I rather admire the ethics of the zookeeper. They could have made big bucks for the zoo, but instead made the ethical choice of feeding the lions. Who eat meat.

The NYT article above walks us through the reasoning for this giraffe being part of the cycle of life -- albeit the unnatural cycle of life of a caged animal. And why "selling" the giraffe into a life of isolation would have been the cruel act.

Reminds me of a situation in San Francisco Bay, years ago. I may get some details wrong. There was an island with non-native deer, I think, with no natural predators. The deer were in danger of starving to death, so those in charge decided to do a controlled hunt.

All hell broke loose and the wildlife managers caved to public pressure. At ENORMOUS cost, the deer were airlifted into the wilds of Montana, or someplace like that.

The wildlife managers were smart though -- they put tags on the deer, or locator devices, or something. More than 50% of the deer were dead within six months -- killed on the roads, mostly. They didn't know how to live in their new environment.

We are getting so divorced from common sense in our modern world.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. Things die. Lions eat meat. And why not be thrilled for the lions, that they get their natural diet for a change?

*promote with Neil Patrick Harris Golden One PPs. It's like the cycle of life....

Since your exchange was public....

He takes comfort from being part of the cycle of life.

Rather than being separate, above, exempt from the amazing cycle of life that is nature, he embraces the his part in it.

At least, that is how I heard him.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lepidoptera, cycle of life, genitalia, nerdfighters' to 'lepidoptera, cycle of life, genitalia, nerdfighters, Hank Green, vlogbrothers' - edited by DerHasisttot

I've been reading thru these different discussions about Choggie and I really think there's overreacting from both Pro and Anti Choggie supporters. =]

Choggie broke an agreement with Dag not to be a constant prick. - One point green team.

Choggie's comment wasn't inherently racist. (even tho overall, he does seem racially focused & prejudice) - One point blue team.

Yay!Looks like we have a tie!

Which makes all this back & forth (including this comment) amount to lot of pissing in the wind and hoping the other team get some in their face.


In sum:

It's great that chogster had the sensibility to sift a good video but i don't think that's an excuse for being a surly ball-busting instigator.

If the sift seems boring and stagnant, promote more probies.

I bet we have a number of probational members that could adequately fill Sir Choggie's sifting and color commentary gauntlets. (With less vulgarity. That way, we all can have our jabs ..and eat them too =])

I really don't see the big fuse here.

Re-ban his handle. (done) He'll make a new one and be less of prick for a while. Then ban that one when he crosses the line again. And so the cycle of life continues, no?

Great video! I like the whole cycle-of-life analogy.

*sports

How can people rationally discuss the ideas of a Kenyan Nazi Socialist?

How can people rationally discuss the agenda of a stupid, bible-thumping, drunken, chicken-hawk, racist sexist homophobe neocon? From Reagan to Bush to Palin - those are the lables the left applies. Conservative politicians are not engaged on the merits of policy. They are attacked with ad hominems.

Barak Obama does not discuss conservative policy. He dismisses it blythely and pretends he didn't hear it. Like when the Republicans took him to the woodshed just before the health care vote. They cleaned his clock. They beat him like a rug with his own bill. But he ignored every conservative point and said crap like "that's just a prop..." and proceeded to parade sob stories as if they justify his position.

When it comes to policy the GOP has been more than willing to talk substance. The blogosphere and talk radio are not so egalitarian, but they bring up many facts that go otherwise unreported by the left leaning news media. They all certainly are given to fits of exaggeration and rhetoical hyperbole - but since when was that uncommon in politics? But now all of a sudden "oooo - it's mean spirited". Bullcrap. The left ate, drank, breathed and slept in mean spiritedness for 8 years and now they're all offended by it? The public isn't buying it because they aren't that stupid. The left's crocodile tears ring hollow because it's just rhetoric. The right whined about it during Bush, and this is nothing more than the cycle of life in the political world.

I'm all for nature red in tooth and claw, and I fully promote the Cycle of Life, but DAMYN, that seal had to be scared shitless...

>> ^NobleOne:I am a firm believer that if you were to have nanobots they would have been produced naturally kind of like white blood cells... I can't see how nanobots is an evolutionary trait....we are meant to live and meant to die....thus continues the circle of life... oh and if you want to work on your neurons in your brain just go get high....take the time and read about pot or watch.... http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Union-The-Business-Behind-Gettin
g-High-1
oh and side note shrooms regardless of where they grow are natural not man made...



I can certainly understand people only wanting "natural" things in their bodies, I just happen not to share that desire. I can think of plenty of natural things that will kill a person (or worse).

I am concerned more with safety and effect than I am with origin. If one of my major organs began to fail then I would not hesitate to replace it with an artificial version (if available).


You also claim that death is a part of the "cycle of life". Would you feel the same way if death were optional? Would you choose to die prematurely to continue the cycle even if living longer did not require artificial means?

Eventually natural death will be "curable". Maybe we'll be alive to see it, maybe not. It will happen though (assuming no cataclysms) and people will have to deal with these questions. Some will opt out of extended life and others will not, but I do believe that the decision should be up to each individual.

I'm fasnicated by this tactic of blostering faith against attacks from reason by making the subject paranoid of imaginary beings who are out to get him/her. I did most of my growing up in India where this tactic was artfully employed under the concept of 'Maya' which suggests that everything we experience is an elaborate illusion meant to keep us trapped in an endless cycle of life and death. As a young adult it was hard to overcome this form of paranoid thinking that was beaten into me as a child and I think it still clouds some of my subconsicious instincts.

One of many reasons why I think there is no Wormwood like creature out to get me is the same reason why I think trees make noise when they fall with no one around: because the universe does not revolve around me or around the human race for that matter. We seem to be predisposed to think otherwise but everything we have learnt about the universe suggests that it is amoral and apathetic to all of existance.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from Hunster S. Thompson:
"What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create ... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody — or at least some force — is tending that light at the end of the tunnel."