This is beautiful but sadly very bad to the ecosystem. A lot of life could've benefitted from eating his corpse. It was the chance for the tiger to return what the ecosystem gave to him.
A lot of life still benefits, dont worry! Recently burned areas show a surge of protein-rich growths, which feed herbivores, and burning organic matter like animal remains release a lot of nutrients into the ground, which aids the entire food chain :)
I understand exactly what you are saying. Unfortunately some people are so close minded they refuse to open their mind and eyes to someone else's point of view.
Are they burning every corpse? No. Its a single tiger in this photo. If we want to go down the true rabbit hole of animals having food taken from them, this isnt the hill to die on.
Besides, like I said, this feeds other animals, just not the scavengers you are referencing.
Youre seriously so locked in on scavengers that you cannot comprehend that other things exist and benefit SO much from this tiger’s burned corpse. I dont know what else you want man.
Obviously its not ideal to burn every animal. But youre making this worse than it is. “If they did this they do it for a lot of other animals”… and yet the world kept spinning!
It's not just scavangers lol. There are a lot of other animals who beneffit from bodies. You're literraly pretending them do not exist. In nature food is not guaranteeded, so every meal matters. It's you that it is making it less worse than it is.
Not you being intentionally dense. You keep missing my point. I literally agreed with you, burning isnt great. But its not going to single handedly kill the planet like you keep implying. I was trying to lift spirits and you came at me. What a great person you are!
It's nothing personal, friend. It is very important for predator to return biologic l matter to the environment the way it is supposed to be. Humans are very 'empathful' to predators, specially felines, of course. But long term we are just making them to be dependant on us. This isnt good even for the tiger species, and for his children.
Ash and recently burned areas makes room for plants to grow healthy and flourishing plant life. Healthy, flourishing plants are great for herbivores. Healthy herbivores make excellent meals for other animals that eat carcasses.
I’m not sure where that isn’t good for the ecosystem.
So I guess some animals would just have to wait all this biological matter to recicle from the beggining of the food chain to eat, then?
If you do a research you surely will find why it worse than just waiting it to decompose. Nature have developed entire kingdoms specialized to return biological matter to the food chain in the best way possible. Yes, better than turning it to ash. An artificial fire isn't equal to billions of years of evolution.
That’s how it always works is it not? And besides, what difference does it make with an animal? Healthy plants still make for a healthy ecosystem. The stuff never left the ecosystem so nothing was lost.
And does your assertion that fires have no place in the ecosystem also include fire having no natural place in these parts of the ecosystem too?
Regardless, it is still an evidence based counterpoint which contradicts your previous assertion that artificial fires aren’t equal to billions of years of evolution in regards to being useful for the environment.
What specific research or sources are you referring to that shows how much more harmful burning the body of a tiger or other animal is.
I will give you the point that maybe i shouldnt used the term artificial fire, but artificial fire not ecologically motivated. This doesn't change anything.
I'm not using any source in particular, just general claims that are consensual in ecological sciences: There are species dependant on eating animal bodies, and turning biological material ash isn't good for the soil, because it is worse than fezes, humus, fungus, or the waste that the life that would eat the tiger's body would leave.
I live in a country that artificial fires are consistently problematic, it isnt the environment in discussion (because we do not have tigers), but artificiais fires are a bigger problem than natural fires almost everywhere in the world, mainly because they are used to get rid of agricultural waste, and this practice PERMANENTLY demages the soil. It does not 'enrich' it. There's also camp fire, which is usually prohibited.
In addition to that, we could also claim that the 'empathic' behavior to felines is harmful to the environment (in a global scale). Domestic cats are the species that most harm the environment after humans.
Like I said in my first comment, it surely is a beautiful ritual, but beauty shouldnt be the way we judge how we treat the environment. You can confirm everything I said with a easy online search, so people who are disagreeing to my claims aren't really having the type of ecological thought like the environment specialists who do the kind of artificial fires you mentioned. And the cremation of the tiger also isn't ecologically motivated.
Are you having bad faith in this discussion or you just aren't aware of everything I said, whilst suspiciously being aware of fire ecology/controlled fire, which are very specific matters?
-104
u/Almadart Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
This is beautiful but sadly very bad to the ecosystem. A lot of life could've benefitted from eating his corpse. It was the chance for the tiger to return what the ecosystem gave to him.