Your complimentary articles You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month. You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please Articles Iain King derives a universal moral law from a moral field study. Welcome to Africa! I’m in the remote jungles of South Sudan, near the unmarked border with the Central African Republic roughly 5 degrees North and 23 degrees East, if you want to look it up. Most people here live in mud huts, spend their time farming small clearings in the forest, and are extremely poor. Never having met someone from Britain before, they’re very generous, offering me pineapple, dried ants, and – their greatest gift – an explanation of right and wrong. The dried ants taste a bit like the crusty part of prawns, but more salty. I am curious to hear about how the insects are harvested, and how rival ant colonies fight it out. But I don’t care which colony wins, or how many ants die. Lots of things die in the jungle. Ant wars are just evolution in action. But my reaction is very different when I hear about people here fighting and dying. A local man explains how they fear the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army – the armed guerrillas who prowl the forest, and who killed one of the villagers recently. The community leader complains it’s no longer safe to cultivate in the jungle, and a group of woman ululate to endorse his view. Now I feel sympathy. The villager’s murder wasn’t evolution in action, it was wrong. To me, and to the local people, it really was wrong. We’re sure of that – as sure as we are that the mangos are yellow. I don’t even need to have known the villager who was killed, my emotional reaction flows easily from what I imagine about other murders, even though I’ve never actually witnessed one. The Evolution of Moral Facts It’s easy to theorise how a strong distaste for murder might have evolved. In my native England, as well as here in the jungle, groups of people who refrained from killing each other would have had greater survival chances, because they could trust each other and cooperate better. Played out over thousands of generations, communities of people with an instinctive revulsion for murder would win out. On some other matters, the moral laws of the jungle have evolved differently to my own. I don’t want my daughter to marry as young as the girls here do. Local villagers are much more hospitable to strangers than I am in London. Most also support the death penalty, and want to have a powerful King again – views which make me queasy. Some of these differences we can accept I’m happy for the villagers to be polygamous, but I wouldn’t welcome polygamy in Britain. Some, though, I cannot the idea of the death penalty appals me, wherever it operates. Even though we can explain how our deeply held moral values have evolved through adaption to the environment, with different environments leading to different beliefs, it doesn’t make us believe in them any less. Darwin was right, but murder is still wrong. You may have spotted an apparent chink in the reasoning here how can I accept the randomness of evolution, and yet elevate the products of this process – my revulsion at murder shared with the people here and my distaste for polygamy not shared – to the status of facts? The answer is that we are trapped within evolution. We cannot escape it. There are two ways to rebut this answer, both of them flawed. If you don’t accept evolution, then come here and watch the anthills undergo natural selection for proof that Darwin’s theory was correct. If you accept evolution but don’t rate the power of the instincts which that process has instilled in you, then I challenge you to prove you don’t by jettisoning your own natural will to survive by allowing one of the jungle snakes to bite you. You can’t, can you? It’s because even an anything goes’ morality must hold something dear, even if it’s only the life of the person who propounds it. Jungle life proves just how real our evolved instincts are. The people here have formed their own vigilante militia, the arrow boys’ so named because arrows are their main weapons against the AK-47 rifles of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Arrow boys display all the martial virtues of courage and comradeship, and it is easy to see how a fighting force of brave team players is more formidable than a group of timid loners. We can speculate how the human reaction of courage in the face of a challenge has evolved to become a feature of the world. But here, and elsewhere, we can see that it actually is a survival imperative. These moral instincts may just be in our heads, but they are nevertheless still real. They are as real as the way the jungle birds fly out of the trees when I shout up at them. Our moral instincts are a fact of the world. Difficult Decisions Not all decisions in the jungle require moral thinking. Even though there’s a right way and a wrong way to cut up a pineapple, it’s a skill, not a moral judgement. Decisions get more serious when the stakes are higher and the consequences shared. When food is scarce, villagers think carefully about who will get some and who will go without. At the top end of the spectrum, people here ponder who will stay, fight, and perhaps die, and who will escape, if the LRA come again. Deciding whether to abandon the fighting men of the village or stand with them definitely requires ethics. Supposing they ask me to fight with them. Should I? Some – mostly in the economics faculties of Western universities – say it would be rational for me to be selfish when these decisions come. They say I should do what’s best for me, and if I can persuade others of this, all the better. But this ignores how I was brought up abandoning others seems deeply wrong . It’s down there with robbery, being mean, and refusing to help people who really need it. That sort of rationality is not for me – or many people. Thankfully, it’s not for the people here, either, who could exploit me just as I could exploit them, but don’t. When difficult joint decisions come, both I and the people here will draw upon our instincts about the right thing to do. And if we agree, then that shared judgement is confirmed to both of us as morally correct. Where we differ there are three options. First, we can work something out between us – which means we’ll decide between us what we agree on, so defining our shared moral law. Second, one of us can dictate to the others, and if the diktat is accepted then once again there is a shared ethic we all sometimes accept advice because it came from a reliable source, even if it seems wrong at first. Only in the third case, where there is still a disagreement, and where the dictator is rejected, will what might have become shared moral norms descend back into personal opinions. As we work out our differences – for example, dividing up the mangoes, but making sure sick people get the best fruit – generally, joint decisions will be made which should serve our common interests. This is so even though we may be mistaken about what our best interests are I loved eating the antelope they served me, but I found out later it was bad for me; and our interests include all the things we value – even things like making a sacrifice for other people, which might not seem in our interests’ at all. Reconciling Interests You may now be expecting me to make the case for adding up everybody’s happiness or benefit and trying to maximise it, as the utilitarians would do. After all, trying to satisfy my interests and those of the villagers does seem an awful lot like trying to generate the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number. But it doesn’t quite work out like that. Not quite. You see, in the jungle, the way I reconcile my interests with those of other people is not for all of us to pour everything we care about into a pot then see which of the combination of satisfied wants would generate the most happiness benefit. If we did that, I could be completely outnumbered. If people here supported slavery for example I didn’t ask them, then the total happiness might be maximised if I were made a slave. Not good. No, the way we reconcile interests is through empathy. We imagine ourselves in the position of other people. Empathy is the bedrock of human ethics. The ability to empathise is as strong in the jungles of South Sudan as it is in Britain. Empathy has evolved like other aspects of morality, and to all but the psychopathic 1% of people in the world who lack this capacity, it is a feature of the world as real as gravity. Some scientists reckon we really do feel the pain of others, imagining it in a near-identical way that we feel pain in our own bodies. Empathy is one-to-one, since we only imagine ourselves in the mind of one other person at a time. Even when I empathise with the people’ here – for example when I hear about the difficulties all the women face finding clean water – I am really imagining what it is like to be just one woman. I cannot imagine myself to be more than one person at a time, and neither can you. So if I’m part of a group of four trying to decide what is right, I need to empathise with each of the other three in turn. For each, I and they will come to an agreement – and therefore define a norm of what is right – by balancing our interests if my time and effort is worth more to one of them than it is to me, then I will help them, and vice versa. But empathising one-to-one also sets boundaries it prevents me from becoming a slave, since the impact of this on my interests will exceed any benefit it could bring any single one of them, even if the total benefit to several of them would be larger. The Help Principle This leads to a principle which is simple but central Help someone if your time and effort is worth more to them than it is to you. This principle, let’s call it the Help Principle’, is at the core of ethics – in Britain as well as in the jungle, and indeed wherever there are humans to be helped – which is just about everywhere. The idea that we should help someone if our time and effort is worth more to them than it is to us has many things going for it, ethically speaking. Here are just four of them First, its genesis. The Help Principle is real, in that the empathy which generates it can be observed and proven. It is also imagined’ it is in our heads, just like right and wrong are in our heads. Hence, the genesis of the Help Principle provides a neat bridge between those who think right and wrong are Absolute Features Of The Universe, and those who think they are more like personal tastes. To humans like me, just like the jungle villagers of South Sudan, it’s both. Second, the Help Principle can be tested. This might not sound like much; after all, any ethical idea can be tested, in a way just see if you like what it recommends. But the Help Principle is different, because it is the direct application of observable facts. Empathy can be proven to motivate people; empathy’s fundamental association with our moral sentiments can also be tested through observation; and logic shows that this motivation leads directly to the Help Principle. So unlike, say, act in a way you would wish to become a universal law’ Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, paraphrased, the Help Principle flows directly from drives shared by all non-psychopathic humans. Third, the Help Principle avoids the main problems which come with the utilitarian goal of trying to achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number. As my hypothetical enslavement illustrated, maximising happiness can override human rights the individual gets squashed if she’s going against the tide of the masses. The Help Principle avoids this danger because, it being based on one-to-one empathy, the individual remains central. It’s not utilitarian, but quasi-utilitarian. When applied in groups, the Help Principle advocates choosing whichever option will benefit any individual the most, so long as all reciprocate the help they receive. The Help Principle and rights go together snugly, and that’s good. Fourth, the Help Principle can be broadened into a whole set of principles and advice which fit together coherently and line up with most people’s moral intuitions – both in the developed West and in remote jungles. It can do this because our norms and instincts can be extended through a logical process, just as I can develop survival tips in the jungle from a few lessons and a bit of logic. So, I’ve learned that the best way to harvest mangoes is to throw a fallen fruit up into the branches to knock off the ripe ones. I then induce that I can apply this method to all the tall fruit trees in the forest. Similarly, if one deliberate and unjustified killing is wrong, then I can deduce that all deliberate and unjustified killings will be wrong, too. To use logic to extend the Help Principle, let’s think for a moment about empathy. It is because we empathise with others in the past and future as well as in the present that most people respect promises we rate the happiness a promise has already caused, even to a person who has since died, as well as the benefits which might come from breaking a promise. This means the Help Principle advocates promise-breaking only when the promise-breaking option brings benefits greater than the combined historical and future benefits of keeping the promise. This usually requires an unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable change in the situation more important than the promise itself, arising after the promise was made. This is a practical approach to promises which makes promise-breaking rare but conceivable. The Help Principle makes promises count for something, but not for everything, which must be correct. Further Benefits of the Help Principle The Help Principle similarly makes lies manageable, too. We’re not encouraged by it to lie if its in our benefit as long as no-one finds out – which is what greatest-happiness advocates might suggest. Nor are lies absolutely prohibited – the puritanical and Kantian approach which damns even white lies. Instead, the Help Principle suggests that we should deceive only if by doing so we can change behaviour in a way worth more than the trust lost, if the deception were to be discovered whether the deception is actually exposed or not. Sounds like a credible rule on lying to me. Furthermore, empathising with people in the past as well as the future means justice isn’t just about either deterrents or blindly applying a code. It means punishments are issued which fit both the crime and the criminal. That chimes well with my instincts, and hopefully with yours, too. In fact, it’s very easy to expand the Help Principle into a very coherent set of ethics. It’s far more coherent than, say, trying to maximise happiness just thinking about maximising happiness can make you very unhappy. The Help Principle offers a rule for our actions; it thinks about consequences; and it is based on the virtue of empathy. Hence, the Help Principle even manages to transcend the three main schools of ethics – systems based on character, rules and outcomes – the triumvirate of approaches which have governed Western moral thought for centuries. The set of ethics which emerge from the Help Principle is intuitively appealing, but best of all, it doesn’t just explain our ideas of right and wrong, mapping out our moral reactions, replaying to us what we already know, think and feel it helps us fill in the gaps. Where we’re not so sure, it can offer advice. It answers the most basic question of moral philosophy What should we do?’, and its answer straddles the troublesome gulf between facts and values which has left many great minds scratching their heads. I leave the jungles of South Sudan happy, keen to apply the Help Principle elsewhere, and content that a problem has been solved. And the sweet flavour of mangoes has displaced the salty taste of dried ants from my mouth forever. © Iain King 2014 Iain King CBE is a former Fellow of Cambridge University, and author of How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All The Time Continuum, 2008.

JangHyuk, Sooyoung SNSD, dan Jin Seo Yeon mungkin akan tampil di drama baru OCN.. Pada 18 Juli, OCN menyatakan, “Memang benar bahwa kami memberikan penawaran kepada Jang Hyuk, Jin Seo Yeon, dan Sooyoung untuk ‘Call It Like You See It’ (judul terjemahan).” “Call It Like You See It” merupakan sebuah drama yang saat ini tengah dipertimbangkan untuk

SBS’s “Law of the Jungle” has released an official apology after they were criticized for catching and consuming giant clams in Thailand, an endangered and protected wildlife species. The scene in question was aired on June 29 in “Law of the Jungle in Lost Island.” The cast were at Ko Muk Island in the southern part of Thailand and actress Lee Yul Eum was seen catching giant clams, which the cast cooked and consumed together. The scene was then shared on social media, where it gained traction and prompted requests for the show to be investigated. Media outlets like the Bangkok Post and Channel News Asia have reported that Hat Chao Mai National Park Department has requested an investigation into “Law of the Jungle” to local police. Giant clams were classified as an endangered species in Thailand in 1992, and harvesting them can lead to a fine of 40,000 Thai Baht approximately $1,300 or a jail sentence of up to four years. The “Law of the Jungle” team was granted permission to film in the area from the Tourism Department of Thailand and the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. However, a source from the Hat Chao Mai National Park Department explained that it was difficult to monitor the team as they did not inform officials every time they were filming in different areas within the park. The source stated, “They were fully aware of the laws and regulations. We have already been in touch with coordinating firms to inform them of their wrongdoing and further legal action.” In response, “Law of the Jungle” has taken down all video clips that show the cast catching and cooking giant clams from their official website. The “Law of the Jungle” team has also released an official apology that reads, “We sincerely apologize for failing to become fully informed of the local regulations regarding giant clams in Thailand, and we will be more aware of our actions in the future.” The scene in question was aired in the episode below. Watch Now Source 1 2 How does this article make you feel?

MemberSuper Junior, Kangin bisa saja bertahan selama dua tahun di camp militer. Tapi, bagaimana tentang pengalamannya tinggal di hutan untuk syuting 'Laws of the Jungle'?

This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Journal Information Philosophy, the journal of The Royal Institute of Philosophy is published by Cambridge University Press quarterly in January, April, July and October. The editorial policy of the journal pursues the aims of the Institute to promote the study of philosophy in all its branches logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy and the philosophies of religion, science, history, language, mind and education. Contributors are expected to avoid all needless technicality. Publisher Information Cambridge University Press is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Philosophy © 1978 Royal Institute of Philosophy Request Permissions

From The Jungle Book) Now this is the Law of the Jungle -- as old and as true as the sky; And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back --For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.

Project Runway’ Season 20 on Bravo How to Follow the Designers on Instagram Vanderpump Rules’ Raquel Leviss Brings Tom Sandoval Flowers, Assures She’s Not a “Home-Wrecking Wh*re” Kim Kardashian Schemes to Set Up Khloé Kardashian With 365 Days’ Star Michele Morrone “He’s the Hottest Guy” Project Runway’ All-Stars Kara Saun and Nora Pagel Reflect On How They and the Bravo Hit Have Changed Since Season 1 In the eight episode Netflix reality survival entry Law of the Jungle Spanish title “La ley de la selva”, two teams of competitors are dumped in a remote equatorial environment where they’ll face off in physical and mental challenges for a shot at two million pesos in prize money. Does teamwork make the dream work? Or will the “dilemmas” periodically presented by the show’s unseen hand orient individual contestants toward what they can win for themselves over the benefit and well-being of the group? THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE STREAM IT OR SKIP IT? Opening Shot In a control room reminiscent of The Hunger Games, player profiles flicker on flat screens before we’re taken to a convoy of Land Rovers cruising down a rain-soaked highway. “12 players will be abandoned in the jungle,” narrator Diego Alfaro tells us. “But before the action and the problems begin, they’ll spend the night in pairs and get to know each other.” The Gist As the contestants are led blindfolded into the jungle, we get a few introductory cutaways. There’s John, a musician and entrepreneur, who immediately challenges Layla, a student, about what tactics she might employ in the game. Leslie, a former co-star of MTV Latin America’s Acapulco Shore – it’s like Jersey Shore, but set in Guerrero – says she’s here to prove who she really is after what viewers saw of her there. Cesar is a polygraph examiner, an analytical vocation the narrator tells us the series might obfuscate; Sandy’s competitor’s spirit is powered by the encouragement of her two children; Zoe is an activist; Gina is an athlete; Josue is a parkour enthusiast; and Paola, also known as “Little Moth,” is a twerking instructor. And from one to twelve, every contestant on Law of the Jungle has a plan for the show’s prize purse. The question is how any of them will get it, and what might be left when they do. “Let’s figure out what your weaknesses and strengths are,” Cesar says to Zoe in the inky jungle darkness. Well, there’s one guy who’s not wasting any time establishing an abrasive, probing personality. But there are others. “I’m willing to do anything to win, even if it means skinning, cutting, grinding, hitting, fighting, knocking down,” John says in a confessional cutaway. “The end justifies the means.” He also admits to the camera that he’ll say anything, any lie, if there is personal benefit to him. And it’s quickly apparent how important traits like this will become, as Law of the Jungle reveals its first challenge and competitive structure. As denoted by host Yolanda Andrade, Orange Team and Blue Team will descend on an elaborate obstacle course “mission” involving cumbersome steel barrels, tunneling through dirt, delicate weight distribution, Cornhole-style target accuracy, and the use of fine motor skills while exhausted. But each team will also denote one outlier, “a player who won’t compete, but will influence the mission’s result.” And this is where Jungle introduces its “dilemma” prompts. For example, players can choose to add an obstacle for their own team, and gain $100,000 of the prize purse for themselves; alternatively, they can add an obstacle to the opposing team’s mission, and gain $80,000 pesos. Like all other communications within the game, these prompts are handled via cumbersome tablets distributed to the contestants. What will the teams do when they reassemble, and learn about the outliers’ decisions? How will they establish team dynamics going forward, especially with the advent of these dilemma side hustles? And who will the “mission” winners choose to send to “the purge,” an elimination round for whoever received the most votes against? Photo Netflix What Shows Will It Remind You Of? While the team basecamps in Law of the Jungle provide basic food, water, and shelter, it’s when the series starts to detail ways to win that it resembles the recent Netflix hit Outlast Jungle constantly stokes the friction between genuine teamwork and “lone wolf” personal gain. And don’t get this Law of the Jungle confused with that other Law of the Jungle, the reality/documentary series created by Kim Byung-man which tosses South Korean celebrities into wild remote environments. Our Take It’s notable that a coiled snake is part of the Law of the Jungle logo. Even as it begins, with pairs of strangers plunged into deep woods overnights, the contestants here are a bold mix of overbearing, wary, suspicious, and the baldy opportunistic, all of which should act as accelerant on the flames of drama that Jungle is happy to tend. After their first mission, as Team Orange is making the best of their rudimentary accommodations, Gina says she’s already at odds with teammate Fabian, who is decidedly more blunt. “I don’t trust anyone. Not here for friends. Just money.” OK, Fabes, but what about the teamwork? For a lot of these contestants, the cash prize sits just beyond the frame. But they don’t seem to have considered every aspect of just how they’ll get it. It’s those darn dilemmas, see? In the aftermath of the first mission, as its winners are determining who they might vote down in the coming ceremony – three players will enter the purge, only two will leave – Blue Teamer Cesar is given the opportunity to contact Orange’s Zoe via private message. It might afford his team some strategic leverage. But it’ll also burn $20,000 of the prize money. Beyond all of the splashing in mud and zip line soaring and slippery climbing walls, these moral crossroads are where Law of the Jungle really makes its viewing bones. People have been screwing each other out of gains on reality shows for generations. But this time around, they’re getting paid for it. Sex and Skin Lots of sweaty/soaking wet people swatting desperately at flies in this show’s steamy jungle setting, but beyond that it’s just F-bombs and B-words. Parting Shot The three Blue Teamers who accumulated the most down votes from Orange’s control of the game have joined host Yolanda Andrade in a clearing, where they face an overgrown version of the block removal game Jenga. This is the dreaded “purge” portion of Law of the Jungle, and only two of these three players will survive. Sleeper Star “Karma acts faster than you think!” As one of the first players to be confronted with a dilemma, Layla handles the pressure with a mixture of straight-up sass, intriguing strategy, misdirection via positivity, and frequent references to herself in the third person. “That was like a planned strategy by Lay!” But it remains to be seen if her performance in the early going will guarantee a lengthy stay on The Law of the Jungle. Most Pilot-y Line “The teams decided that Layla and Paola would not compete in this mission. This is where the good part begins. Both will be lured into taking a portion of the prize in exchange for making the mission more difficult for their teams. What will these players do? Will they be able to betray the people they just met? And if they do, what will they tell their teammates when they see them again after the mission?” Our Call STREAM IT. All of the contestants on The Law of the Jungle are outspoken in ways as different as their motivations for winning the prize money. Beyond the usual physical challenges, though, what’s intriguing here is how each of them will navigate the moral crossroads they’re presented with, which themselves have financial consequences. Johnny Loftus is an independent writer and editor living at large in Chicagoland. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, All Music Guide, Pitchfork Media, and Nicki Swift. Follow him on Twitter glennganges Tags Netflix reality tv Stream It Or Skip It The Law of the Jungle ^{SBSakhirnya angkat bicara dengan memberikan pernyataan dan meminta maaf terkait kontroversi berburu kerang yang terancam punah secara ilegal di “Law of the Jungle”. Berikut pernyataan mereka: SBS menggelar pertemuan dengan komite pada 18 Juli menyangkut tim produksi “Law of the Jungle in Lost Island” yang berburu kerang raksasa di Thailand.}

BANGKOK South Korean reality TV show Law Of The Jungle sparked public outrage in Thailand when one of its celebrity contestants dived to the bottom of the sea in a national park and caught three giant clams - an endangered and protected wildlife species - for cooking in a survival Lee Yeol-eum was seen swimming with the camera crew in the sea at the Hat Chao Mai National Park of Trang province, southern Thailand, when she spotted a giant clam among corals. Its hard, wavy shells were slightly open, revealing the bright yellow soft body gloves, fins and a snorkeling mask, the South Korean actress dived to the seabed to get the giant clam but could not move it. In her second attempt, she was filmed pounding on the clam before resurfacing.“It won’t come off!” she said to the camera before swimming off to look for a new target. It did not take long before she spotted another clam and took a dive to the bottom of the sea. This time, Lee pulled hard and managed to retrieve it while the camera crew stood on corals, documenting her victory and gave herself a thumbs up and raised the clam high above her head when she resurfaced, waiving with excitement.“I was the happiest person in the world. I did it. I caught this with my own hands,” she said after the hunt, in which she managed to catch three of the endangered giant AUTHORITIES TO TAKE LEGAL ACTIONLaw Of The Jungle is a reality-documentary show that airs on SBS. The 55-minute programme is also available online and is watched by many Thais. After its latest episode went to air recently, Lee’s seafood hunt stirred up controversy among Thai viewers and prompted officials at the Hat Chao Mai National Park to take legal action against individuals involved in the production.“We’re in the process of filing police complaints against people involved in the case, including the company that sought permission for the production and liaisons,” head of the Hat Chao Mai National Park Narong Kong-iad told to Narong, the production team had been granted permission by the Tourism Department of Thailand as well as the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation prior to the filming. The group, he added, was “fully aware of regulations and laws”.“They must have understood what they did was wrong. The National Parks Department has already been in touch with coordinating firms to inform them of the wrongdoing and legal actions,” Narong known as tridacna gigas, the giant clam is the largest clam in the world. It lives on coral reefs and can grow beyond in width and weigh up to about 250kg. The soft muscle inside its hard shells contains a lot of protein and is considered a delicacy. A giant clam has an average life span of 100 years or more. Once it finds a place on a reef, it stays there for the rest of its Thailand, giant clams are an endangered wildlife species. They are protected by the Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits the hunting and trading of protected wildlife. Individuals who violate the law can face four years in jail and/or a fine of no more than 40,000 Baht US$1,300.In the TV show, contestants are also seen eating the giant clams Lee illegally caught in the following episode.“This action clearly breaks the law. The giant clam is a protected wildlife species. Although the wrongdoing has already occurred and aired, the case should be forwarded to South Korea to officially keep them informed. Actions should be taken,” said Dr Thon Thamrongnawasawat, a marine scientist from Kasetsart University who is deeply involved in marine to Narong, the production team did not inform the national park officials of their location when they filmed the controversial seafood hunt. As a result, there was no official monitoring the crew.“Every time they filmed, they had to inform the officials so we could provide assistance and monitor the production. However, the images that appeared are likely to have been taken at another area in the national park,” he told CNA.“There are many tourist sites in the national park. We can’t monitor all of them.”

Search Radio Star Exo Eng Sub. Forza Horizon 4 Sniping Bot Watch Full Episodes Online Al Hayba [2020] 4x19 Temporada 4 Capítulo 19 (Episodio Completo) Sub Español / Eng Sub / Sub English ⯈ To Watch Botched Se4Ep19 : Saison 4 Épisode 19(intégral) Sub France 2020 Online Complete Official Partners Multishow TV Series & TV Shows [ENG SUB] Knowing Bros

PrillyKecewa. Prilly Latuconsina merasa kecewa dengan kepemimpinan wasit pada laga melawan Farmel FC. Ia menyoroti sejumlah keputusan janggal yang diambil oleh wasit. “Keanehan yang terjadi di pertandingan ini, onside jadi offside. Tidak pelanggaran jadi pelanggaran. Harusnya tidak kartu jadi kartu,” kata Prilly lewat akun Instagramnya

^{Lawof the Jungle In Sumatra Sub Esp Publicado el: octubre 07, 2018. Visitas: DESCRIPCIÓN "La Ley de la Selva" es un reality show surcoreano de la Cadena SBS, que empezó a emitirse en octubre del 2011. Es un espectáculo de supervivencia, realidad en la que los miembros del reparto deben trabajar juntos para sobrevivir en la selva sin agua} .

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/259

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/455

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/716

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/357

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/342

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/793

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/18

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/334

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/621

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/705

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/234

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/390

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/492

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/689

r2jhtolaxz.pages.dev/201

law of the jungle kontroversi