A little boy, barely older than a toddler, fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. Harambe, the 450-pound silverback gorilla, responded to the new creature in his home. When the zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response Team (DART?) determined that the three-year-old’s life was in danger from the animal, it shot and killed Harambe.
“The little boy, once he fell, I don’t think the gorilla even knew that he was in there until he heard him splashing in the water,” Brittany Nicely told ABC News on Sunday, explaining that zoogoers’ screams drew more attention to the Saturday afternoon incident.
“The gorilla rushed the boy, but did not hit the boy,” Nicely said. “He almost was guarding the boy, was protecting him.”
Video taken by another witness clearly shows the gorilla dragging the boy around like a doll, yet both ABC and NBC published the outlandish “protecting” story.
Is that even news?
Do I get to be an expert in gorilla behavior when the people trained and qualified to make these decisions are there to handle the problem? Did this witness walk over and say “No! The gorilla is protecting the boy!” when the team decided to shoot? Does this person walk over to firefighters and tell them how to put out a burning building? Does she moonlight as a hostage negotiator?
Sometimes people ask stupid questions online, and sometimes well-trafficked Internet sites devote bits and bytes to answering them. One question “Professional Fighter vs. Gorilla: Who Would Win?” had this answer on Slate.
Unless the gorilla is somehow hobbled (drugged, lamed, etc.), or the human fighter is armed (especially with something like a spear that can hold the gorilla off at a distance), the gorilla will kill the human and then be vaguely dejected that the human wasn’t able to put up enough of a challenge to be interesting.
Gorillas are wild animals. They are up to 10 times (or more) stronger than humans. They have no moral compass. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Harambe might be able to, for example, fend off a Grizzly bear.
The main stream media is filled with liberals, who somehow want to anthropomorphize animals into moral creatures of a kind and loving Gaia. Worse than that, liberals are now suggesting that we ruin the last non-politicized place in America: The zoo. They’ve already forced Ringling Brothers to give up their elephants, even though elephants work in much worse conditions all over the world. In the not-so-distant past, they were used to crush people as executioners. The elephants didn’t care–they have no morality or conscience.
This is what sociologist and liberal idiot David Grazian told The Boston Globe:
There are no Democratic and Republican zoos. They attract religiously devout and secular people. They attract people from all social classes and ethnicities. Because people are primed to experience the zoo as an educational place to learn about the natural world, zoos potentially have a very strong role to play in educating the public about global warming and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
I find it so disappointing how little zoos do to actually lead on these kinds of environmental issues. One way that zoos do this is when they discuss climate change, they discuss it as a kind of crisis without a cause. They’ll highlight rising sea levels and rising average global temperatures, but they won’t attribute these planetary changes to human activity. And when they do, they attribute the problem to consumers as opposed to automobile manufacturers or gas and oil companies or large agricultural multinationals.
He’s right about his premise “zoos are fake.” Of course they are. If people want to see the animals in their actual habitat, they get on a plane and fly somewhere very remote. Fly to Alaska, hike deep into the wilderness and encounter a Grizzly Bear, and you too can die au naturel. Head into the Kenyan bush without a guide or firearm and experience the thrill of being prey.
Without our brains and immense ability to create technological solutions to the challenges of living with wild animals on earth, we humans would be nothing but nutrition for predators higher on the food chain than us. It’s such an argument against Darwinian macro-evolution that the liberals have to be blind not to see it. Humans are intrinsically different than animals.
So yes, we want an air-conditioned, popsicle-selling, souvenir-hawking place to see “nature.” It’s called a zoo. And no, we don’t want to be hammered with PETA propaganda or save-the-planet climate change environment worship. We want to see the animals that would, in any other more “natural” setting, tear us to shreds and eat us.
And when, occasionally, a three-year-old boy somehow falls into a 12-foot-deep pit with a 450 pound gorilla, no, the gorilla doesn’t get to “protect” the boy. The gorilla sometimes has to die. We can let our consciences be pricked a tiny bit for the tragedy of a dead gorilla, but we shouldn’t consume ourselves with some kind of false moral equivalence.
Let zoos be fun places, please. And keep liberal fun-killing idiots from ruining them.