There was no hurry. It could have been captured and released back in Greenland, but Iceland won’t do that because of the cost, so they just kill it. How much would you be willing to contribute to prevent a polar bear from being killed?
The articles I have read only say that the woman saw it outside her house. There was no indication that it had attempted anything other than rummage through garbage. And the police had to travel about 30 km by boat to get there, so the response time couldn’t have been quick
Please show me a map of where it was found in relation to places where people live.
Well, another article says it was in Höfðaströnd There are only a few buildings there and spread far apart, so the only relevant person is the one woman.
How do you know this was actually doable?
They attempted it before so they thought it was doable. There was a commission to decide how to handle polar bears in the future and all they said was that it cost too much.
And they should be forced to bear a cost burden they can’t afford?
It didn’t say that they couldn’t afford it, just that they wouldn’t pay for it. (You keep rephrasing things in a way that was not intended to try to make your position stronger. That’s called a strawman argument. You should stop that.) And they seem to be getting a lot of complaints from Icelanders that are upset that they killed the bear, so it probably wouldn’t be forced, but something that many Icelanders would be willing to pay.
You still haven’t explained how they were supposed to get it to Greenland without Greenland’s or Denmark’s permission. Just drop it out of a plane with a parachute?
You do understand that Greenland is under no obligation to let a polar bear that might be carrying deadly pathogens into their country, right?
That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.
I certainly would not be involved so I don’t know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don’t have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don’t have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don’t have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don’t have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say “Maybe we shouldn’t kill polar bears.”
No hurry? The woman in the cabin that spotted the bear was just a wooden door or a glass window away from the animal.
Also, Greenland doesn’t want them back, they even shoot the bears on sight if they are too close to human settlements.
They do however have a quota and each bear that is killed in Iceland contributes to this quota.
So what about humans posing a threat to them? If it’s so rare to have them show up in Iceland, what drove a polar bear to do this? From what I understand, with less ice at the poles it has made it harder for polar bears to hunt seals, leaving many of them starving. As we head towards winter, polar bears have to put on fat stores to survive and feed newborn cubs. It’s really a shame that so many people talk about “animals” as if we aren’t animals too. By your logic, there would be nothing wrong with polar bears rolling into town and eating the species threatening their survival.
I agree. We should just shoot all fossil fuel company CEOs until they appoint one that agrees to stop polluting the earth so that polar bears have more space to live in 👍🏻
By your logic, there would be nothing wrong with polar bears rolling into town and eating the species threatening their survival.
How on Earth is that my logic?
If a specific animal poses a direct threat to humans pretty much anywhere on the planet, that animal is killed. That’s just how things work. I’m sorry polar bears are getting desperate for food due to our causing climate change, but that doesn’t mean we should put people’s lives at risk too.
The difference between the two of us is that you think humans are more important than other animals and I don’t. If this polar bear killed a few humans in Iceland, I’m not saying those particular humans would deserve it, but we as a species do. This polar bear didn’t do anything wrong. It has no capacity to, it was just trying to survive. Maybe instead of destroying anything that may potentially be a threat to humans, we should protect the planet we live on and the habitats of our fellow plants and animals. It’s in our own best interests too. No sense arguing about it though, I doubt either of us will change our minds.
Really? Is this you? Because this sure sounds like you saying that the children’s lives matter less than the bear’s since this is your argument to not kill the bear:
It’s either the bear or the people in a case like this. You don’t wait for it to go on a killing spree at a school and then go, “oopsies!”
Do you seriously lack reading comprehension skills? The section of my comment you’ve pointed out says that I value them equally, not that polar bears are more valuable than humans, and not that humans are more valuable than polar bears. This is why I knew it was pointless to argue with you, because you aren’t doing it in good faith. Go protect your imaginary school from the polar bears massing an imminent attack if you want to act like this.
Most murders are committed by people. I say we reduce the number of people, perhaps through allowing them to destroy the environment so that they cannot survive. This will make the world safer in the long run, and it will also teach humans that their actions have consequences.
As a side effect, polar bears will also die, so everyone will be happy (and dead)!
Since my comment was removed for trolling (I wasn’t trolling, it was just sarcasm), I will rephrase it. If we accept the premises that any polar bear that is a threat should be killed and every polar bear is inherently a threat, then the conclusion is that every polar bear should be killed. I reject the first premise and conclusion.
Removed by mod
Or, you know, just the ones that are actively posing a threat. Like in all such animal situations.
This one was not actively posing a threat.
So it has to actually be bearing down on a group of people before it needs to be euthanized? Really?
There was no hurry. It could have been captured and released back in Greenland, but Iceland won’t do that because of the cost, so they just kill it. How much would you be willing to contribute to prevent a polar bear from being killed?
How do you know? Please show me a map of where it was found in relation to places where people live.
How do you know this was actually doable? Why do you think the polar bear would survive being dropped off in a random place?
And they should be forced to bear a cost burden they can’t afford?
The articles I have read only say that the woman saw it outside her house. There was no indication that it had attempted anything other than rummage through garbage. And the police had to travel about 30 km by boat to get there, so the response time couldn’t have been quick
Well, another article says it was in Höfðaströnd There are only a few buildings there and spread far apart, so the only relevant person is the one woman.
They attempted it before so they thought it was doable. There was a commission to decide how to handle polar bears in the future and all they said was that it cost too much.
It didn’t say that they couldn’t afford it, just that they wouldn’t pay for it. (You keep rephrasing things in a way that was not intended to try to make your position stronger. That’s called a strawman argument. You should stop that.) And they seem to be getting a lot of complaints from Icelanders that are upset that they killed the bear, so it probably wouldn’t be forced, but something that many Icelanders would be willing to pay.
You still haven’t explained how they were supposed to get it to Greenland without Greenland’s or Denmark’s permission. Just drop it out of a plane with a parachute?
You do understand that Greenland is under no obligation to let a polar bear that might be carrying deadly pathogens into their country, right?
That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.
I certainly would not be involved so I don’t know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don’t have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don’t have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don’t have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don’t have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say “Maybe we shouldn’t kill polar bears.”
No hurry? The woman in the cabin that spotted the bear was just a wooden door or a glass window away from the animal.
Also, Greenland doesn’t want them back, they even shoot the bears on sight if they are too close to human settlements. They do however have a quota and each bear that is killed in Iceland contributes to this quota.
So what about humans posing a threat to them? If it’s so rare to have them show up in Iceland, what drove a polar bear to do this? From what I understand, with less ice at the poles it has made it harder for polar bears to hunt seals, leaving many of them starving. As we head towards winter, polar bears have to put on fat stores to survive and feed newborn cubs. It’s really a shame that so many people talk about “animals” as if we aren’t animals too. By your logic, there would be nothing wrong with polar bears rolling into town and eating the species threatening their survival.
I agree. We should just shoot all fossil fuel company CEOs until they appoint one that agrees to stop polluting the earth so that polar bears have more space to live in 👍🏻
Just feed them to the polar bears.
How on Earth is that my logic?
If a specific animal poses a direct threat to humans pretty much anywhere on the planet, that animal is killed. That’s just how things work. I’m sorry polar bears are getting desperate for food due to our causing climate change, but that doesn’t mean we should put people’s lives at risk too.
The difference between the two of us is that you think humans are more important than other animals and I don’t. If this polar bear killed a few humans in Iceland, I’m not saying those particular humans would deserve it, but we as a species do. This polar bear didn’t do anything wrong. It has no capacity to, it was just trying to survive. Maybe instead of destroying anything that may potentially be a threat to humans, we should protect the planet we live on and the habitats of our fellow plants and animals. It’s in our own best interests too. No sense arguing about it though, I doubt either of us will change our minds.
You would not care if a polar bear mauled a playground full of toddlers. Noted.
Good luck getting pretty much anyone who has any say in these matters to agree with you on that.
I never said I didn’t care.
Really? Is this you? Because this sure sounds like you saying that the children’s lives matter less than the bear’s since this is your argument to not kill the bear:
It’s either the bear or the people in a case like this. You don’t wait for it to go on a killing spree at a school and then go, “oopsies!”
Do you seriously lack reading comprehension skills? The section of my comment you’ve pointed out says that I value them equally, not that polar bears are more valuable than humans, and not that humans are more valuable than polar bears. This is why I knew it was pointless to argue with you, because you aren’t doing it in good faith. Go protect your imaginary school from the polar bears massing an imminent attack if you want to act like this.
Most murders are committed by people. I say we reduce the number of people, perhaps through allowing them to destroy the environment so that they cannot survive. This will make the world safer in the long run, and it will also teach humans that their actions have consequences.
As a side effect, polar bears will also die, so everyone will be happy (and dead)!
Since my comment was removed for trolling (I wasn’t trolling, it was just sarcasm), I will rephrase it. If we accept the premises that any polar bear that is a threat should be killed and every polar bear is inherently a threat, then the conclusion is that every polar bear should be killed. I reject the first premise and conclusion.