A respected primatologist is shedding light on the debate of 100 men versus one gorilla, explaining why such a scenario is unrealistic and unfairly portrays these magnificent creatures in a negative way. Michael Stern, a primatologist trained at Harvard University with extensive experience studying gorillas in both captivity and in the wild in Uganda, dismisses the notion by emphasizing that a gorilla in such a situation would likely flee upon realizing it is vastly outnumbered.
In the ongoing discussion about the hypothetical battle, Stern compares it to asking whether a unicorn could defeat a dinosaur or if a shark equipped with a laser beam could destroy a submarine. Contrary to the belief of some, including Chris Pontius who suggested a gorilla would overpower 100 men, Stern argues that a gorilla would recognize the unfavorable odds and attempt to escape, perhaps pushing a few individuals out of its way in the process.
Stern points out that the fascination with this debate stems from the impressive speed and strength of gorillas, acknowledging their physical prowess while emphasizing that they are primarily peaceful animals rather than aggressive fighters. He stresses that perpetuating this idea is harmful to the gorillas’ reputation.
For those seeking a primate more likely to pose a threat to a group of men, Stern suggests looking at chimpanzees, some of which have been known to attack humans in the past. Additionally, he discusses the New Nature Foundation, an organization aimed at combating deforestation in Africa through innovative technologies, inviting people to support efforts that benefit primates instead of focusing on unrealistic confrontations.
In conclusion, it appears that the debate of 100 humans versus one gorilla would end in the humans’ favor not due to victory in combat, but because the gorilla simply seeks to live peacefully.
