i was watching a documentary ytd on discovery channel during dinner and it has still remained in my mind. it was about the tigers in russia. i hadn't watched it from the start but i started when this hunter living in the woods for some reason or other stole a tiger's kill. like hacking off leftovers from some carcass. so the tiger did not take very kindly to that. tracked him, stalked him for a few days and finally killed him.
some tiger team from the city came over and investigated this man-eater. word spread to the nearby village not to venture into the woods 'coz a man-eater was on the loose. there was this young man, a solder, who had just returned from fighting some war and was unemployed for a few months. as usual, pple like that pay no heed to the dire warnings and ventured into the woods alone. and unsurprisingly, was killed and eaten by the tiger.
at that moment, the leader of the tiger team was quoted as saying that they had to track down the man eater because human life was the priority. and the first thought that came into my mind was "why?"
objectively speaking, i'd say the tiger's life was more important. it's endangered. humans are overpopulating the earth. and really if you're so foolish as to steal from a tiger or venture into the woods alone knowing a man eater's on the loose, it's kinda natural selection at work innit? improving the gene pool and all?
if you think about it, you cannot really blame the tiger for either of the deaths. to put into practice my studies, the first death really is a case of
ex turpi causa. the hunter did an "illegal act" by stealing from the tiger and that is a valid defence for the tiger to react the way it did.
the second death is arguably
volenti non fit injuria, since the dude voluntarily ventured into the forest alone despite the warning not to. at the very least, it was contributory negligence.
but to summarise, they eventually did manage to catch and kill this tiger. and while doing a post mortem, they found that the tiger had been repeatedly shot at before on more than one occasion. which really explained its aggresive behaviour towards man. and as usual, they portrayed the clash between man and beast typically because man was encroaching on the tiger's habitat with logging and all.
sure some may argue that the real culprits then are the logging MNCs, who really profit from the logging at the villagers' and tigers' expense. so it's not fair that the villagers have to pay the price of getting killed by the tiger. but then again, how is it any fairer for the tiger to pay the price? especially when you cannot expect a tiger to act as a reasonable person but that of a reasonable tiger? the standard of care obviously is very much lowered.
they brought back the bloodied body of the tiger back to the village for cathartic purposes. i was quite upset at how they handled the body. or to put things in perspective, the carcass. they grabbed it by the tail and dragged it all over the snow. people don't handle corpses this way. there is this inherent reverance towards the dead's earthly remains. but curiously, it only extends towards fellow man. and not animals.
are animals a lesser living thing than us humans because they are not sentient? and is the point of sentience subjugation? man always says they're at the top of the food chain because they have conquered nature. tell that to flood/earthquake victims. and if we have truly conquered nature, why are we then still living on earth, a by-product of nature? why can't we just fashion a biosphere and live in it and truly be independent of nature?
the fact is we have not conquered nature. and if all we wanna do is subjugate lower lifeforms, we may as well be neanderthals. they were sentient. but not civilised. we ought to be.