Punching and kicking is no match for clawing and biting. The humans' only chance would be to strangle/suffocate the bear. Probably by forming a big monkey pile.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Punching and kicking is no match for clawing and biting. The humans' only chance would be to strangle/suffocate the bear. Probably by forming a big monkey pile.
A bears weapons are it's strength, claws and such.
That is it's natural weaponry.
A humans natural weaponry will be pieces of wood, rocks etc.
You're not even going to come remotely close to fudging this.
The bear naturally has teeth, claws, etc. Human being's natural weaponry are its teeth, nails, and strength. Sadly, none of that means a dang thing against a grizzly.
Even at our most basic, and stripped from all the trappings of our modern life, we are still tool using creatures and to deny us of the capability to use makeshift weaponry is the same thing as denying the bear it's claws and natural strength.
No, it isn't, because a bear is born with claws and born with teeth. A human being is not born with rocks.
No, it isn't, because a bear is born with claws and born with teeth. A human being is not born with rocks.
Ok, but a human is born with a larger brain and thumbs that allows it to use the environment that must exist for either creature to be alive in the first place.
The question asks us to put all of that aside, however. We are to assume there are no readily available natural weapons and that, whatever the location may be, escape is not an option. That is the question.
I do agree that it is almost pointless to strip the humans of their most important natural strengths and leave the bear everything. It would be like asking "How many blind, deaf, baby bears with no claws or teeth would it take to kill a human with a shotgun, assuming he has infinite ammo, doesn't have to ever re-load, and never misses?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#define ALWAYS SOMETIMES
#define NEVER RARELY
#define ALL MANY
-=GIVE US SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN=-
I'm nerd enough to link my WoW Armory Though I'll put it in a small font.
Quote from Brenda - Scientist, of the Alaskan Science Center. »
Hi Chris--
I'm afraid I can't even hazard a guess at this question. Hopefully some of the others will feel more confident replying. Good luck getting an answer.
Brenda
Ok, but a human is born with a larger brain and thumbs that allows it to use the environment that must exist for either creature to be alive in the first place.
Still, natural weapons does not include tools. Human beings do not naturally have tools. It's why they're called tools in the first place.
I'm pretty sure I seen a dude on manSwers who said he could take out a grizzly on his own. Even though he was a trained martial artist I still doubt that 1 man can take a bear out using only his hands/feet. I think if it were a decent sized man (5'10, 180lbs) it'd take 11-15 of them. Given a couple of them might have to play sacrifical lamb
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks Mr.Stuff from High~Light Studios for the Sig
That sucks FTMB.. I was hoping for a real response after this long. Oh well. About the tool/natural weapon argument, keep in mind that this is strictly a hypothetical situation. One of humans' greatest strength is their intellect and cunning, but they still have arms and muscles that can be used to fight with. Martial Arts is a perfect example of this.
No, I really don't think it is fair to say a human's "natural" weaponry include makeshift tools and weapons. Keep in mind, the humans already have a tremendous advantage in the scenario because of their intellect. They can communicate, strategize, coordinate attacks, bait, etc. There are many tactics that utilize intellect without weapons.
Yeah, I was surprised it took 4 days for a [scientist's] response. I even made a foot note in the email that lives may be at stake, as the severity of this debate may turn to disparity - testing the hypotheses with real men and bears. I hope the other scientists have more enlightening responses.
Edit*
After rereading most of the thread, it appears that the advantage goes to the grizzly bear by experimental design. I understand what the hypothetical is asking, but its kind of like asking who would win:
A raccoon or a Sherman Tank without armor, ammunition, wheels, or an operator. The obvious and most dominant of the two is forbidden the very qualities that make it the more dominant of the two.
Realistically, a bear and any amount of naked men will never showdown in an infinite arena void of any tool(s). Dirt is a tool. Sand is a tool. Can a bird make its nest in that same arena? Nay. Can a beaver dam a river? Negatory. What about the unfriendly fliers that the bear covets most - the bee. Could they make their hives? Give this arena some sand, and I promise one or two full grown men can handle a bear.
The only thing I think the humans could do was run the thing to exhaustion.
Humans are the best long range runners in the world. So we could use that.
But out and out melee the bear would have to be smothered from corpses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Yeah, I was surprised it took 4 days for a [scientist's] response. I even made a foot note in the email that lives may be at stake, as the severity of this debate may turn to disparity - testing the hypotheses with real men and bears. I hope the other scientists have more enlightening responses.
Maybe that's why they didn't respond.
Toss that in with the obvious:
1) Most probably have no idea what the actual answer is. Any such study would be extremely inhumane.
2) Bear experts may be flooded with emails from other students/coworkers.
3) They're either low tech or never read the email from the account you were provided. People switch mains quite often.
Anyways, I don't think it's fair to relate the ability to answer this hypothetical question with the intellect of the community like CynicalSquirrel and some other posters did. Honestly, this has nothing to concern with our lives. Even given that unarmed men are confronting a rabid grizzly in the wild in its natural habitat, there probably will be dirt (as FTMB pointed out). Of course, I realize the objective of this question is to compare the strength of man and a bear, but this has absolutely no bearing in real life. There is no void and nothing is ever that perfect.
I should point out that any insult I made (or make really) towards the MTGS population is mostly my weird tongue in cheek humor that doesn't translate well to the internet. This is obviously a dumb hypothetical and I'm not actually judging anyone based on it, I just find it funny to overreact on such an irrelevant topic.
wow, I can't believe I read this entire thread.......
No way it could be done. Compared to an unarmed human, a bear is a killing machine. Even if you had enough people to *somehow* overwhelm it, I don't know how they would actually go about killing the poor thing.
Please stop attacking the initial question. Yes it is ridiculous. Yes it isn't possible or relevant in any way. Yes it has no bearing on real life. That's precisely why it's a hypothetical for the water cooler talk, it's all in good fun. If you think the question is dumb then don't bother replying.
I still can't believe how many people are overrating the killing power of a bear. Youtube bear kills and you can see that while they are definitely big and deadly, they aren't competent combatants by any stretch. They mostly kill by tackling and then biting the neck or body and just kind of mauling them or just holding the bite until they die. They wouldn't be able to handle multiple targets at once with much efficiency at all.
All he has to do is die, wait for the bear to get hungry enough to eat human meat, and then get lucky enough for the bear to choke on a rib and suffocate.
As for how many men it would take to DEFEAT a grizzly bear and kill it, and do so reliably? I'm going to agree with previous posters who said that causing blood loss to exhaust the bear would eventually be enough to take it down, and the easiest way to manage that would be attacking the eyes. I wouldn't be tremendously surprised if 6 people could arrange a workable strategy that would allow them to claw out a bear's eyes, and any survivors at that point would only have to keep the wounds open long enough for the bear to bleed out, feinting and distracting the bear as necessary.
With a workable strategy and some decently long fingernails, there's no reason to think ten people couldn't do it, max, though I wouldn't lay odds on more than a couple of them surviving.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
I still can't believe how many people are overrating the killing power of a bear. Youtube bear kills and you can see that while they are definitely big and deadly, they aren't competent combatants by any stretch. They mostly kill by tackling and then biting the neck or body and just kind of mauling them or just holding the bite until they die. They wouldn't be able to handle multiple targets at once with much efficiency at all.
They will be if they're humans. Humans can't survive much, and once again, bears have claws. A bear can plow through human beings. It's not like you'll be able to surround him.
See, this is why I included 'lives may be at stake' in my emails to the scientists. I am certain most of them read the email, laughed and/or shook their fist into the heavens, and then deleted it...these people likely did not take it seriously, albeit I presented it as a professional and a gentleman.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peace.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Punching and kicking is no match for clawing and biting. The humans' only chance would be to strangle/suffocate the bear. Probably by forming a big monkey pile.
My sister bit me really hard when we were kids.
Well, I'm sure she would have if I had a sister.
Infraction for Spam
You're not even going to come remotely close to fudging this.
The bear naturally has teeth, claws, etc. Human being's natural weaponry are its teeth, nails, and strength. Sadly, none of that means a dang thing against a grizzly.
No, it isn't, because a bear is born with claws and born with teeth. A human being is not born with rocks.
The question asks us to put all of that aside, however. We are to assume there are no readily available natural weapons and that, whatever the location may be, escape is not an option. That is the question.
I do agree that it is almost pointless to strip the humans of their most important natural strengths and leave the bear everything. It would be like asking "How many blind, deaf, baby bears with no claws or teeth would it take to kill a human with a shotgun, assuming he has infinite ammo, doesn't have to ever re-load, and never misses?"
Though I'll put it in a small font.
Please stop hijacking my reply box.
Still, natural weapons does not include tools. Human beings do not naturally have tools. It's why they're called tools in the first place.
Currently Playing
WUBG Ravanger Affinity
WWWTheMightyQuinn
No, I really don't think it is fair to say a human's "natural" weaponry include makeshift tools and weapons. Keep in mind, the humans already have a tremendous advantage in the scenario because of their intellect. They can communicate, strategize, coordinate attacks, bait, etc. There are many tactics that utilize intellect without weapons.
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
Edit*
After rereading most of the thread, it appears that the advantage goes to the grizzly bear by experimental design. I understand what the hypothetical is asking, but its kind of like asking who would win:
A raccoon or a Sherman Tank without armor, ammunition, wheels, or an operator. The obvious and most dominant of the two is forbidden the very qualities that make it the more dominant of the two.
Realistically, a bear and any amount of naked men will never showdown in an infinite arena void of any tool(s). Dirt is a tool. Sand is a tool. Can a bird make its nest in that same arena? Nay. Can a beaver dam a river? Negatory. What about the unfriendly fliers that the bear covets most - the bee. Could they make their hives? Give this arena some sand, and I promise one or two full grown men can handle a bear.
Humans are the best long range runners in the world. So we could use that.
But out and out melee the bear would have to be smothered from corpses.
Maybe that's why they didn't respond.
Toss that in with the obvious:
1) Most probably have no idea what the actual answer is. Any such study would be extremely inhumane.
2) Bear experts may be flooded with emails from other students/coworkers.
3) They're either low tech or never read the email from the account you were provided. People switch mains quite often.
Anyways, I don't think it's fair to relate the ability to answer this hypothetical question with the intellect of the community like CynicalSquirrel and some other posters did. Honestly, this has nothing to concern with our lives. Even given that unarmed men are confronting a rabid grizzly in the wild in its natural habitat, there probably will be dirt (as FTMB pointed out). Of course, I realize the objective of this question is to compare the strength of man and a bear, but this has absolutely no bearing in real life. There is no void and nothing is ever that perfect.
I'll take a horse in a long range run over a human any day.
ummm 100s? fill the area so that we remove all of the air supply from it?
No way it could be done. Compared to an unarmed human, a bear is a killing machine. Even if you had enough people to *somehow* overwhelm it, I don't know how they would actually go about killing the poor thing.
Ted Nugent could kill a grizzly bear with his bare hands. I'm quite confidant.
eds: and kpaca would steal his hat
edit again: or MajoraX will make a bad joke and/or pun it to death
I didn't list that option because I thought it was obvious.
TFO+kpaca stealing hats= Bear genocide.
This thread can now be closed. I don't know how you schmucks didn't figure this out already.
I still can't believe how many people are overrating the killing power of a bear. Youtube bear kills and you can see that while they are definitely big and deadly, they aren't competent combatants by any stretch. They mostly kill by tackling and then biting the neck or body and just kind of mauling them or just holding the bite until they die. They wouldn't be able to handle multiple targets at once with much efficiency at all.
Sig by XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios
But anyway, I would say 2 at the least. One to be bait, the other to poke out its eyes.
sup.
Fixed.
On the point of humans being the best long-distance runners, I believe this can help clear things up.
All he has to do is die, wait for the bear to get hungry enough to eat human meat, and then get lucky enough for the bear to choke on a rib and suffocate.
As for how many men it would take to DEFEAT a grizzly bear and kill it, and do so reliably? I'm going to agree with previous posters who said that causing blood loss to exhaust the bear would eventually be enough to take it down, and the easiest way to manage that would be attacking the eyes. I wouldn't be tremendously surprised if 6 people could arrange a workable strategy that would allow them to claw out a bear's eyes, and any survivors at that point would only have to keep the wounds open long enough for the bear to bleed out, feinting and distracting the bear as necessary.
With a workable strategy and some decently long fingernails, there's no reason to think ten people couldn't do it, max, though I wouldn't lay odds on more than a couple of them surviving.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
What are you kidding me? This is probably a giant joke to them.
They will be if they're humans. Humans can't survive much, and once again, bears have claws. A bear can plow through human beings. It's not like you'll be able to surround him.
yea, and to us this is serious business
Perhaps we should conduct our own study...if you want something done, you have to do it yourself.