Rare tiger kills man, should we kill the tiger?

Tiger has to get it. If he killed once, he'll kill again, now that he has the taste for human blood and flesh.

dodderangler wrote: »

Your Wrong there
it doesn't see humans as food as it didn't eat the man
It mauled him to death same way tigers do with sloth bears
They are simply eliminating the competition

Hadn't considered it that way but even so the end result is the same. The tiger needs to be so afraid of humans it wouldn't dare make a play for our territory.

Liamario wrote: »

No, I wouldn't. They were invading his territory, not the other way round.

Unfortunately in nature their is no such thing as ownership or this is my territory or your territory. The territory belongs to the animal that can kill any competition. People in these places are living fairly subsistence life's. They can't afford to consider conservation of anything other than themselves. There is no solution to this problem. Humans won't stop moving into the tigers territory and the tigers will be wiped out. I wish it was different but it's pretty much a law of nature, you take all there is until there is nothing left and then try and deal with the consequences.

I think we're going to have to learn conservation the hard way.

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

Tiger = rare. Human = not rare.

Like steak and chicken?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the contrary, he should be encouraged. Way too many humans on the planet, and insufficient tigers imho.

Are you willing to be one of the humans that gets gored to death for the good of the tigers?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not in an essentialist sense, no. But there is definitely an argument that the attempts to supercede Darwinian survival of the fittest has led firstly to massive human overpopulation on the planet, which in turn is destroying landscape, fauna, and resources at an unsustainable rate, and also to a degradation of humanity as a species, as evidenced by everything from rising obesity to vertiginous increases in various debilitating mental and physical conditions.

You can't really supersede Darwinism. We've just spread the effect across the entire species rather than have it a case of every animal for themselves. At this stage huge chunks of the human population will die off as a result of our ineptitude.

The only way we can avoid the consequences of our actions at this stage is to start living in space.

Four little tigers sitting on a tree; One became a lady's coat,
Now there's only three...

Three little tigers 'neath a sky of blue; One became a rich man's rug,
Now there's only two...

Two little tigers sleeping in the sun; One a hunter's trophy made,
Now there's only one...

One little tiger, waiting to be had; OOOPS, he got the hunter first,
Aren't you kind of glad?

The Dagda wrote: »

Ignoring that Darwin didn't actually use the phrase "survival of the fittest"...

And also ignoring that I didn't say he did...

The Dagda wrote: »

One could also argue that if you look at it from a macro, rather than a micro level, all of those factors that you mention, could in fact
be the ultimate expression of natural selection in a world where physically bettering your competition is, generally, no longer accepted.

I concur with the previous poster who suggested that by attempting to evade survival of the fittest we are lining ourselves up for a scenario in which a mass die-off becomes a possibility. It seems that you are in agreement also. I'd obviously fancy my personal chances better in a non-mass extinction event and hence would be of the opinion that such ought to be avoided. That's why, in a small way, I endorse the actions of this tiger and believe it ought to be encouraged.

Ive posted this video in a couple of threads but its more relevant here, slightly different situation but still relevant

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Surely the answer to that would be an argument for restricted reproduction rather than encouraging deaths ?

That'd be an argument solely in favour of preserving the tiger. My argument also encompasses reducing the number of humans.

I find it difficult to have a strong opinion on it tbh. It's easy to say that they shouldn't shoot it, while sitting thousands of miles away - well fed and in a comfortable house.

I'd probably have a different view if I was living in a wooden and straw shack and had to walk around and work in the area where the tiger has already killed a number of people

From a 'moral standpoint' I don't think they should shoot it.. nor that we should expect them to adhere to our own very subjective and relatively privileged 'moral standpoints'.. People are talking about survival of the fittest and in the same breath expecting others not to contribute towards their own survival? Bit mad, Ted.