The Problem Behind a Viral Video of a Persistent Baby Bear (theatlantic.com) 126
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.)
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.)
Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Archangel Michael: I also know that human kindness is so much more prevalent and way more powerful.
You would say that.
Re: (Score:2)
The dodo, wooly mammoth, the great auk and countless other species are fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Cheetos melt in the rain... (Score:2)
Not bears.
Re: Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:2, Funny)
Who cares? Was the baby bear running hibernate? That would explain the persistence
Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's exploring the impacts of emerging technology on the world?
Re: Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that we're either dealing with an "EditorBot" or msmash doesn't grasp the language nearly well enough to perform this role.
Re: (Score:1)
LMFAO, perhaps as a non-bot you should expand your vocabulary a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Better than going through life not giving a damn about anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Being constantly angry or being apathetic are not the only options.
It is possible to care deeply about things without that care being expressed as anger.
In fact, I would propose that if you define "caring" as getting angry at those things that oppose that for which you care, that it isn't really caring at all, but something far darker.
Re: (Score:1)
If you enjoy a charming viral video that's normal. If you enjoy watching it knowing that the film maker traumatized and risked the lives of the subjects to make the viral video you are some sort of dark triad monster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not miserable if you have something more than tissue-paper thin skin.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't post a funny video of any animal without some hysterical nutcases freaking out.
Re: (Score:2)
True that. Those bleedin' heart assholes over at YouTube claimed my hilarious "fluffy dog on fire" video was against their ToS, even though it was my neighbor that doused the pooch in gasoline, I only tossed the zippo.
Re: (Score:2)
Harrassing local wildlife is not "minding your own business."
Re: (Score:2)
Might be, if I'm hungry.
"This broadcast not available in your location" (Score:5, Informative)
So viral I can't even see it.
I don't think that writer knows the meaning of the word.
Re: (Score:1)
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:"This broadcast not available in your location" (Score:5, Informative)
The version on Facebook got posted far and wide complete with cheesy music and lame motivational captions. The fact that the drone was causing the mother to panic was literally the first thing I noticed about the video. She looked right at the camera as she knocked the baby bear down the slope.
Twitter for Dummies (Score:2)
If I wanted to read shitty Twitter wars, I'd go to Twitter. Jesus, the whole press is infected with reporting on Tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not millions watched it, it's like reporting on usenet banter, or for that matter Slashdot comments. It's quick, easy content for newspapers with zero value added.
This is why we can't have nice things (Score:1)
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)
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?
What a crock of shit (Score:1, Troll)
They have no idea how close t
Re:What a crock of shit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
how do you know the drone operator didn't just zoom in?
Re:What a crock of shit (Score:5, Informative)
What a crock of amateur. (Score:3)
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)
The tilt downwards at 0:45 also gives you a very good sense of just how close they are. It's very close.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like I'm full of shit then
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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?
Pretty much my first thought (Score:2)
The drone-cretin should at the very least be heavily fined for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Or swiped down a hillside by a momma bear for the viral lulz. It's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's a viral video even I would love to see!
Re: (Score:1)
So.. what's wrong with caring? What's wrong with having empathy? Why would lack of concern for the feelings of others be considered a good thing?
I mean, I didn't cry for the bear, it didn't "affect" me, I just rolled my eyes at the thoughtlessness of the drone operator, figure he and all of us learned a lesson, and moved on. That's not crying. It's grumbling, but I don't see anyone crying.
Poop (Score:2)
ViralHog sucks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
I wonder ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Next on Fox:"When streetlights attack".
Avoid the problem and get a stealthy drone (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Not easy to observe without affecting (Score:1)
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
Re: Stupid bears (Score:2)
don't worry, before too long there won't be any are bears.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's nothing quite like seeing animals in all their majesty while they run away from all the loud shit with cameras. Yep, that's some real appreciation.
Re: (Score:1)
Or we could watch something shot by one of the many actual wildlife photographers and not some dunce with a new toy.
Re: (Score:1)
Or we could watch something shot by one of the many actual wildlife photographers and not some dunce with a new toy.
There we go, I vote for appreciating wild life corpses!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
On the internet, you must be explicit. Most people on the internet are ESL.
Just like most people on the internet don't understand the affects of a drone on wildlife. No matter what we are doing to nature, scaring the shit out of a bear and endangering a cub is not a good way to go about promoting green.
And a lot of dyslexics too. I think that tends to be the cause of the scatter brained academic image. While I'm a full time software dev and part time PHD student, dyslexia often tends to result in me reading something and my mind going off on the wrong track with it (usually reading something too literally, while other times I pick up subtle meanings fine). After a while you learn to get used to saying the wrong thing or double checking what people tell you, though double checking is a bit more difficul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shhhh, Skynet is watching! Apologize now!
Re: (Score:2)
ESL? 'Shooting' footage or photos is a common verb. He's not referring to killing the animals with bullets or arrows.
Meh, mostly I just tend to read things bit too literally. Works good when reviewing requirements, less so with other reading.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't take the word "photographer" literally.
Don't make excuses for sloppiness in your communications. Fix it.
Sure, just as soon as Slashdot communication effects anything important I'll focus on correcting my communications here like I do in places where it is important. Also will do more when they let me make easy corrections like in places where my communication is important.
Re: (Score:1)
*affects
Re: (Score:2)
*affects
I wondered how long it would take someone to comment on that!
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to not possess the concept of humor, specifically the "double meaning"
Re: (Score:1)
actual wildlife photographers
Where to I apply for my license as an 'actual wildlife photographer'? Which government bureau is in charge of issuing them?
This may seem to be simple sarcasm to many. But we are having a real problem in my area with our state fish and wildlife people shitting bricks when anyone tries to submit anything into evidence that doesn't fit their political agenda. The day is rapidly arriving when the public will not be permitted to look at orcas, seals or sea lions. Because they might discredit the states data.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, lets appreciate the animals by not caring and the corporations can go in and destroy their habitat... oh wait, that seems to happen either way.
US forest coverage has increased dramatically in the past 100 years, as almost our our farmland has been reclaimed, thanks to evil corporations and their evil technology.
Worldwide, forest coverage is a net increase of a few percent over the past 30 years, as clearcutting in third world nations is counterbalanced by growth in modern nations full of evil corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
Black bears scare easily. Human noises, breaking branches, and or talking loudly/yelling could all have had a similar affect. In fact making noises while walking in bear country to startle and alert any bears in the area is considered the safe thing to do. It is a survival instinct that helps them not be hunted by humans or other large predators. To the people so worried about inflicting horror on these mammals, they should avoid going into the woods entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an easy comment to make when you're not a baby bear trying to climb a mountain to get away from people trying to "care".
Re: (Score:1)
It's an even easier comment to make when I have momma bear in my scope and a .223 round chambered.
Of course my state hasn't managed to set itself on fire trying to save the snail darter or not letting the forestry service do its job.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey despite everyone's best attempts no state has so far made it illegal to be a useless dick. You're safe for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Russian Roulette is your game ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I just aim the gun at the asshole instead of me.
Yeah, I cheat. So what?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I just aim the gun at another asshole instead of me.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, he dies, my problems are solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if you really want your problems solved best point the gun at yourself.
Re:Oh get real (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Please people here are bitching and moaning about what might have happened
How the fuck do you lot cross a street or get in a car ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. Human interaction with almost any other species, whether direct like this video or indirect like anthropogenic environmental change, is the single greatest impact on that species' trend toward flourishing or extinction.
It seems that cattle are an outbreak species, and the great bears are doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is incorrect. By definition of this being an unmanned drone; this is not direct interaction. It was done through a proxy of a DRONE, which is neither direct interaction with or interaction with a human. Audibly the bear heard the drone. That is the extent of the interaction. He wasn't spoken to, fed, tranquilized, played music, grabbed, raped, molested, or shot.
Have you ever been surprised or scared by a bear or a mountain lion? They can and do scare humans. Should they be treated as vile ma
Re: (Score:2)
Then do the other species of the world a favor and off yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Put a gun on that drone - shoot the bear
Excellent idea. Because any gun that you could mount on a consumer grade drone would wouldn't be powerful enough to be more than a minor annoyance for an adult brown bear. And any gun that would be powerful enough would be too heavy and large to get the drone off of the ground.
If you ever got out of your mom's basement you'd know that you don't fuck with a bear, and that goes doubly so for a female that has cubs. Other than in areas where there are tigers and polar bear, there is nothing that is a threa
Re: (Score:2)
Most handguns work fine. https://www.ammoland.com/2018/... [ammoland.com]