This is one of those prime directive episodes
My feelings could be wrong and that’s okay, but I don’t see any issues with this. The idea that they should sit around and watch animals suffer and die in a situation like this is stupid. It would be one thing intervening to save prey from predator, but I think letting endangered species freeze to death just to showcase the circle of life is unnecessary.
Humans seem to have no issue meddling so much when it comes to doing things that harm the environment, but god forbid they actually meddle to do something good for once.
Do you want penguins to start a religion? Because that’s how you get penguins starting a religion
Being given worship-pebbles by a horde of penguins would be fun.
Once the storm broke, the crew decided to intervene, but they did so “passively.” They didn’t lift the birds; instead, they used their tools to dig a shallow ramp into the ice, creating a path the penguins could potentially use to escape on their own.
That’s fair.
I like to think that as the penguins began jubilantly making their escape the wisest of them stopped for just a moment to give a knowing glance at the camera crew before climbing the ramp.
Rob-redford-nod.jpg
🎥
Cooperation between living things is as much a part of nature as conflict. Why then does it make sense for humans to “not interfere” in nature? It doesn’t make sense. It is one thing to pick sides between a predator and prey animal, but this was not that.
It is one thing to pick sides between a predator and prey animal, but this was not that.
Eh, those “circling predators” mentioned in the article just lost out on a feast. I can understand the non-intervention philosophy. Intervening while filming nature docs is probably not sustainable.
It is not sustainable, but we don’t have to treat it as a “cardinal sin” is my point.
many (incorrectly) see humans as somehow apart from or above nature
the walmart parking lot isn’t very naturey.
All jokes aside everything in the universe is by definition a part of nature, and for us humans to proclaim that we, and by extention, any product of our labor is beyond nature is arrogance.
that’s true in a strict but not useful for demarcation sense. even with an understanding that we are animals made of meat and electrochemistry, there’s a scale and abstraction to what we build that really doesn’t belong in the same category as nests, termite mounds, or beaver dams.
we use tools to make tools to make tools to make tools… to make computers and space rockets, other tool-using animals use a stick to get bugs out of a log.
I think the demarcation between “humanity” and “nature” is a really harmful one. It should be combated.
i think it’s contextual. there are many situations we would do well to remember that our social-level actions impact the world we live in and we are impacted by it in turn.
one specific example of the demarcation being important is telling creationists to shut the fuck up. if you walk around in the woods and find something plainly artificial you’ve done so by contrast to the natural surroundings.
It does make sense to give a “lie to children” when arguing with some people, and demarcating man-made vs natural could be useful there, but it wouldn’t be a part of my world-view to make this demarcation.
On a fundamental philosophical sense, I just don’t see a distinction. Under materialist philosophy, everything is equally a part of nature and its laws.
It’s not the cardinal rule for humans, it’s the cardinal rule for nature documentaries.
“Nature” mfs when they’ve been choking the planet with poisonous gas for centuries but don’t wanna help out a starving animal
Then I am not fit to be a nature documenter.
Right? We are a part of nature and as per Marx very much have a hand in it, literally. And it has a hand in shaping us.
The pseudoneutral “do not intervene” is some sort of liberalism surely. Like we could separate ourselves and just observe anything without influence, we can’t.
I am sure the camera crew already impacts the behaviour of these creatures. Or the reason they are in this situation is downstream from human caused climate change somehow. Or whatever.
It just sounds like another version of “neutrality” aka not responsible to me.
In one of marx’s writings, he explains that the bourgeoise love to ascribe supernatural creative ability to human labor, setting it and its products apart from nature.
This allows them to maintain the illusion that wealth = hard-work, obscuring the fact that the bourgeoise’s monopolistic of nature is the source of its economic strength.
If we’re already filling fields full of mine tailings, we can let some penguins out of a hole
deleted by creator
If it’s a cardinal rule, why did they use it on penguins? They’re different birds! Some “nature” experts they are.
Dropping popcorn all over my exposed belly in my recliner while rolling my eyes Fucking idiots… what is this? Amateur hour?
no one respects bird law these days
Idk, feels like humanity’s climate change a bit overshadows the amount of interfering with them birds compared to a few carved steps in ice at -50°C.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Capitalism-driven climate change is already intervening in penguins’ lives.
HPAI which is at least being managed worse due to capitalism is already intervening in penguins’ lives.
There should be no controversy here if a few people intervene to protect penguins given how much humans have intervened to kill them.
Good reminder to all of us that doing nothing is also doing something
Rare British W
Futurama did it
I’m glad they did this. More nature documentaries should be about helping animals by fixing problems that humans created.
