digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Please Help Save the Gorillas oF Congo...

smh.com.au — Gorillas of Congo are illegally slaughtered every week...if we just stop buying from the country it may curb the senseless killing in some for or other or perhaps raise the awareness of their plight...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Thex1138, on 11/06/2007, -5/+16Sorry my post was a bit hasty..i couldn't help it when I saw the photo.. :-(
    • robman8023, on 11/06/2007, -0/+8Yeah, and tell me what the last thing you bought from the Congo was and I'll give you a prize.
    • mrbeagle, on 11/06/2007, -0/+20I was going to buy a bucket of gorilla meat from the Congo, but this article changed my mind. Thanks digg
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2What about the humans!
    • lukas88, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2Good for you for admitting it was hasty. The gorillas need help, but not at the expense of further impoverishing the nation. That is similar to bombing iraq because we didn't like one guy in it.
  • iDragonFly, on 11/06/2007, -3/+26Gorillas are one of the most docile of primates.
    When you watch them playing, or being affectionate with their young, this sort of brutality is unbearable.
    • SwissCamel, on 11/08/2007, -13/+6The one I had for my dinner last night was delicious.
      • Arcesius, on 11/06/2007, -3/+2You're the ***** definition of a troll.
      • avisotin, on 11/06/2007, -4/+2You've been banned from Digg. Good day, sir.
        • hansk, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1you remind me of those arrogant ppl in WoW you report anyone for even slightly annoying them.
          • avisotin, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2But I'm only an ***** to the people who deserve it. Fight fire with fire.
    • Psi57, on 11/08/2007, -4/+3I have to agree. They are quite tasty.
  • satx, on 11/06/2007, -33/+12The only reason those gorillas are being killed is because their ***** brethren are jealous of their intelligence.
    • spucky, on 11/06/2007, -6/+4Reported. This person's comment history does not seem to show a pattern of racism, but one is enough. Perhaps it was sarcasm or an intentional poke at social norms to garner a certain response, but I still believe that that comment should be deleted. That term is very hurtful and this is not stormfront.
    • kalrhael, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7LMAO I feel so bad for laughing that.
      • hansk, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1somehing that wrong just has to be laughed at
  • PistolSO, on 11/06/2007, -4/+13I remember reading in National Geographic or a similar magazine that the killing of gorillas during the Rwandan genocide got more international outrage than the genocide itself. Congo is still in a decades-old civil war, I believe. And IIRC, the material used for cell phone technology is mined from the Congo(but that's another story)...so let's save the people before we save the gorillas.
    • Andareed, on 11/06/2007, -2/+13Why not try to save both?
      • jlharrity, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3No question. But, if it's about sending a check to Red Cross or sending a check to WWF, you've got to go with Red Cross. Animals are important, but people are people.
        • rnwen2750, on 11/08/2007, -2/+2I don't know about that. I have serious qualms about the Red Cross, especially considering the fact that they sell the blood you donate to the highest hospital bidder.
          • str3ama, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3we're animals too you know! I'd rather help the animal then the person (hear me out..) because the person can at least make a plee on why they shouldn't be killed, but the animal has no way to discern that a gun aimed at them from 3 mtrs away is going to kill them - let alone they have no way to communicate a plee to be saved.

            Also everything gets boiled down to humans vs nature, it's either us or them - if we save them, that means we die. It's not like that at all, it's not a binary choice - saving one doesn't mean destroying the other. One of the biggest culprits is 'safari resorts' which take foreign tourists in to the jungle to see the wildlife, but the problem is that tourists create demand that leads to things like buying 'monkey paws' or getting a picture taken with Gorrila (which is domesticated or made to dance for the entertainment of tourists).
      • 3tcp, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2The best way to save the gorillas is to end the civil unrest so that a stable government can protect them and the economy to develop enough that gorilla's become more valuable for wildlife-dependant tourism than for poaching.
    • Psi57, on 11/06/2007, -3/+3But I like gorillas more than black people...
  • 7012, on 11/06/2007, -5/+3The only thing stopping me from going over there to make a personal attempt to put an end to this slaughter, is the fact that once I move off this page i'll find another cause to fight for and forget all about this.... and so the cycle continues....
    • neuralzen, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5The point is to care, so that way when you DO find opportunity to make a positive change, in whatever situation you may find yourself in, you will naturally act to bring about a positive change. Intent matters, while the means to envoke change may not always be available in the moment the realization that the change is needed, is had.
      • 7012, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0Ok, next time I find myself in the jungles of Congo, I'll try something then...

        No seriously though. My point is, intent doesn't mean ***** unless you go out of your way to act upon it. It's not about waiting for the time to find yourself in a convenient location for you to do easily something about it. We all realise change is required, and you can comfort yourself by thinking you're making a difference (or potentially making a difference) from your comfy leather office chair, but its the people who fight, and go out of their way that really make a difference.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4Sovreign nation is sovreign.
  • roboticelephant, on 11/06/2007, -4/+3Sigh, another case of people thinking that causes on the internet actually matter.
  • Gigabutt, on 11/06/2007, -1/+17What am I buying from Congo?
  • troycott, on 11/06/2007, -6/+9the world should stop buying from the US because they're killing Iraqis
    • moskaudancer, on 11/06/2007, -4/+4I'm not killing anyone... my psycho asshat president is.
      • heynoop, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2that's the whole point... CONGO isn't slaughtering gorillas, just a group of bad people are. basically this 'boycott the congo' thing is ***** ridiculous and wont solve anything.
  • metric7, on 11/06/2007, -4/+5"Personal animosity might also be a factor, Mugisha said, with gorilla killings becoming a way to settle scores against those charged with protecting the creatures."

    Africa never ceases to amaze me with their stupidity
  • Typhoon2009, on 11/06/2007, -6/+4So much ***** going on in that continent... Mr. President, we must nuke Africa.
    • rnwen2750, on 11/06/2007, -4/+1Logically. Except then all the gorillas would be DEAD.
    • dangerding, on 11/06/2007, -4/+2yes! exactly! what a great, well thought out, and reasonable statement!
      /sarcasm

      (idiot.)
  • vampiregabe, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5"if we just stop buying from the country it may curb the senseless killing"

    Or it might increase them as those supporting the gorillas may loose a large portion of income, thus having to do MORE with less income, and have to make up for the lost revenues due to your boycott. Or could just force those wanting the gorillas dead to harbor a greater animosity, thus increasing the killings due to lost revenue from your boycott. Good work, you helped kill more gorillas.

    You fail social economics.
    • civdis24, on 11/06/2007, -2/+1the killing of these particular gorillas amounted to no economic gain--it was nothing more than a killing
  • thatsmyaibo, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3"Amy...thirsty..."
  • jmpeagle, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2why?
  • TheGuin, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2And while we are saving the Gorillas, why don't we save the whales too.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2No. I can't get through the aisles at Wal Mart as it is. I don't want any more surviving.
  • subwoffers, on 11/06/2007, -5/+3They look tired
  • adwarereport, on 11/06/2007, -6/+5I like Gorillas... on rye with a little mayo.
  • solodan1000, on 11/06/2007, -10/+5lol. funny pic. reminds me of tarzan's mom. i actually put it as my background..rofl
    • hansk, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1you put pics of dead gorillas sprawled out on stretchers as your background...and you found that funny?
      you are a strange individual
  • DeFex, on 11/06/2007, -2/+4"people" there see them as competition. the gorillas are probably more civilized and smarter.
  • str3ama, on 11/06/2007, -2/+2interestingly enough they also build nests which they sleep in, they repair them each day. Sorta weird for primates, especially since we attribute nests to birds. Poachers and trigger happy idiots out on safari track the gorillas by these nests.... really quite sad, especially since they have a bad rap for being violent and volatile which couldn't be further from the truth (they are strong, but they're generally quite peaceful)
  • xkidace, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2"No one really knows why mountain gorillas are being killed now, though jealousy might play a role, said Craig Sholley of the African Wildlife Foundation."

    yeah, *smack* jealousy killed the mountain gorilla.
  • RobLiefeld, on 11/06/2007, -6/+2They're getting killed because they raid crops. This is just part of evolution. The gorillas will just have to forage someplace else if they want to survive. I can't really blame poor villagers for protecting their crops.
    • angryredplanet, on 11/08/2007, -3/+5This is not about evolution so you can't brand it as such. Evolution is what happens over time and we're not giving any species on this blue rock the time to evolve with us. We encroach upon where THEY have lived for many lifetimes. We are the more technologically superior, but our morality has fallen to the wayside. This is all about money, greed, corruption and power. As a species we don't even do what is best for our own survival if it costs too much. If villagers place their crops near forrest areas where native fauna exist, they can and should expect some degree of loss as we share this planet; it's not solely ours.

      I'm sick of people thinking that humans are the sovereign species of this world. Here's news: we are not. Without plant and animal biodiversity WE ARE ROYALLY SCREWED. How are we going to evolve our way out of that? The short of it is that by destroying biodiversity, we will effectively end ourselves.
    • Thex1138, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2They're getting killed because raiding parties are attacking the miners, and they merc's come across the gorillas and slaughter them...
      They are getting killed because the locals are being starved by the war and the merc's preventing the locals from harvesting the crops..
  • yoneil, on 11/08/2007, -6/+10Hundreds of humans die every day in the Congo (DRC) every day from conflict and war-related causes. And we pay more attention to a few gorillas. What the f**k is wrong with us.
    • thaeastsida, on 11/06/2007, -1/+5exactly what i was going to say. and its not hundreds of humans, its thousands.
    • DeFex, on 11/06/2007, -4/+5There are billions and billions more humans. A non American life is worth about $2.50. gorillas are much more rare. so they must be worth more.
    • civdis24, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4These are two independent issues. We care about the gorillas because they are rare and worth protecting from extinction. Gorillas are among our closest genetic relatives. They are amazing animals and not all that unlike us. Sure, we should care about the human problems too, but the plain cold truth is that humans live in virtually every part of the world that has land and are not in danger of extinction (yet).
    • hansk, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1gorillas are an endangered species. there are plenty of people around.
  • Midvicious, on 11/06/2007, -2/+3How about we save the innocent people first? Save them both?

    Oh right... I forgot... that one little catch...
  • dstz, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2"What am I buying from Congo?"

    Slightly more than you'd think,
    "Coltan is the colloquial African name for columbite-tantalite, a metallic ore used to produce the elements niobium and tantalum.(...) The exportation of coltan helped fuel the war in the Congo, a conflict that has resulted in approximately 3.8 million deaths. Coltan is the ore for tantalum used in consumer electronics products such as cell phones, DVD players, computers, and games consoles."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan
  • MWeather, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6If you stop buying from the Copngo, the people will be drawn to illegal poaching more than ever. What a monumentally stupid idea.
  • bxblox, on 11/06/2007, -1/+2If we dont kill the gorilla's how will we get to the diamonds?
  • dan00b, on 11/06/2007, -3/+4*****.

    OR WE COULD SAVE THE PEOPLE OF THE CONGO.

    Jesus. You hippies care more about animals than people.
    • Thex1138, on 11/06/2007, -2/+1well you are only 20..you're forgiven for your inexperince in life...
  • Thex1138, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1...well judging by the calibre of respondants you guys will be looking forward to a lifeless planet :-)
    When you actually get a chance to travel and see reality outside of your screen captures...you can rejoin this over populated planet again :-)
  • sfacets, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1I seriously doubt Australia imports anything from the Congo, but thanks.
    • Thex1138, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1Yep i know, diamonds and minerals for computer parts...and deforestation...a bit like Tasmania looking forward to splintering our own ferest for the sake of a few toilet rolls...
  • Deaconstructed, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Most animals make better people than most people. Call me messed up, but personally I'd rather hunt these hunters and others like them.
  • FatFreddy420, on 11/06/2007, -1/+3I'm afraid it's too late for the Gorilla. If people had listened 20 years ago maybe things would be different. But folk just called us campaigners a bunch of crackpots!
  • FordSVT1, on 11/06/2007, -0/+1I'm still trying to figure out why this is an "either/or" proposition for some people. Why do I have to chose between writing a check to the Red Cross or writing a check to the WWF? Why not both?

    Why are people saying "deal with saving the people first"? It's like "let's solve all of our domestic problems before we give money to impoverished countries, or put money into space exploration, etc." It makes no sense.

    We will NEVER solve all of our domestic problems. And our domestic problems are directly linked to our foreign problems. Likewise, by saving the innocent people of the Congo we might also find a way to save the gorillas, or vice versa. If we do nothing at all to help the gorillas until the Congo is a GREAT PLACE for people to live, they'll be DEAD. There are a few hundred left, cleaning up the brutality of the Congo will take decades.
  • andymate, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1What is the point of trying to save anything in Africa (animals and humans inclusive), its pretty much a pointless activity. Let nature run its course.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.