Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks News

The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear (theatlantic.com) 126

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Ed Yong, writing for The Atlantic: For many people, a two-and-a-half-minute video of a baby brown bear trying to scale a snow-covered mountain was a life-affirming testament to the power of persistence. As it begins, the cub is standing with its mother on the side of a perilously steep ridge. The mother begins walking across, and despite slipping a few times on the loose snow, she soon reaches the top. Her cub, following tentatively after her, isn't so fortunate. It loses its footing and slides several feet. It pulls itself together and reattempts the ascent, before slipping again.

Finally, the cub nears the top. But as the footage zooms in to focus on the moment of reunion, the mother inexplicably swipes at the youngster with her paw, sending it hurtling downward again. It slides a long way, scrabbling for purchase and finding some just before it hits a patch of bare rock. Once again, it starts to climb, and after what seems like a nail-biting eternity for anyone watching, it reaches its mother. The two walk away.

The video was uploaded to the ViralHog YouTube channel on Friday, and after being shared on Twitter, it rapidly went viral. At the time of this writing, it has been watched 17 million times. The cub's exploits were equal parts gif, nature documentary, and motivational poster. It had all the elements of an incredible story: the most adorable of protagonists, rising and falling action (literally), and a happy ending. It was a tale of tenacity in the face of adversity, triumph against the odds. But when biologists started watching the video, they saw a very different story.

The video, they say, was clearly captured by a drone. And in it, they saw the work of an irresponsible drone operator who, in trying to film the bears, drove them into a dangerous situation that almost cost the cub its life. "I found it really hard to watch," says Sophie Gilbert, an ecologist at the University of Idaho who studies, among other things, how drones affect wildlife. "It showed a pretty stark lack of understanding from the drone operator of the effects that his actions were having on the bears." (It wasn't just scientists, either; several drone pilots were also dismayed by the footage.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear More

The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear

Comments Filter:

  • Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2018 @06:53AM (#57629760)

    If people are killing themselves to get a selfie, imagine when their own life is not at stake. Humans suck.

    • Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday November 12, 2018 @11:29AM (#57631120) Journal

      Humans often do suck.

      But witnessing the loss of Paradise by fire, I also know that human kindness is so much more prevalent and way more powerful. The outpouring of people opening their homes to people, and pets is a constant reminder that most people are good and decent when times get tough.

      Yes, there are those that can't help themselves and just plain suck.They really are the exception.

      • No. Most people are good and decent towards those they have a personal attachment to. Their friends, their family, their pets, their community. Sometimes the community can be a whole nation, or an ideological movement, but it always has a border.

        And anyone who is outside of that boarder? Doesn't even register as a person.

        The nature of humans is their ability to grieve for their dead cat while feeling nothing for the deaths of millions elsewhere in the world.

        • Absolutely. This essay is the best description of how The Other is treated in America. [archive.is] It explains so much of our political polarization and how one side regards its opposite as enemy instead of fellow Americans.

        • Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by alexgieg ( 948359 ) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Monday November 12, 2018 @02:14PM (#57632128) Homepage

          And anyone who is outside of that boarder? Doesn't even register as a person.

          Actually, the statistical distribution of that behavior has been mapped. To sum up studies that began in the late 1950's and continue until today, roughly 40% of the adult population thinks in terms of group, with a mentality of "what my group thinks is right, is right for me; what it thinks is wrong, is wrong for me; within my group there are individuals; outside my group there are no individuals, just other groups and their indistinct members; other groups are all wrong and shouldn't really exist, but if we have to interact with them, they are at best allies, at worst enemies, and most of the time indifferent." That's stage 3 in the Kohlberg scale of moral reasoning, which is one of the most well tested formal psychological theories ever, a gold standard in falsifiability and reproducibility when it comes to psychometrics.

          Then, about 45% of the population thinks in terms of inter-group relationships, looking at society as composed of multiple groups, thinking in terms of inter-group rules of coexistence, and recognizing other groups as having in principle a right to exist as long as they don't try to damage the social fabric that keeps the different groups from fighting each other. That's stage 4 in the scale.

          And then about 5% move beyond that and begin thinking that people are individuals first and foremost, group-affiliated second, and therefore that such boundaries are irrelevant. That's stage 5, and there are others.

          So, while you're correct that most people are like that, in fact about 94% are like that if we take into account stages 1 and 2 (roughly equivalent to psychopathy and sociopathy), there are about 6% that do think of all, in the strong meaning of "all', as persons. But yes, it's certainly a minority.

          More about the scale here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Myrdos ( 5031049 )

        Archangel Michael: I also know that human kindness is so much more prevalent and way more powerful.

        You would say that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        But witnessing the loss of Paradise by fire, I also know that human kindness is so much more prevalent and way more powerful. The outpouring of people opening their homes to people, and pets is a constant reminder that most people are good and decent when times get tough.

        The dodo, wooly mammoth, the great auk and countless other species are fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • "This broadcast not available in your location" (Score:5, Informative)

    by goose-incarnated ( 1145029 ) on Monday November 12, 2018 @07:32AM (#57629876) Journal

    So viral I can't even see it.

    I don't think that writer knows the meaning of the word.

  • If I wanted to read shitty Twitter wars, I'd go to Twitter. Jesus, the whole press is infected with reporting on Tweets.

  • This is why we can't have nice things (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's be great to have drones for all of the utility they could offer, but irresponsible operators keeps that from happening. The drone community is sabotaging itself.

  • So, normal journalist behaviour? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They usually try to get shit going by provocation (or by making a mountain out of a molehill). What is different here? That just bears and not humans are put in peril?

  • The only information accompanying the video says that it was captured on June 19, 2018, in the Magadan region of Russia. No one knows who shot it, which drone was used, or how close it flew. But âoeit doesnâ(TM)t matter how far away it was, because I can tell from the bearsâ(TM) behavior that it was too close,â says Clayton Lamb of the University of Alberta, who studies grizzly bears in the Canadian Rockies and uses drones to map the area where they live.

    They have no idea how close t

    • Re:What a crock of shit (Score:5, Informative)

      by 1080bogus ( 1015303 ) on Monday November 12, 2018 @09:21AM (#57630278)

      You obviously did not watch the whole video. At 1:13 of the video, the drone clearly moves towards them, the mother bear looks directly at it, freaks out and swipes. After that, the drone backs off. It's likely the drone operator knew what they did which is why they didn't move the drone toward them again until after the baby bear was safe at the top.

      • fun fact: zooming with a telephoto lens doesnt actually move the camera closer ...bet you didnt know that... or even what zooming is

      • how do you know the drone operator didn't just zoom in?

        • Re:What a crock of shit (Score:5, Informative)

          by rizole ( 666389 ) on Monday November 12, 2018 @10:05AM (#57630558)
          The foreground moves out of camera shot faster than the background indicating the camera is getting nearer. Zoom makes the foreground and background bigger by the same rate.

          • Bingo. The difference when presented with the same evidence between what an amateur sees and what a professional sees. It just emphasis the story more in that people are ignorant about the consequences of their actions, and more importantly resistance about being educated about their ignorance. Now all we need to make the circle complete is blaming the animals for not recognizing our benign intentions. Now who are the stewards of the planet again? Certainly not the animals.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The tilt downwards at 0:45 also gives you a very good sense of just how close they are. It's very close.

      • You obviously did not watch the whole video. At 1:13 of the video, the drone clearly moves towards them, the mother bear looks directly at it, freaks out and swipes. After that, the drone backs off. It's likely the drone operator knew what they did which is why they didn't move the drone toward them again until after the baby bear was safe at the top.

        Sounds like I'm full of shit then :) I watched the original viral video, which didn't show that sequence. I couldn't see the (full) video posted in this art

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Based on what exactly?

      They have eyes and working intelligence. You seem to be lacking either or both.

    • Re:What a crock of shit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rizole ( 666389 ) on Monday November 12, 2018 @09:59AM (#57630514)

      1:15ish, the drone flys quickly into the action as the baby bear nears the top shortening the distance by at least half if not 3/4 in a couple of seconds. It seems clear to me that the mother can see the drone coming at them at speed. She looks repeatedly at the camera to her baby and back again. As the drone gets quite close she swipes at her baby to get it out the path of an unknown danger.

      Lets look at some numbers. If it was very far away as you think then that's what? 300m? And lets be conservative with my figures and say it traveled 2/3rds of the distance in 3 seconds then that's 237kph or 147mph. That's unrealistic. The top speed of an average drone is around 50mph. At that speed it would have been 100m out and traveled 66m in 3 seconds.

      But that's top speed, lets say it was moving at 20mph, that puts it 40m out and zooming in to around 13meters.

      So, something you don't understand making a loud buzzing coming at you. Remember because of the doppler effect, the noise will increase in volume and pitch as it gets closer. Which would you prefer? 50mph and stopping 33meters/yards from the most precious person in your life in a dangerous situation or coming at you at 20 mph and pulling up around 13meters/yards?

  • The drone-cretin should at the very least be heavily fined for this.

  • This story belongs in the pages of "Chicken Poop for the Soul"

  • ViralHog sucks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One of my neighbors uploaded a video they captured of porch pirates on Halloween stealing an amazon package; ViralHog stole it, then reported the *original* as a copyright violation

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Better not put the full lenght of the video online, then you can always prove you have the original uncut version, so the cut version is yours too. Also you can add watermark and other stuff to for more proof. Obviously, don't put you name and address on it.

  • ... how many children will be smacked by their parents because a streetlight is watching them [slashdot.org].

  • One of the best options to cutting the noise of a drone down is building larger slower fans and installing them in a ducted fans.

    But of course this situation is nothing really to do about the wildlife as much as it is a bunch of concern trolls trying to shit on the drone community because of a viral video.

    • It's a compromise. Those larger fans and ducting mean more weight, which means lower flight time and reduced maneuverability. If you want to get the noise down, compromises must be made - and all that does is get the noise down from 'deafening' to 'intolerable.' Even with ducted fans they are still pretty loud.

  • Most drone operators are jerks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sure it's qualitative, but 9/10's my witness of drone operators is them behaving badly, irresponsibly, selfishly in some manner. Some recent ones:

    -Park ranger at a beach had to tell a guy to put away his drone, the changing stalls were open air / roofless.
    -Couple (not me) having a quiet, romantic moment on a lookout in Hawaii, buzzed by drone and clearly annoyed by it.
    -Also in Hawaii, different location, drone flying up high while tour helicopter crossed ridge. I'm guessing it wasn't really as close to a

  • These days, most people trying to document and shoot on film try to be careful that their very presence does not alter the behavior of those they study. This was not the case of the drone operator, whose work affected the behavior of the bears. This has been a common problem through nature documentaries through the years. Some of our misconception of lemmings, that they commit mass suicide, was propagated by producers of a 1950s Disney documentary who brought the lemmings to the edge of a cliff and pushed t

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close