John Delaney left behind two sons and a pregnant wife pursuing a meaningless accomplishment. Bob Parsons killed an elephant who was destroying crops and fed an African village.
I'm troubled by your use of "meaningful" in describing danger. Danger is not meaningful in itself. An act does not become meaningful because 10% of the people who attempt it die. Acts are meaningful based on their impact on the world around them. Ascending the summit of Everest is ultimately meaningless; killing an elephant who was destroying crops and feeding an African village is quite meaningful.
>> Bob Parsons killed an elephant who was destroying crops and fed an African village.
The most instructive part of that video was the end where the crop Bob Parsons was trying to "save" was totally destroyed by people trying to get at the elephant. Those people did much more damage to the crop than the elephants.
So a lump of rotting flesh that will spoil in days takes the place of a field of grain that could have lasted a season. Not very meaningful. The farmer/village sure didn't benefit from Bob Parson's "help."
Saying that Bob Parsons did anything meaningful isn't being honest about what he did. Some people take pleasure in killing things; that's the basis of hunting as a sport. I'm not really interested in it one way or another. What does pique my interest is the idea that Bob Parsons was doing anything meaningful.
If he takes pleasure in killing things, he should go ahead and be honest about it. He shouldn't try excusing himself with some antiquated colonial view of white man helping some poor impoverished people with a big gun. That's the repulsive part of the whole thing.
If Bob Parsons really wanted to do something other than kill an animal, he could have given a micro-loan or grant to all those people to help them out of subsistence.
Sorry, that's YOUR definition, and good for you that you consider altruism more meaningful than courage. But yours is not the only definition, as I'm sure you are perfectly aware.
Now as to Mr. Parsons, don't be suckered into equating his killing an elephant with the question of whether elephants should be culled. Culling an elephant involves game wardens. What he did was murder tourism, big difference.
My definition? If your definition of "meaningful" doesn't take into account an act's impact on the external world, I don't know what to say; we probably have very little to discuss. I have no interest in arguing against what effectively amounts to solipsism.
"Murder" is the intentional killing of humans. Hunting elephants, licitly or otherwise, is not and never can be "murder tourism". But since you seem intent in this discussion on using words with meanings other than their commonly accepted ones, perhaps we should go our separate ways now.
None of my words said or implied that acts that help other people are not meaningful. I'm a father, I consider parenthood meaningful. I also consider climbing Mt. Everest meaningful even though I have no interest in trying it. The two are not exclusive in my mind.
My point was and is that testing one's courage is part of the meaning for climbimng Mt. Everest, as are many other things such as testing one's discipline to and sacrifice. I think these things are meaningful even when if and when they are not altruistic. That does not mean that digging a well or planting a tree or raising a child is not meaningful, they are also meaningful for different reasons.
Ok, killing an elephant that would have been culled anyways is not murder. Fine. Buit still, Bob parsons paid for the right to be the one that killed th elephant. The elephant would have been shot any ways, it's not like the Africans were unable to shoot it and needed Bob's help. The man paid for the right to kill something. Whatever word you apply, the fact remains that he killed a living thing for pleasure and then boasted of it on the Internet.
Mainly because moving them to an elephant reserve costs a good amount of money (something like $5000 per, if I recall correctly) and it's cheaper to just shoot them. His hunting trip was probably more expensive than that.
to play devils advocate: Elephants are far more endangered than humans. Does something have to propagate the human species to be meaningful, or can non-physical aspirations not be considered meaningful too?
I'm troubled by your use of "meaningful" in describing danger. Danger is not meaningful in itself. An act does not become meaningful because 10% of the people who attempt it die. Acts are meaningful based on their impact on the world around them. Ascending the summit of Everest is ultimately meaningless; killing an elephant who was destroying crops and feeding an African village is quite meaningful.