Groovy, but misleading.
Bleached corals aren't necessarily dead, but the algae they live on is. If the bleaching was recent, the corals themselves may be ok, and might even survive if the water cools enough to recolonize with algae.
Also...since when are the gravitational effects of the moon simply called love? Coral are like 50 cent, they're into having sex, they ain't into making love. Sorry to ruin her anthropomorphism.

Just a thought, if you anthropomorphize the planet...if you imagine that disease and other natural human limiting factors are a planets immune response...at what point do we become a virus. Just like in the video, it's horrifying to imagine an organism invading a cell and using it as camouflage. What type of virus do we become when we rewrite the genetic code of other organisms, resulting in our unchecked growth which eventually destroys the host?

I'm sure that malaria would think it unethical not to evolve in a way that would ensure the survival of future generations.

I'm upvoting the cute anthropomorphism, but that baboon isn't amazed. The magician seems to have made a hands-slapping-down sort of movement, which has been taken as some sort of aggression. Much like similar motion to a dog means "let's play".

Dude, after that, the mouse HELLA blazed that spliff and the cat got a total contact high -- just like in the 1946 Academy Award winning short, "Tom and Jerry meet Da Chronic" in which Jerry, voiced by Tom Waits, finds Tom's sack of dank and bogarts the lot. It's a great cartoon -- teaches kids the importance of puff-puff-pass and not to ever trust anthropomorphic mice with your weed.

Any other questions?

Man... I know this was just a slip of the keyboard, but I really think there should be anthropomorphic climate change. It would be like a little mascot made of smog and storms and rising temperature graphs and it'd race around the earth looking for adventure and GHG emissions!

...actually there probably was anthropomorphic climate change somewhere in the old Captain Planet cartoons.

I wonder, what percentage of the "2%" of "scientists" that were not convinced of anthropomorphic climate change have also changed their positions?
When deniers claim the science isn't settled, can we now tell them they are a decade behind the times because those few they point to as 'the large number of scientists that don't believe in climate change' have all changed their positions or left the scientific field completely?
Not that many here need to be convinced, but we do have a few holdouts....so *promote

Between this and the Zootopia trailer, there's a lot of work for anthropomorphic sloths these days.

I didn't see the "praying" in the rolling video, but the stills that look like that make me pretty sure that he's actually doing a Thai "wai": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_greeting

As that link mentions, the wai can be used for greeting / thank you / sorry depending on the situation. The still looks exactly like the kind of posture I'd expect in a "sorry" wai -- so I bet that he was treating the elephant in an anthropomorphic way and apologizing to it.

One more interesting but maybe less relevant piece of information about wais -- the height of where you put your "praying hands" along your chest/head is used to denote rank / class differences or add extra deference. So thumbs at sternum is used for equal rank / age, thumbs at chin/mouth for bosses or elders, and thumbs at nose for monks. If you really fuck something up and want to apologize profusely you can wai with thumbs on your forehead.

...So, although I think the guy was doing an "apologetic wai" to the elephant, his thumbs were at sternum level, which suggests that he's treating the elephant as an equal and has a certain degree of nonchalance.

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;-)

My dogs, and almost every dog I've ever known that doesn't have medical problems causing facial deformity or paralysis, DOES smile when happy. They also wag their tails. If you can't see emotion in a dog's face, I think you need serious therapy (or a new dog). It's clearly there to see.
You picked a cat (cats, who normally don't show much facial emotion) with a facial deformity to 'prove' your point that animals don't show emotion? OK, well, then lets look at Steven Hawking (or any severe facially paralyzed stroke victim)...he never shows emotion, so that proves that people don't smile either, right? That's how I read your argument.

And again....does this... :-) ...have a smile? But it's just a drawing and has no emotion to display...so how can it smile by your definition? It can smile because a smile is upturned mouth corners, and not necessarily an anthropomorphic display of emotion through facial muscles.
EDIT: Ascribing emotional content to a smile is how YOU INTERPRET the smile. The mouth shape IS the smile.

It may look to us like this gecko is HAPPY, but that's mostly because it's mouth is smiling. I think that's the argument you may want to be making instead of the 'animals don't smile' argument.

It was just over-hyped. They should have talked about the scientific accuracies after it opened. If they hadn't built it up, people wouldn't be hacking it down.

...and the robots aren't just two slabs of metal. They Rubik's Cube out, and the smaller blocks swivel out into arms and manipulators.

There's a making of TARS and CASE video on the sift (try 2:00 if you're impatient) that explains why they're a cool idea. If for nothing else, the fact they aren't anthropomorphic in any real way.

To anthropomorphize shamelessly---they look like they are having a lot of fun!

You are most likely correct that that is not what most people think, because most people simply don't think.

Wow...so any mystic, people generally regarded as useless for any other profession, should be given more weight than anyone who ever graced a stage, no matter what other credentials they may possess? I don't believe that is what most people think, not even most religious people.

Any functioning eye can see itself if you have a mirror. A sword can cut itself if you melt/bend it. ;-)

It seems that you think god had the option to create a perfect universe, but chose not to. If 'he' is omniscient, he does know how it will turn out. (side note, all BUT ONE of those infinite possibilities would be imperfection, but why would 'he' not choose perfection?)

The elegant function of the universe is no proof or even indication of any intelligence behind it, but is only proof of elegance of the laws of physics/nature. No intelligence or designer required for this elegance, and I think the need to have an anthropomorphized "creator" take credit is just a way to feel that somehow humans (which most would say 'he' created the universe for, and/or are made in 'his' image), and therefore you are, in some way, very like the 'creator' and deserving of misusing the universe in any way you see fit.

Non theists do not get mad at god anymore than you get mad at Santa for not bringing you what you want, or leprechauns for not handing you their gold. We get mad at people acting ridiculously, giving credit to phantoms for explainable events, confusing fact with myth, confusing impressionable undereducated people, wasting valuable time with nonsense and non sequitur (often simply as a method to obstruct change), and standing in the way of progress, both scientific and societal. We don't think god fails our standard (except the standard of reality or the requirement of actual existence), we think the very IDEA of god fails along with every definition or description...every time it's examined honestly....no matter which god you choose to examine.

Besides how cute it is, and it is super cute, I just want to understand what is going on here.

So animals have emotions or am I anthropomorphizing? It's amazing to me when I see inter-species animals connect this way. This mare being so patient and nurturing. Dogs adopting kittens etc. I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I think I should go vegetarian, but I do love a juicy steak. If dogs and cats and horses have emotions, don't cows?

edit .. I probably shouldn't include cats. Jury is still out on if they have their own agenda in all this or not.

edit 2 .. not saying we should eat cats.

Stop anthropomorphizing a corpse.. less than a corpse, atoms. You are speaking about atoms.