A very interesting thread, and I can't say I'm at all surprised by the mixed responses. I believe Laura is right though in saying that there are far more important things to get worked up about, when you consider what is happening in our world, and where it's headed, but that said, I myself was still very upset by Irwin's death.
I know this sounds absurd, but many other people I know have said a similar thing -- I felt as if I knew the guy. His personality was larger-than-life, and so the announcement of his death was -- and still is -- a very difficult thing to believe.
Having read the replies in this thread thus far, I feel compelled to reply to some of the negative responses. For one thing, Steve Irwin did not "get what he asked for", especially since you consider the fact that in Australia, only about 3 people have ever died from Sting Rays. Also, it has now been confirmed here in Australia, by the Queensland Police who have viewed the footage of his death, that Irwin did not in any way provoke the animal. So while Irwin may have indeed done some very risky things in his career, his death was not at all the result of anything risky. Tourists swim near and with stingrays all the time on the Barrier Reef, and you seldom hear of any incident, and if you do, it's almost never a death (like I said above).
Someone suggested that Irwin may be psychopathic, and yet I know that Irwin cries every time he sees animals who die. The Darwin Galapagos tortoise, the oldest in the world (Darwin himself discovered this particular tortoise), died only several months ago in Australia Zoo, and Irwin was devastated by it. So clearly the man had the capacity to
feel.
I admit that when I first saw Irwin on television five years ago or so, I was embarrassed by his persona and thought immediately that everything was one giant act fuelled by a monumental ego. However this is not so. Every person you speak to who knows Irwin has confirmed that the way he is on-screen is identical to the way he is off-screen. The man was the real deal. He's always been over-the-top, ever since he was a boy. He very probably had ADD. But rather than being subdued by drugs (they didn't really have them back then for ADD), he channelled his energy in a very positive way. What's more, the high-profile, Hollywood-style image he made for himself, although some may see it as distasteful, was all for a fantastic cause. How many Hollywood stars do you see
pouring all their money into buying up huge tracts of wild land, for the sake of preserving animals and the environment? Irwin urged the millionaires of the world to do likewise -- buy land to stop it from being destroyed. Anyhow, that's exactly what Irwin did, and no doubt this will continue as he would have wished. Australia Zoo employs 500 staff, all of whom were devastated by his death. All of them loved the man like a close friend -- he was their friend. All of them were (and will be) treated with utmost respect by the Irwins and you can pretty much guarantee that the very large majority of Irwin's earnings went straight back into the zoo and towards bringing about awareness to wildlife which is endangered. And for that, I think I can forgive his pop-star-like character.
Mark said:
What kind of person would put themselves in extreme physical danger over and over and over knowing full well that there are people who depend on him? Dealing with psychopaths can be dangersous, sure, but confronting crocodiles, snakes, and all kinds of other wild creatures is just plain foolish if not outright stupid.
Well, one could argue that Laura Knight-Jadczyk has done this. I believe it was Martha Neymann who actually accused her of putting her children in danger through the work she does, but then went further to suggest that it was
her fault, rather than blaming the psychopaths. While there is little real equivalence between the two situations (since the analogy between psychopaths and dangerous animals is not as good as it might first appear), one thing is equivalent: Steve Irwin put himself in danger doing what he loved, but not out of selfishness -- he did it because he cared deeply about animals and wanted the world to share his concern (sure he did it in a questionable way many times, but it still did the trick). Laura does what she loves, if you could use that word, but once again, it's not selfish, but rather motivated by her deep concern about the state of the world we live in and the terrible lies and deception which is used to control us. In both situations, children were/are put at risk.
The other day someone mentioned that Steve Irwin was a "superior" human being (compared to many), and while it's a very controversial word, I guess in one particular sense he was "superior" because he put his money where his mouth was and did something worthwhile for the greater good of planet earth (helping wildlife and the environment). But be that as it may, after hearing this comment, I then thought to myself that someone who is far "superior" to anyone on this earth right now would have to be Laura (and it's not really a word that I like to use, and Laura would feel likewise). A better phrase would be "far more perspicacious". What she has endured and gone through to discover a simple thing called "truth" is nothing short of remarkable, and it's far harder than battling any crocodiles or other ferocious creatures. What's more, it's a largely thankless, unrecognised, ignored or else ridiculed task,
and yet it's by far the most important thing anyone has ever done on this planet.
