Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Should we intervene in nature to help animals?

It is commonly believed that we have an obligation to help those who are in need. It is true that we cannot help everyone, but we should not stop from helping other people whenever it is in our power to do something about it.

Last week, I watched a documentary about wildlife on TV. The story was about predators and preys which showcased various predators and the way they captured and killed their victims. What I have seen is that lionesses attacked a baby giraffe, a baby Penguin was killed by an Antarctica Skua and the other frightened scenes. While I was watching this program, I just raised the question is that why the cameramen didn’t do anything? What I mean is why they didn’t try to save those animals.

Actually, I understand that every living thing on this planet depends on the complexity and wonderful subtlety of ecological systems. We can understand them by only observation, not by trying to change or control the elements of the system. In other words, we might not have a reason to alleviate or prevent the harms of wildlife.
The dolphin was trapped in Sharpness Port for 24 hours

According to “Trapped dolphin rescued from Sharpness Port” (2015), the dolphin followed container ships and trapped into the low tide. Fortunately, it was rescued by lifeboat crews, who were used to guide the animal out of the port. They guided the dolphin out of the shipping complex and send him back to where it came.
The poor duck got trapped under the ice.

And when I was surfing the internet, I also found this interesting news that I think I can be another example for my blog post “Norwegian Guy Plunges into Frozen Lake toRescue Drowning Duck”( Dovas, 2014), Lars Jørun Langøien jumped into the frigid lake to rescue a duck trapped under the ice on the surface of a lake.


Lars jumped into the freezing water
Well, helping the animals like this seem praiseworthy. However, I also think what the lifeboats and Norwegian guy have done is whether they have intervened nature or not. Some of them are going to get hurt and others are going to get lucky, and maybe you have no right to change it.In other words, the best way that we might do for those animals is to let them be.

________________________________ 

My question is:

 Should we intervene in nature to help animals?

If you saw an animal which are in danger as my example news (the dolphin and duck), or being attacked by other animals, would you help them or just let them be?
___________
Reference
Trapped dolphin rescued from Sharpness Port. (2015, October 2). BBC News. Retreived from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-34426608

Dovas, (December 15, 2014). Norwegian Guy Plunges into Frozen Lake to Rescue Drowning Duck. Boredpanda. Retreived from 
Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. Unknown8 October 2015 at 21:38

    For the former question, I think

    We should intervene in nature to help animals if those animals are in danger as a result of any human’s actions or even natural disasters such flooding, deforestation or hunting by human.

    And, we should not if they are in danger by natural events (natural laws), which are not related to natural disasters, such as animal hunting themselves for food.

    Actually, I am not sure if what the latter question exactly means, especially the words “in the same situation”. Thus, based on my understanding, I would say it depends on each situation as I answered you above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9 October 2015 at 01:04

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9 October 2015 at 01:31

      sorry for my unclear question. Actually, you've already answer my question. What I mean “in the same situation” is that if you saw the animals which are in trouble as in those example, would you help them or let them be?.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous8 October 2015 at 22:05

    By moral, I think we should intervene. But considering natural rule, this is the natural balance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter AUA9 October 2015 at 10:32

      Na's idea sounds interesting: that morals can be against nature. In fact, I'm inclined to agree. It is natural to murder, rape, steal and so on, and part of civilising our children (and ourselves) is to learn not to these natural but immoral acts.

      I kind of agree with Feem's response above. Nature is pretty awful - as the English poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson so neatly puts it "Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw" (In Memoriam, A. H. H., 1849)

      Delete
  3. Anonymous9 October 2015 at 01:51

    Well, Thanks Feem that I have noticed my question might be unclear, so I have just changed it a bit to make it clearer.

    ReplyDelete

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)