|Source: Harembe the gorilla, Reuters (Extracted from http://www.independent.co.uk)|
I don’t usually comment on news or the latest controversy on the net but I had this urge to pen down my thoughts for the recent misfortune about a Gorilla named Harambe at Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio who was killed in order save the life of a 4-year-old boy. This news has set a wildfire on the net and angered a lot of netizens who were unhappy with the turn of events.
1) Is the life of a human more important than an animal?
2) Should Harambe be shot dead?
It wasn’t very clear through their explanations for killing the Gorilla. Should they have explained clearly in their decision-making process, perhaps it wouldn’t have stirred up angry emotions among the people, especially animal activists?
Not to also mentioned that this Gorilla is an endangered species which makes this issue really tricky. Would a zoo risks having an endangered species killed?
Nevertheless, the child was saved. Imagine what the situation would be like if both were killed and none survived?
Did they have to really shoot the Gorilla dead?
If I am not wrong, they must have thought that that was the best way of taking the boy out of the enclosure. I mean, the toddler isn’t able to run or climb out of the enclosure right? One thing for sure, there aren’t any brave souls around to attempt to save the boy by entering the enclosure. Next, they didn’t want to drag the situation any longer and just observe what happens next which I really wonder what would happen if the toddler was stuck with the gorilla for hours. I also wouldn’t think that the gorilla would ‘surrender’ the boy and bring him to the zookeepers, would he?
And suppose if Harambe decides to do something to the child, and the child dies, all angry eyes will be on the zoo. Angrier voices would be heard.
3) Should the boy’s parents be responsible for this mistake?
4) Should we even have zoos?