troop serve as guardians to scare away the next tiger and call an alarm or they may stay closer to trees so they can escape, should a tiger appear. They hold their babies to their chest to protect them. They manage the threat, with what could almost be called a respect of the natural order of things.

But man, in his arrogance and dominion, doesn't even consider the tiger's place in the scheme of things, but instead, chooses to wipe out the threat completely so he doesn't have to deal with it again. What makes man think he is more important than the tiger? What is it, in our evolution, that makes us so aggressive and inconsiderate that we think it's OK to kill all of that which threatens us?

It's almost as if we humans attribute evil intent to the tiger. He killed one of us, so he must "hate" us - he is our enemy and all of his kind must be killed. When in reality, he was just doing what he does to survive. We are not his enemy. Why do we, with our superior intellect and technology, become angered and vengeful, attributing evil intent to the animal?

My curiosity is about WHY man is different than other mammals in this scenario.

Thoughts?




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Because a lot of the people that hunt them are gutter poor and there's financial gain. Doesn't make it right, that's just how it is.

Peace



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


That may be a factor NOW, but that's not how it started.

I'm not talking about modern man in a society of monetary values. I'm talking about a primitive village of humans, where there is no such thing as money. Where the ONLY motivation for killing the tigers is that he killed one of our babies.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Good question. The best answer I can provide is that man is complex. Not ALL men would choose to kill all the tigers, much like not all men are Charles Manson. Creatures such as baboons are operating more from instinct, rather than via conscious considered choice. Man has the ability to "reason", and sometimes the reasoning is fallacious. Attributing the human characteristic of evil intent to animals, for example.

The higher up the chain you go, the greater the potential range of behavior you see. One fruitfly will behave pretty much like another. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish between fruitflies by their behavior.

Men on the other hand, can range anywhere from the BTK to Albert Schweitzer. We have the innate potential capability to be everything from altruistic and pure to corrupt and sadistic. As the pendulum of potential swings, if it can go x-degrees in one direction, it can also go x-degrees in the other. "Human nature" encompasses a very broad spectrum. Probably a bad analogy, but the best I'm able to come up with off the top of my head.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Isn't that reason enough? Kill or be killed? Animals are driven by instinct, not intelligence. Tigers kill, they're hunter and the only reason they exist is to hunt and kill prey. They don't do anything else.

So, one Tiger kills a human, of course those other hunt him down. Not for revenge, but to minimize the threat and that's why they don't stop. All the other Tigers behave the same, could kill humans, so why not just wipe them out, so humans (especially babies and kids) can live without the fear of dying? It's logical, especially if you only talk about a primitive village. What else could they do? The surely can't catch the Tigers and put them into cages or build a Zoo.
Or would you want to live ina primitive village, with the fear, that every day some Tiger could attack and kill you?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Could be instinctual?

Humans, as animals, are relatively fragile.

We aren't very strong for our size and we can't take much damage.

Maybe we react in such a barbaric fashion to insure our survival.

Might explain why we have been doing it since the beginning of time.

Then again, maybe we just demand to be at the very top of the food chain to satisfy our egos?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It’s because we like the fur, all fur. Have you ever seen 101 Dalmatians I loved that film in the most sadistic way possible. I really do hold the view that all animals on earth are here purely to help ensure the survival of the human species. They are a resource like coal and oil, I really hate it when people treat animal like humans, why does your dog need a little jacket round it. And why do people on animal shows say crap like “daisy the cow looks very happy about vet carol sticking her entire arm up her bottom”?

Sorry I am a bigger fan of human rights, rather than animal rights, they should have no rights they are a resource.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Brutal as it is, it is that very behavior that allowed human beings to dominate and conquer, to become the dominant species.

By destroying all dangers and threats in our path we created an environment in which we were able to thrive.

If we "kill all the tigers' we no longer needed to spend all our time hiding from tigers and were able to expand to where the tigers once dwelled.It also gave us the time and space, freedom from danger to evolve further.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Because, ultimately, BH, humans are the most selfish and ignorant species.

At least on this planet we call Earth.

They forget that the tigers, and other wild animals were on that land, before they were.

And through their blind ignorance that the tiger will just abandon its hunting grounds, they build upon that land, and then seem to be oblivious to why the tiger strikes.

Humans are the only species that breeds out instinct, through politics, manners, and familial ties, and they look at the animal reactions as a threat to their humanity.

Because, quite literally the human fears their own animal instincts, something they often see and envy, but ultimately know they cannot retain to become what they see as better than those animals walking upon all fours.

Yes, money is a part of it, but the over-reaction comes not from reaction, but fear.

We as a species ultimately fear that which we cannot control, and the tiger represents the ultimate in power, and to fear our own power is something humans do.

This is why humans are so selfish and oblivious to taking political power.

They fear they will become those politicians we conspiracy theorists hate thorough corruption.

As the saying goes, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But they forget man can change while animals stay the same with instincts.

We can hold power, if we keep our egos in check, but mankind rarely knows how to do this and more often than not get into positions of power, and their ego takes over.

As well as instincts come out as a desire of expression of that ego.

Which is when we get people like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

And the need for "cigar smoking" in the Oval Office.

Or Barack Obama and BP PLC and the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

And the need for a savior.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Because the bond between humans and nature only remains with a few amazon tribes. (and maybe a few in New Guinea?)

They know to live together with nature and to only take what is needed and what will be replaced, instead of looting and pillaging whole forests for a quick buck.

There are even theories that we hunted mammoths to extinction.

Natural selection in our society is replaced by test tube babies, in Sweden you can even choose the if your child will be a boy or a girl.

So men kills tigers because he has the tools for it, and a lack of morals because "greed now" is more important than the future of your children.

If young cavemen would be eaten by a sabretooth tiger, it used to be natural selection too, now some people think they have the right for revenge on an animal that used his instincts because it was hungry.

For a nice finishing touch to my post, I leave you with this song that explains perfectly how I feel about this.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Threats create meme's in the mind of man; Like man's innate fear of snakes, spiders etc. Self preservation dictates that threats must be destroyed or avoided.

Fight or flight syndrome.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Magic
Because the bond between humans and nature only remains with a few amazon tribes. (and maybe a few in New Guinea?)


Why, for #s sake, should there be a "bond"? Who says that's the way it should be? Animals are stupid, they're instinct driven, they haven't evolved in thousands of years, they basically stayed the same. So it's no wonder, that we took over the planet. If animals could talk with us (But they're to stupid for it), maybe we could've worked something out. They can't, they kill humans, so they get what they asked for (I read somewhere that in the hundred years betweeen 1800 and 1900 tigers in India killed about 10.000 humans. 10.000!!! and do you really think, they were only killed, because those tigers were hungry?
)


Originally posted by Grey Magic
If young cavemen would be eaten by a sabretooth tiger, it used to be natural selection too, now some people think they have the right for revenge on an animal that used his instincts because it was hungry.


Well, just imagine that you're a cavemen and a sabretooth tiger eat your little child. What would you do? Go to him, pet him and say "I should be angry but i know it's natural selection and you were just hungry. No go play with the other tigers" and pat him on his ass?
(In reality he would eat you too, cause he thinks humans are tasty)
I mean come on, in such a situation you would be angry and seek for that tiger so no other humans and especially children get killed.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Very interesting responses! Thank you!


Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
Isn't that reason enough? Kill or be killed?


But that doesn't explain why the baboon doesn't hunt down all tigers and eliminate the threat to their species. Man is the ONLY species that will, in this scenario, hunt down all of the tigers they can find, simply because ONE killed one of their own.



So, one Tiger kills a human, of course those other hunt him down. Not for revenge, but to minimize the threat and that's why they don't stop.


Baboons also minimize the threat. But not by hunting down all of the species that threatens them. They do it by changing their own behavior. WHY?


.
Or would you want to live in a primitive village, with the fear, that every day some Tiger could attack and kill you?


Don't the baboons live with that fear? Yes. They manage the threat by their behavior.

Man IS an animal, but there's something different about him that causes him to slay ALL of a species that he can get to as opposed to just the one that killed the village baby.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


I think you missed my point,

Animals don't destroy their habitat or step outside the boundary of natural selection.

There is a big difference between being smart, and being arrogant enough to act that we are here to kill this whole planet.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Very interesting responses! Thank you!

But that doesn't explain why the baboon doesn't hunt down all tigers and eliminate the threat to their species. Man is the ONLY species that will, in this scenario, hunt down all of the tigers they can find, simply because ONE killed one of their own.



So, one Tiger kills a human, of course those other hunt him down. Not for revenge, but to minimize the threat and that's why they don't stop.


Baboons also minimize the threat. But not by hunting down all of the species that threatens them. They do it by changing their own behavior. WHY?


Man IS an animal, but there's something different about him that causes him to slay ALL of a species that he can get to as opposed to just the one that killed the village baby.


But that's why baboons aren't the dominant species,they are confined within the boundaries if 'tiger' territory,if they kill all their threats they will have the time space and safety to continue their evolution.But they are locked into an evolutionary stagnancy, a tiger stalemate.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Humans, as animals, are relatively fragile.

We aren't very strong for our size and we can't take much damage.

Maybe we react in such a barbaric fashion to insure our survival.


THIS is the answer that I came up with. Because of our superior intellect, we have been able to build shelters, use tools and traps to hunt, etc. Basically, our intelligence and technology has enabled us to live a cushier life, which naturally makes our bodies more vulnerable.

We're not out there running after our food and bringing it down with our hands, we're using spears and arrows and returning to our villages with food for all. The species becomes weaker overall and less able to survive. So, we must become more aggressive, mentally, to compensate for our weak and vulnerable bodies.

So, a baboon being less intelligent and advanced, actually makes him stronger and more able to fight off each individual tiger that may threaten his troop. But man, becoming more fat, dumb and happy as each year passes, means he has to become more aggressive mentally, to simply survive.

I'm concerned, though, where this leads, unchecked. I'm afraid it leads us to where we are now. Where ANY disagreement is seen as a threat to our way of life and we feel we must wipe out the threat...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Were not the only species on the planet that kills for obscure reasons, for sport, or out of malice.

Tigers themselves do not like most canids and will kill dogs without any clear reason.

Tigers tend to wipe out populations of wolves, whenever the two species cross paths.

Wolves for the most part hate coyotes. They will dig coyote pups up from their dens and kill them. They will also lure coyotes to a kill, where they will ambush the coyotes and kill them. Wolves have similar relationships with Jackals and some foxes. Wolves also have a hatred of cougars and leopards and will kill cubs if they can get to them.

Lions will attack and kill hyenas without apparent provocation. At times lion prides and hyena clans have had wars, one example in Ethiopia resulted in a two week war that left 6 lions and 35 hyenas dead. Lions also tend to kill cheetah cubs.

Chimpanzees will launch assaults into other chimp territories, a literal invasion by an organized hunting party turned war party.

African Elephants sometimes will kill Rhinos without clear provocation. Rarely elephants will attack human villages.

Hippos really don't like humans at all. They kill more people in Africa every year than the lions, crocodiles or any other animal.

Don't get me started on ants. Ants capture and enslave other species, have all out wars with other ants and bugs, capture prisoners of war, and some even have tournaments.

[edit on 30/6/10 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But that doesn't explain why the baboon doesn't hunt down all tigers and eliminate the threat to their species. Man is the ONLY species that will, in this scenario, hunt down all of the tigers they can find, simply because ONE killed one of their own.


In my oppinion: The Baboon's are driven by instinct. Instinct tells them to defend themself. So they take the tiger down. But after that there isn't more. Instinct maybe tells them, that they're so far down the food chain that it would be stupid to go tiger hunting. They have the tools, the strentgh or anything (It would certainly a lot of baboon's to take down a fully grown tiger and nobody knows if some get hurt or killed)
So they defend themself and that's it, they wait for the next attack to defend themself again.

Humans just think some steps ahead, see the danger and do something.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Baboons also minimize the threat. But not by hunting down all of the species that threatens them. They do it by changing their own behavior. WHY?


Again: Because they know they don't have much chances against tigers? I mean Baboon's aren't killer, they mostly eat vegetarian, they don't have the chance to say "W stay here, every Tiger should be afraid", so they rather search a new, safer place and basically hope for the best. That's what all animals do.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Man IS an animal, but there's something different about him that causes him to slay ALL of a species that he can get to as opposed to just the one that killed the village baby.


Humans are Humans and not animals, sorry but it's stupid to think that in my oppinion. We're way more evolved, intelligent, advanced. It would be easier if we would just accept that.
And as far as i know, there are still Tigers around freely. Like the ones who attacked and killed 6 humans in January 2009 in Sumatra


We kill animals to use them for various things. Animals kill Animals to use them as food. Killing is natural, at least humans try to do it quick and fast, opposed to animals who slay and eat animals while they're still alive.


And as far as endagered species go: I don't believe everything i read. All those nature organizations say all the time that animals will be extinct. They said in the 80's that Pandas would be extinct 10 years later. Now it's 30 years later and they're still there. Same goes for whales and whatever other animals. There are still enough of them around.

Animals also kill Animals without reason, for "fun" or because they hate the species. It's not like only human do such things.

[edit on 30/6/2010 by ShadowAngel85]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85Humans are Humans and not animals, sorry but it's stupid to think that in my oppinion.


It depends entirely on your definition of animal.

Animal


1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.


But I'm speaking of the biological classification, Hominidae. I'm also assuming evolution as opposed to creation in this exercise.

If intellect, evolution and advancement are defining factors of animals, then surely the ant can't be classified with the same word as the dolphin... ?

But then, we have to consider that the intelligence tests that determine humans are more intellectually advanced than all other animals - are developed by... humans.



[edit on 6/30/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
In my opinion humans are animals.

I am curious as to how many cases of baboons killing tigers are on record.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join