Not like I don’t understand that, but just to “argue” (not really) the opposite - the tiger wouldn’t have killed more than 100 people if it took months to capture it (by which time it would have been a regular, accustomed to be fed & taken care of like other outdoor felines in the city), and on a non-personal scale the death of 100 ppl has no effect on anything (humans also outnumber tigers by unimaginable orders of magnitude, but I’m saying no human infrastructure or concept would suffer because of the deaths).
We decided that cohabitation with nature means 0 deaths (or even inconvenience) to people, it’s part of basically all our cultures & believes (on a personal level, not on a ‘let’s not make wars or poison all the things’ way). And that means a lot less diversity.
Yes, tigers can’t live in cities as we have them, but it would have been within the domain of the culture to decide when it’s acceptable to kill a cat.
I’m really not quite sure what you’re on about … but there aren’t supposed to be tigers in Germany. I’m a cat owner, but tigers aren’t domestic cats. They are very wild and you can’t trust them to be mostly harmless, because it doesn’t end with just some scratches if they don’t like you.
No, that part wasn’t about tigers (sorry, I can see how I wasn’t clear), it’s about how we exterminate all potential threats out of our (with that more) sterile environments.
For potential threats eg wolves from Germany (compared to several centuries ago), for convenience eg mass draining of wetlands.
(And no, ofc you don’t “trust” wild/big cats, ofc they are a threat, I’m just saying that we value human lives vs nature a lot, something that might be confusing when you think about how cheap human lives are, yet any animal has a lower price tag. Don’t mind me, I’m just amused by us & comment on how we behave.)
Not like I don’t understand that, but just to “argue” (not really) the opposite - the tiger wouldn’t have killed more than 100 people if it took months to capture it (by which time it would have been a regular, accustomed to be fed & taken care of like other outdoor felines in the city), and on a non-personal scale the death of 100 ppl has no effect on anything (humans also outnumber tigers by unimaginable orders of magnitude, but I’m saying no human infrastructure or concept would suffer because of the deaths).
We decided that cohabitation with nature means 0 deaths (or even inconvenience) to people, it’s part of basically all our cultures & believes (on a personal level, not on a ‘let’s not make wars or poison all the things’ way). And that means a lot less diversity.
Yes, tigers can’t live in cities as we have them, but it would have been within the domain of the culture to decide when it’s acceptable to kill a cat.
I’m really not quite sure what you’re on about … but there aren’t supposed to be tigers in Germany. I’m a cat owner, but tigers aren’t domestic cats. They are very wild and you can’t trust them to be mostly harmless, because it doesn’t end with just some scratches if they don’t like you.
No, that part wasn’t about tigers (sorry, I can see how I wasn’t clear), it’s about how we exterminate all potential threats out of our (with that more) sterile environments.
For potential threats eg wolves from Germany (compared to several centuries ago), for convenience eg mass draining of wetlands.
(And no, ofc you don’t “trust” wild/big cats, ofc they are a threat, I’m just saying that we value human lives vs nature a lot, something that might be confusing when you think about how cheap human lives are, yet any animal has a lower price tag. Don’t mind me, I’m just amused by us & comment on how we behave.)