A Lion cub becomes hopelessly separated from the pride. Should the cub be assisted by placing it nearer the pride or not?
Saving a life is always the right thing to do. It is not interfering, it is acting win compassion and love. Also God gave humans dominion over animals to care for and lead them. So it is our responsibility to help anyway and anytime we can.
(Genesis 1:26-"And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
I'd have to help the poor cub! There's no way I could just stand by and watch it starve to death.
Oh..., why not? As a species, we stick our noses into everything else...
So true paradigm. Hey, didn't see you for ages so thought you'd joined the exodus awhile back. Good to know your still on these fair shores. Gotta re-up my follow on ya!
i find it ironic to run into this question right now as i was just thinking about this very thing last night. it is wrong, pure and simple, to sit and watch anything suffer and die when you r aide can save its life. there is no excuse or justification for it. man will justify killing off to extinction certain predators so they can hunt their prey without competition, thus unbalancing nature. but they wont step in and save a lion cub or an elephant or some other wild creature for fear of unbalancing nature...yeah right. they need to take another look at their priorities, and quit thinking about their ratings. I have seen men trying to save a baby elephant who fell or got stuck in a mud hole, even at the threat to their own lives from the mother, in the end the baby elephant was saved. they did not see a dilemma. i could never stand by and watch, let alone film, the death struggles of a living creature, not even if there was no way i could save its life...i would go in and end its suffering. then let nature take its course!
Well, the consensus is overwhelmingly for intervention. As one that would normally be for a strict non-interference policy, I'll have to admit after reading everyone's great posts and ruminating on it awhile, that there are exceptions to every rule. And this would be one of them for me as the cub was an older one. I would assist and argue for placing the cub closer to the pride. I couldn't watch the end of the documentary because I believe it was decided in the end not to interfere in the natural order of nature. It was obviously a heart-breaking decision for most of them.
There was a film crew following a Lion pride. One older cub became separated. As the days went on with the adorable & pitiful little Lion tugging on the heart-strings of all, a conundrum began between the people in the crew with some wanting to intervene and others saying nature must take it's course. It is a most difficult decision and personally I'm still not sure. What would be the right thing to do?
Nature should take its course. But surely that means that if, in nature, there happens to be a few humans around who could itervene on the cub's behalf then that's what they should have done. I don't understand why the film crew would have this predicament? After all, it's not like there are that many film crews and naturalists running around helping wild animals that it's going to upset the balance of nature! If I was there I would help and to hell with gibbering on about if this would upset any balances in the food chain!
No peanut roaster, they weren't responsible in any way for the cub's sad situation. That's what made it so difficult for the film crew. Intervene, or let nature take it's natural course.
I saw a documentary about meerkats, years ago. The film maker and crew documented the meerkats' lives over months, maybe longer. As policy for their filming, they chose not to intervene, even when they could have saved a life.
I'm inclined to shrug it off as the precursor of "reality TV", but I don't understand the minds and hearts of those folks filming the meerkats. I could not have been on that team.
On the other hand, life and death are reality.
Don't ask me what I think of Gene Simmons.
You've gotten close to the heart of the film crews dilemma with the non-interference pledge. Gene Simmons and that 'reality' show? No like. You want a great laugh. Go to you-tube for best bass guitar performances. Watch say, the late John Entwistle of the Who. Then watch one on Gene Simmons. Be prepared to howl harder than anything you see on that stupid show.
Yes, this is definitely a dilemma as to the argument of nature needing to take its course. I agree if able to assist in getting the cub closer to mom without leaving a human scent and seeing if mom brings the cub back into the pride. If mom does not accept the cub then you have to believe she senses either a physical frailty or human interaction.
If the cub is not accepted, it would be ideal if it could be transported to a preserve or other facility where it could live, especially since so many big cats are becoming prey to poachers at an alarming rate.
We've screwed things up so badly with the animal kingdom that it's hard to say what to do now. We've slaughtered buffalo populations, driven elephants out of their migration paths...so many things we've already done to change the balance among living things. So now we document wild life "as it is" and don't intervene. There's something wrong with this whole picture.
I agree with helping the cub out ... I once watched a nature programme where an elephant got stuck and the film crew filmed it for over a week while it got weaker and finally died. I never understood why they didn'thelp it out especially as they said they could get it out.
If an animal is attacked by other wild animals and eatten that is life but to watch an animal suffer needlessly is cruelty in the extreme. Yes I understand that if the film crew wasn't there the animals would perrish, however who is to say that the film crew didn't arrive there forthe very reason of being in a possition to save these animals.
Iwould at least have to try to save them. If it didn't workit wasn'tmeant to ... If it did then that was meant to be as well. I certainly wouldn'twant someone to not help one of my children just because if they wern't there it would be different.
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
...over animals, mammals…or? - And how is it man was made in " God's Image", defined as "Our Image" in the first chapter of the Bible which attempts to explain the origins of mankind?- And why the...
by Captain Redbeard6 years ago
Ok so I have been studying the bible for close to ten years now and the more I study the more questions I have. I have been given the cold shoulder in churchs and church groups for some of the questions I have but I...
by qwark7 years ago
...even his own."He" gives lip service to wanting to save all life but his own.Everyday of his life, "he" dedicates his existence to the development of being able to kill more of his kind without...
by SpanStar5 years ago
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03 … -girl?liteApparently there was a rape in Ohio of a young girl. Though there were people who did not participate in the rape as I understand the article some took out the...
by Clayton Hartford4 years ago
Should spanking be an option?As a parent of a 2 1/2 year old boy, should spanking be a form of punishment? My wife says in only extreme cases, such as if he runs out the door and into the parking lot. But I...
by Ashok Goyal5 years ago
Is there any law to punish animals like Lion, Elephant and Bear injuring humans without provocation?Is there any law to punish animals like Lion, Elephant and Bear injuring humans without provocation? If human beings...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.