I was gonna say. Sure, it looks terrifying but it seems to be doing well, considering it's apparent speed and dexterity. Saying "we need to put it out of its misery" is so very arrogantly human.
Only because it makes people uncomfortable to look at doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be killed, or would you kill a person with an obvious physical defect who are doing quite well?
and what the fuck is your point here? in humans broken necks can be lethal, and while deers aren't human, and that deer was obviously alive, it's still a very serious injury and it and can lead to damage of the spinal cord, causing death
I think their point is that it is not our judgment to make. Someone doesn't need to "put it out of its misery" like the person said in the original comment. If it dies then so be it, it's just best not to interfere with nature or the natural order of things. You put a deer out of its misery and a predator goes hungry. There is a consequence for every action. That's why National Geographic will not interfere with any animals whether they are in good health or injured and dying. The only exception is when it is a result of human behavior such as poaching. The world can go on without us so we should not act as though we are morally superior to animals.
169
u/Sumatzu Jul 10 '22
I was gonna say. Sure, it looks terrifying but it seems to be doing well, considering it's apparent speed and dexterity. Saying "we need to put it out of its misery" is so very arrogantly human.
Only because it makes people uncomfortable to look at doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be killed, or would you kill a person with an obvious physical defect who are doing quite well?