Well for crying out loud, really!?!

I'm so glad I actually tweak and finely tune my Google Reader so i get nothing but the stuff that will always evoke a response. Those responses vary greatly but are always literal and real.

I found an article over at the awesome truemor mill concerning a mother polar bear in captivity that has rejected her two newborn cubs. (Spoiler alert! But don't be a slack ass - visit the site cause it's fucking cool!) Apparently, she's not feeding her cubs and without some sort of intervention they will certainly perish. But officials at the zoo where the mother polar bear and cubs reside are thinking of not intervening at all. Their reasoning is that this situation happens in nature and is a natural part of the polar bears' mortality. Collectively, rates of birth, death, live-span, etc. are contribute to the polar bears' biological success in the wild, this is true.

I guess why I scratch my head at this is that on one hand, by intervening and saving the cubs by possibly finding surrogate parent(s) does represent human interference with nature. But on the other hand, with all the fucked up ways we have already interfered with nature (and for more asinine reasons, mind you) what would be the harm in sparing the cubs lives? Maybe I'm not thinking that deeply into this issue/subject or maybe I'm missing something (well, it happens to the best of us). But I would make the call to save the cubs' lives and help nourish them and raise them in some way. Hopefully, they can find surrogate parents this way they don't become too domesticated. Or maybe that is an oxymoron since they are in the zoo to begin with. Yeah, could be...

What do you think?

;-)

SYS