They would shoot and eat far more Eskimos than they do. If they had sniper rifles, they’d be able wipe out whole villages and devour the residents.
Assuming for the moment that polar bears could shoot, and were able to make coordinated attacks on Eskimo villages, it would soon be illegal to sell weapons to them. Their arms would be confiscated. Bounties on polar bears would be paid. Soon, “The Polar Bear Menace” would be eliminated.
If, however, the polar bears were not only able to shoot, but also, to make contributions to legislators and judges, things would be different. They would accumulate cash from dead or fleeing Eskimos that could be “donated” to campaigns. Suddenly, legislation allowing any meaningful control of polar bears would be bottled up in committees, studied by “experts”, and delayed as long as sufficient contributions were made.
Endless discussions on “equal rights”, “polar bear culture”, and “fairness” would paralyze discussions. “Well, if you were a polar bear, you’d want the same rights Eskimos have, wouldn’t you?” would be asked endlessly by sincere, wide-eyed pundits.
As more Eskimos died, there would be fewer complaints from them. After all the Eskimos were wiped out, the polar bears could begin going after the much wealthier Canadians.
And, why not? Don’t polar bears have rights? Don’t they have a culture to protect? Who are we to think we’re better?
