Humans Are Animals But Animals Are not Human Introduction: It appears that there is a lack of understanding and

more than a few misconceptions when it comes to the topic of animals. This article will discuss some of these misconceptions and the realizations that we have to make if we're to avoid deaths and animal attacks. The problem seems to lie in our misconceptions that animals are driven by emotions instead of by pure survival instincts. This causes us to attribute an animal attack towards the human emotion of anger or revenge. I know that all individuals do not hold these misconceptions, which would be presumptuous. What I am saying is that a majority of people do, simply based upon the evidence. The evidence I refer to includes tv shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, etc. It also consists of the news media, and even Academia. Again, some shows are guiltier than others, but the fallacies range from the small towards the absurd. The main point the reader needs to take from this article is that animals are animals, driven by fundamental instincts essential for their survival. They do not really feel anger, jealousy, love, or plot revenge. Although some animals might include the capacity for these emotions, I doubt those senses are as highly developed or reasoned through as ours appear to be. So, when we attempt to attribute human emotions to animal motivations we are generating a silly mistake. We need only try to look in the scenario from the animals point of view. This shouldnt be hard, because we have the ability to reason. We require only attempt to return to a state of mind that we havent had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on cave walls. The Primary Problems: The tree hugger is as much to blame as the hunter. When a nature lover is attacked brutally by an animal and survives they usually make the statement; It did not know what it was doing. This isnt true. The animal knew full nicely what it was doing. They would also make the claim that they should not have put themselves in that scenario. That statement actually is true, to an extent. When we venture out into nature we cannot anticipate that we will not be attacked by a wild animal. What we must anticipate is that there is a possibility, and we should accept responsibility for this if we are going into the woods anyways. Animals are discovering their natural lands threatened by housing developments, businesses, along with other activities that bring human beings into areas where animals used to roam. Their territory is shrinking. So, when we go out into the woods than it is our responsibility. If an individual enters the forest for any reason, and is attacked by an animal, whatever the reason; its their fault. Why? Simply because they know within the back of their mind that it is a possibility. In the event you go into the woods together with your kids and they're attacked, then its the parents fault. Why? Simply because they knew it was a possibility. You've each and every right to take the risk, but when and if something bad happens, you cant blame the animal. You will find people available who think that

animals are of no consequence. The only factor that matters in this world is the human race. If an animal is hit by a automobile, shot, or killed by anything apart from natural indicates; so what. This is really a extremely ignorant viewpoint to have for 1 reason. We live in a globe thats governed by balance. 1 thing affects an additional and if 1 species disappears it will affect other species. Sometimes it may be in a great way for that species and occasionally it can be in a bad way. If all predatory birds had been to go extinct than it could be fantastic for rodents. It would not be so great for whatever the rodents feed upon and it most certainly would not be good for us. Granted some species can go extinct with out significantly upsetting the balance of things. Its when multiple extinctions happen that a main issue will arise. These individuals that do not hold animals in high regard, when attacked by animals, generally are fast to anger. That animal attacked me and therefore must die! I doubt that they would even think about the possibility that they bore any responsibility whatsoever for entering the woods that day. The bottom line is that if people enter the woods, we should be conscious of the dangers. This goes for any natural environment that we consciously enter, understanding full nicely that we might be attacked by a bear or a shark. I will by no means forget an episode of Worlds Most Amazing Video or maybe it was the most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging via the streets of Mexico. If I remember properly, this elephant was performing in a circus, turned on its trainer (killing him), and then began running through the streets. This elephant ended up becoming shot to death in the street. I had no issue with that, it was clear the animal had to be taken down. What I did have a problem with was the statement made by the bonehead commentator of the show. He stated, This is a tragic event, but lets not forget why this was necessary. That may not be his statement word for word, but the point is clear. The elephant had to die because it was a rampaging monster! How ignorant is that? In my opinion that was an very ignorant statement that had me cursing out loud at my television set. It is true that the elephant did kill his trainer. It is also accurate that the elephant was out of control. Why are these the only valid points? Did anybody stop to think that the elephant should not have already been there within the first place? Elephants do not belong in circuses and they do not belong in zoos. The only purpose a zoo ought to serve is to rehabilitate injured animals or to shelter animals which are endangered. Animals are wild, the only mistake made in the elephant scenario is that WE, thought we could tame or control this animal. Can we do it? Yes, we can, but ought to we, NO! Personally, if an animal that is in a zoo or a circus attacks a person then I do not wish to hear about it. No sympathy will be found with me. The bottom line is that animals belong within the wild. I do not care how tame or domesticated we believe that they're. The opportunity will usually stay that they are able to attack for factors that truly do not matter. I have a hard sufficient time attempting to determine why individuals do a few of the issues they do. The last thing I want to have to do on a daily basis is attempt to figure out what an elephant, bear or a shark was thinking. When I was younger,

I went to zoos. The last time I visited a zoo I was 21 years old, and it was at Busch Gardens and Disneys Wild Kingdom. I'm 31 years old and I have not been to a zoo since. I will never go to a zoo once more merely because I dont believe in them. To take a wild animal and stick it in a cage for our amusement is merely ridiculous. How numerous of us would like to be stuck in an enclosure, I dont care how natural or comfortable that its, after which told we can by no means leave? Not numerous, but since we are not talking about people than it doesnt matter. Animals do not belong in cages. They're meant to be out within the wild. So, when we location animals in scenarios that they instinctually dont belong in then we cant hold them accountable for their actions. The only individuals that may be held accountable for animal attacks occurring in zoos or a circus are we. Not just the owner of the zoo or circus, but the individual that was attacked as well. Following all, they are the ones paying the fee to enter an area where dangerous animals are kept. Its all about responsibility and too often are we not willing to accept our share of the responsibility in this day and age. Animals are not governed by the exact same things that we are. If a person wrongs us then we get angry. If an individual loves us then we love back. Human beings are capable of an array of emotions such as, jealousy, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc. We also have the ability to plot and scheme. If someone makes us extremely angry or jealous then we might wish to do harm against that other person. Animals dont believe this way and however whenever I hear, or read of an animal attack; I always hear someone attempt to attribute human motivations to why the animal behaved the way it did. Actual life is not Lady and the Tramp, or Over the Hedge. Animals do not reason like we do. The only activities that animal are concerned with are consuming, sleeping, pooping, peeing, and reproduction. From the day they are born till the day they die, they are only concerned with life processes. Our way of life together with our extremely developed brain allows us to move beyond these easy processes. They are still there and will forever remain the focal point of life, but they will never consume as much of our lives as it does for animals. Humans still need to eat, sleep, poop, pee, reproduce, etc. We have much more free time that allows us to focus on other things. We function for food and recreational issues. We get water from a nicely and live in houses and apartments. This permits us to apply our energies elsewhere. Animals arent afforded this. Mainly because they've not evolved towards the extent that humans have. This is nobodies fault, its just how its. With this evolution comes responsibility on our component. We have to understand that we are responsible for our actions simply because we are aware of our actions. It is different with animals, they are not aware of their actions. If I'm walking within the woods and a grizzly bear attacks me, it does not do so out of anger. The grizzly may merely see me as an easy target. If its hungry then it will appear for food. Its wrong to say that human beings arent component of what they eat. A bear will eat just about anything if it is hungry. We know that bears eat meat. Actually, bears have been recognized to eat every thing from berries to bucks. I think the reason that we say

issues like, They dont usually eat people, or We arent component of their diet, is because we're rarely in contact with bears. Because our evolution we have put ourselves in contained environments called houses, that are surrounded by towns and cities. No bears here, although in rural locations, residents can catch glimpses of bears in their back yards. The bottom line is that we are meat. Yes, human beings are meat. We're. You can slice us, dice us, stick us in a frying pan, and eat us. You'll not starve either. I'm certain we are packed with tons of protein and fat, ideal for surviving long winters. We do not usually think of us as food, simply because we tend to frown on cannibalism. We eat chicken, beef, pork, lamb, duck, lobsters, crabs, etc, etc. Theres extremely small on this earth that we dont eat. Why is a bear consuming an individual any more appalling than a human eating a bear? I believe the main reason is that we then envision if it were we getting eaten, after which we conclude that it would suck. Whether or not it sucks or not doesnt matter. What does matter is that we are edible just like any other animal on this planet. To say that a bear is blood thirsty, or got the taste for blood is a ridiculous statement also. From the time they're a bear cub; they've the taste for blood and they eat lots of it. What they mean by have a taste for blood is that they have tasted human and like it. Here is a great example. If I had never tasted Chinese food prior to after which I try it, and then it turns out that I adore it. I'm going to wish to eat Chinese food as often as possible. In reality I adore Chinese food, and would eat it everyday if I could. The exact same might be accurate for bears. How do we know what we taste like? We do not eat one another so how do we know whether or not we taste great? For all we know human meat could be the greatest freaking tasting meat on the face of the earth. I will bet it is very tender, given the less active nature of our society. So, if a bear attacks me, and he gets a taste; it might just be that he likes it. Its only natural for the bear to seek out some much more of that tasty meat. So, it is not that a bear is blood thirsty, it just indicates that he has tasted human, likes it, and continues to seek it. Human beings make nice targets. Appear at us, we have no claws, no lengthy sharp teeth, we're not very large, and have lost the capability to protect ourselves in the wild without a club, knife, or a gun. The only thing we have going for us in that situation is our higher intelligence. Because we cant kill the bear with our bare hands we are forced to try and outsmart it by playing dead. Incidentally we are not the only animals that employ this tactic. An additional extremely essential piece the grizzly bear attack puzzle is human expansion. We are continuously expanding into new territories that had been once inhabited by these animals. How can we be sure how they view this activity? As I said before, I doubt they exhibit any rational human thought to the situation, but they do recognize change. Some animals may be able to associate humans with this change that threatens their home. This may trigger a natural instinct to attack. This may lead an animal to kill for the sake of killing. It is not out of anger or jealousy. All the animal knows is that we're responsible for the changes, they really feel threatened, and they attack. This is much the exact same as a young male lion challenging

the older lion for control of the pride. During rutting season, bucks lock horns for the right to mate. These are instinctual actions that might be triggered by human encroachment into an animals territory. This would then cause an animal to see us as a threat, and within the animal globe you only do two things having a threat: you either drive it away or you kill it. This behavior may account for a few of the animal attacks that occur in this country and all over the world. Of course; It depends upon what animal you're talking about. Bears, deer, big cats may exhibit this behavior but it is highly unlikely that a shark or a crocodile would. In the case of many shark attacks its either a case mistaken identity, or they just do not care, because it looks edible and they are going to eat it. It cant say for sure about crocs, but I would assume that the majority of attacks are about food with a handful about territory. Conclusions; The bottom line is that many of the animal attacks that happen in this nation are simply a matter of an opportune meal. Human beings wander into environments where animals live and they merely view us as an easy target. Animals see us as food, nothing much more. How often do we believe twice prior to cutting into a steak or eating a burger? This is a lot the same way, as a predator would view us in their environment. They dont see us as an individual; they see us as a nice juicy steakfor arguments sake. We need to keep this in mind prior to we venture out anyplace that we can come into get in touch with with these animals. Even in the event you dont believe of some of these animals as hazardous, you still need to be cautious. Just ask anybody that has been attacked by a deer! Numerous of us would not assume a deer would pose a threat, but they are able to do damage. In the end we cant ever really comprehend why the animal attacked us. The reality remains that animals can and do attack. Occasionally we live and occasionally we die. If we select to enter the woods then we much accept this consequence. We should also keep this in mind when moving into a brand new housing development. It'll take animals time to let go of old territories and seek out new territories. Unfortunately they may not always have the ability to and this brings humans and animals into contact increasingly more. As much as we like to think that we rule the earth, its only an illusion. It is an illusion that may price us dearly if we're not careful within the future. I am not saying that if a bear kills an individual or a child that it should not be killed. Personally, I believe it depends upon the circumstances of the attack and also the wishes of the family members. Ultimately, whether or not or not the animal is put down I assure you that the animal has no sense of correct or wrong. If an animal such as a bear eats an individual, than in all most likely hood it will attempt to eat an additional. We should taste great to them, or else the statement, That bears got a taste for blood, would not have survived so long as it has. So ,what do you do with an animal like that? I guess the only thing we could do is try not to give them the chance to get a liking for individuals meat. We have to be more conscious about how the globe works beyond the confines of our cities and towns. There is another globe that we left long ago known as the wild. Understanding is power. We have to be conscious of the possibility of an attack

when we enter the woods. We must always be conscious that if we live in rural locations that the possibility nonetheless also remains. We ought to familiarize ourselves with the animals that pose a threat in our region and discover out what measures we can take to make sure our safety. As far as zoos go, we ought to take full responsibility there. If an animal in captivity eats one of us then oh freaking well! It is our fault the animal is in that scenario in the first place. Elephants belong in Africa, polar bears belong up north, and lions belong in Africa, and so on and so forth. We cant expect them to suppress millions of years of natural instincts simply simply because we want to train them to entertain us. Thats simply absurd. The same can be said for a circus or any other type of entertainment that utilizes wild animals. Regardless of how well trained we think they might be, they are able to nonetheless attack us for whatever reason. The bottom line is that we would not get attacked if we did not put animals in the position to attack us. If we had left the elephant in Mexico in Africa where it belongs than that trainer would still be alive these days, hopefully in a various profession. Even probably the most domesticated animals on the planet can nonetheless be unpredictable. A dog can turn on its owner in a heartbeat. It might have never done so prior to and it might by no means do so again. Nonetheless, it is not that animals fault; its the fault of the person using the animal. I have had more than my fare share of cats and dogs in my lifetime and I have had a couple of scars to prove it. As far as I am concerned it goes with the territory. If I am willing to have a pet then I must be willing to bear the consequences of that animals action. anime