This Is NOT a Darwin Award Winner

This sad tale will be widely circulated because it’s headlined on the Drudge Report. The actual story appears in the Daily Star, a British tabloid: GRAPHIC VIDEO: Tourist eaten alive by 3 tigers after climbing into pen to dodge zoo fee. Their sub-title is: “A DAD was mauled to death by three tigers after climbing into their pen to skip the zoo entrance fee.” They have a comments feature.

It’s been a while since Our Fifth Darwin Award — which isn’t like the traditional Darwin Awards described by Wikipedia; but as our title says, this one doesn’t qualify. We’ll explain that decision later. Meanwhile, here are some excerpts from the news story, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Chinese media said the victim – named only as Zhang – scaled the fence of the tiger enclosure to avoid paying the £15 fee. But when he jumped into the pit, the tigers pounced as his wife and kids watched on in horror. Desperate zoo keepers scrambled to save the tourist after he climbed into the pen at Ningbo Younger Zoo in China during feeding time.

Bad timing. Bad everything, really. The news story has pictures and videos. We know you’re going to click over there to enjoy all the gore and horror, so here’s just one more excerpt:

The father, in his 40s, was rushed to hospital and died of his injuries, according to reports. Pictures show the father and his pal attempting to jump over the three metre wall at the zoo n East China’s Zhejiang Province. The second man, who was about to follow Zhang, was powerless to stop to beasts feasting on his mate. As were his horrified wife and two children, who had entered through the front gates after buying tickets.

Some of you may be wondering why don’t we think the unfortunate Mr. Zhang qualifies for a Darwin Award. Isn’t it obvious? It’s because he had already produced offspring, so his characteristics have not been eliminated from the gene pool.

Although Mr. Zhang doesn’t qualify for a Darwin Award, in his honor of we now declare this to be an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

The comments are open, dear reader. Have at it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “This Is NOT a Darwin Award Winner

  1. “We know you’re going to click over there to enjoy all the gore and horror”
    No way, dear SC, I have a weak stomach. I decided not to study biology when I had to cut open a very dead, but still fresh fish.

  2. I came upon reviews of a book which I haven’t have a chance to read, which suggests a good reaction to “On the Origin of Species”. IMHO the reaction is not merited, no more than the supposed reactions called “social Darwinism”. But it is interesting, for this book tells of the reaction in the USA on the eve of the Civil War. People like Emerson and Thoreau took evolution as backing for abolitionism.
    As I haven’t read the book, but I surely will, I shouldn’t pretend to understand the details, or the evidence.
    Randall Fuller
    The book that changed America: how Darwin’s theory of evolution ignited a nation (Viking)

  3. A least he was trying to save money. Others die trying to prove that God exists Kiev or
    Chile. No Americans have done that AFAIK, even though we have so many true believers, including snake handlers.

  4. Michael Fugate

    And of course ID has nothing to do with religion and especially Christianity per Klinghoffer’s recent post lamenting Stephen Matheson’s comment that he is no longer a Christian. Even though Matheson has not said why he exited Christianity, Klinghoffer automatically and without a shred of evidence blames it on Darwin. If ID was not religion, then would this matter? Would it be news?

  5. Technically he could still be a Darwin award winner. While Zhang (I think a better name would be “Tiger Chou”) has successfully reproduced, his offspring have reduced fitness because the children are dependent on the economic well-being of the father. Of course if Zhang had a good life insurance policy SC would be right. (I find it implausible he was saving zoo money to pay for his insurance premiums…)

  6. You have very high standards for the recipient of Darwin Awards

  7. Partial Darwin Award is in order — he may have been capable of fathering more offspring. (Good chance, though, that he had had a vasectomy, being in China with their stringent limits on family size.)

  8. The “Partial Darwins” I like that. It could be a statuette of Darwin with a phantom of the opera half mask.

  9. (another possibility call the partial Darwin awards “the Wallaces”

  10. Some of you may be wondering why don’t we think the unfortunate Mr. Zhang qualifies for a Darwin Award. Isn’t it obvious? It’s because he had already produced offspring, so his characteristics have not been eliminated from the gene pool.

    But Darwin didn’t claim that the less fit produce no offspring, only that they would tend to produce fewer. Since Zhang had fathered only two children, which is below the replacement rate for a human population in modern times, his genes are on the way out. (Certainly he won’t be having any more offspring.)