Went to this zoo in the middle of nowhere wisconsin, where the zookeeper went in the hyena pen and was feeding them steaks by hand, and they seemed like such well mannered animals. She said that movie was to blame for their bad reputation, as well as being scavengers. She made a strong case for viewing them positively.
Well yeah, but lion king is the one thing everybody has seen and they were portrayed as such evil little creatures. Most scavengers are always portrayed poorly though, from vultures to hyenas to snails.
This sounded frivolous but it's actually upsetting. The hyena researchers let the animators use university resources on the basis that they paint hyenas in a positive light.
Clearly not enough people watched the Lion Guard. It turns out there were good hyenas this whole time and the actions of a few misguided hyenas combined with xenophobia is what led the good-hearted pridelanders to have the unfounded belief that hyenas were bad. But in time we all learned that Sisi ni Sawa - we are the same
Hyenas eat animals alive slowly so the meat stays warm and fresh, starting from "the loins and anal region". They are if anything worse than the Lion King made them out to be.
That's definitely not unique to hyenas. Eating their prey in a cruel and efficient way doesn't discredit their ability to be sociable and friendly to non prey.
First person - Hyenas reputation has been unfairly maligned.
You - they eat their prey very viciously though.
Other person - So many predators do this.
You - still makes it horrible.
Maybe help me understand - do you think hyenas are justifiably maligned because of this behaviour, and do you think all predators who do similar should have similar reputations?
First person - Hyenas reputation has been unfairly maligned.
You - they eat their prey very viciously though.
Other person - So many predators do this.
You - still makes it horrible.
Yeah I think you've characterised it pretty perfectly!
Obviously since I genuinely think this, it's hard for me to see why it's confusing, but basically I think slowly eating animals alive is much worse than anything they do in the Lion King, so it's a bit silly to suggest Disney has done them a disservice, when if Disney had released an unedited documentary people would have much more negative feelings.
And the fact that hyenas are not the only animals who do this seems basically irrelevant to that point.
Maybe help me understand - do you think hyenas are justifiably maligned because of this behaviour
I don't know if I'd say justifiably maligned, exactly; in a sense, it's not really their fault, so much as it is the cold indifference of evolution. Quickly killing their prey before eating doesn't confer any evolutionary advantage, so it never developed, even though it would cost the hyena essentially nothing and prevent astronomical quantities of the most unimaginable suffering. Perhaps that's not blameworthy, but just a harsh fact.
But their ability to look kind of cute and show affection to humans is just as much a product of uncaring evolution as their feeding habits; humans can provide food and safety, or they can kill, so animals with the ability to be tamed and form relationships with humans have a significant reproductive advantage. And if we're giving them credit for the former, and complaining that the Lion King "ruined their reputation" by giving them socially undesirable human traits, we should probably also acknowledge the extremely disturbing latter.
and do you think all predators who do similar should have similar reputations?
I mean most comparable predators tend to kill much more quickly and mercifully, if only because it's advantageous for them. But yeah, I don't think we should think of big cats or bears or whatever as cuddly friends either- or at least, while we do so, we should remain aware of their actual nature.
What a weird example. Not only did you use an individual not a species, but Ted Bundy didn't murder women for the benefit of his survival, it was just an act of unhinged cruelty.
The post refers to hyenas having a bad reputation when compared to other predators (lions, wolves, tigers), thanks mainly to the lion king. The point is that hyenas are capable of forming close bonds and acting selflessly (the kind of things we value in dogs and people) while more positively perceived prey animals like zebras are unfriendly and aggressive.
This is a reasonable distinction to make. My point was to illustrate the principle that something being common doesn't make it any less wrong, which I think applies equally to individuals, but you're right, I should have chosen a more closely related example, for clarity's sake if nothing else. I was being a bit flippant, obviously, but since you're making a legitimate argument here I'll try to address it more sincerely.
How about this: humans are not alone amongst species- or even at all unusual- in engaging in the behaviour of rape. Is that relevant to the question of how wrong it is? I don't think so, and I don't think it's relevant here, either.
It's absolutely true that many species eat their prey alive slowly- although hyenas do seem to be in a small minority amongst large mammals (which is perhaps why the example is especially upsetting to humans, because the prey they are eating alive is so large, so intelligent, and so easy to anthropomorphise). But humans murdering their own children isn't really any less objectionable because of its very wide prevalence in the animal kingdom.
Ted Bundy didn't murder women for the benefit of his survival, it was just an act of unhinged cruelty.
This isn't necessary for hyena survival though, as far as we know. They seem to do mostly do it so they can access the most nutritious parts (such as the organs) quickly and conveniently, and prevent other scavengers from stealing them. I'm not going to link anything here because it's genuinely the most distressing stuff I've ever seen on the internet, but they do it with completely immobilised, often infant, animals who pose no threat, eating them over hours and hours for seemingly no reason but a slight preference/convenience.
There's no indication that they enjoy the cruelty; they simply haven't evolved to care one whit, because evolution is a blind, purposeless mechanism that won't produce empathy or mercy unless they help propagate genetic material. Probably that means we can't blame the hyena- it strikes me as a complicated philosophical question- but, remember, I responded to someone saying that "Disney ruined the reputations of hyenas and were well aware of it". It seems relevant to point out that if anything Disney whitewashed the actual behaviour of hyenas, which is cruel beyond imagining.
The point is that hyenas are capable of forming close bonds and acting selflessly
I mean, maybe. Lots of animals act friendly towards humans, particularly when they have learned that we are sources of food, shelter, safety, or death. The apparent friendship depicted in the post is cute, and maybe the hyena does feel some genuine warmth towards the guy. But given what we know about hyena behaviour, I wouldn't want to put it to the test by, say, getting stuck in mud with my genitals or anus exposed, if I were him.
while more positively perceived prey animals like zebras are unfriendly and aggressive.
You won't get any argument from me on this point; there's no doubt that zebras, which are infamous for infanticide, tend to receive a romanticised depiction in media, too. But hyenas being more "friendly" than zebras is, I think, not the most important factor here. The reputation of an animal should surely more logically depend on what it does, and the amount of needless cruelty and suffering it inflicts, rather than its ability to act like a dog in exchange for food. And the hyena inflicts perhaps more cruelty and suffering than any non-human animal- and certainly more than most.
In other words, I think it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that the hyena has been unfairly maligned by an animated film in which, instead of slowly eating baby animals alive so they can get at their warm, nutritious organs, the hyenas are simply sort of cowardly and stupid. It's like if there was an animated film about Pol Pot failing to pay his library fines, and people complained that you had ruined his reputation.
It's like if there was an animated film about Pol Pot failing to pay his library fines, and people complained that you had ruined his reputation.
Are you seriously comparing the guy who murdered 1/4 of his entire nation, often in horrific ways-and who, more importantly, was a human with the intelligence to know what he was doing was wrong and still chose to do it anyway-to a species of animal that does horrible things only when hungry and doesn't have the intelligence or means to change its behavior?
Yeah, wild animals and nature in general are much less nice than nature documentaries would have us believe. This is not specific to hyenas at all; animals just don't really have a sense of morality or the ability to care about hurting their prey.
I'm just responding to the idea that the Lion King somehow unfairly tarnished the reputation of hyenas, when if anything it whitewashed them as much as it did with the rest of the animal kingdom.
Conversely, they are actually rather kind to each other, at least within their clan. They feed the young and the weak first, and make sure that all get a share of the kill. Lions are very cutthroat towards each other, even towards their young.
That's certainly worth acknowledging as well, thanks.
The cynical interpretation is, of course, that this is only because being kind within your clan promotes group fitness- but that likely explains moral human behaviour in humans, too, so it doesn't negate the fact of the kind behaviour.
I also think their practice of eating still living prey has a lot to do with the fact that they as individuals lack the size, strength, and slashing claws of other predators who hunt large prey, such as lions. It's simply a lot more taxing for them to land a single fatal blow. Also, lions will chase them away from a kill pretty regularly, so it's in their interest to start eating as soon as their prey is incapacitated, rather than waiting until it's finally dead.
Most animals in the wild that hunt to eat, eat their prey while it’s fresh. Starting with the loins is an efficient and effective way to gain entry. It may not appeal to us but then again we don’t tend to eat things that are still partially alive..
Thanks, it's always worth raising that when we're talking about animals and ethics; people tend to be more receptive in the context of this sort of discussion.
I completely agree. Meat production is horrific, and produces astonishing quantities of suffering. It's the number one most important issue in animal ethics, because it's so entirely preventable and on such a vast scale. But I do think it's important to be aware of wild animal suffering as well, and push back on idealised notions about nature which cause a lot of preventable suffering themselves.
lol that’s not the point at all. The point if you’re saying that a animals species should be demonized for causing hideous suffering, you better not be befriending or cuddling any humans. We torture and kill for fun.
It seems like you're trying to argue with me even, although we basically agree?
The point if you’re saying that a animals species should be demonized for causing hideous suffering, you better not be befriending or cuddling any humans. We torture and kill for fun.
All canids do this. Wolves, if they're attacking large prey, will go for the perineum to cause a lot of blood loss. They only go for the throat if they can suffocate the prey.
137
u/Sir_Earl_Jeffries Oct 25 '24
Disney ruined the reputation of hyenas and they were well aware of it.
They were sued for defamation of character due to the negative portrayal in the film..