Horse sense? Or Zebra sense?

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond asks why of 148 wild herbivorous mammals that could be considered candidates for domestication by humans, only 14 passed the test (or failed, depending on whose perspective you take I suppose). In answering this question, he uses what is known as the Anna Karenina principle (deficiency in any one of a number of factors results in failure). The 6 factors used are:

• Diet,
  
• Growth rate,
  
• Problems of Captive breeding,
  
• Nasty Disposition,
  
• Tendency to Panic, and
  
• Social Structure,

Diamond points out that the Asiatic ass (pictured), also known as an Onager, has a nasty disposition towards humans and that "All writers about them, from Romans to modern zookeepers, decry their irascible temper and their nasty habit of biting people".

Diamond doesn't explore why it might be that Onagers are so nasty to humans, but my suspicion is that they're extremely clever animals!

Likewise with the Zebra:

Zebras have the unpleasant habit of biting people and not letting go. They thereby injure even more American zookeepers each year than do tigers.

Is it possible that these animals knew the score, that they knew what was at stake and were intelligent enough to deliberately avoid domestication? Or do they just have good instincts?

Zebras are also virtually impossible to lasso with a rope - even for cowboys who win rodeo championships by lassoing horses - because of their unfailing ability to watch the rope noose fly towards them and then duck their head out of the way.

Cruelty? You can bet on it.

According to the news over at horseracingkills.org, a number of people in the industry have recently been caught out electrocuting their horses in an effort to make them run faster.

I suspect this is probably the tip of an iceberg of cruelty that the racing industry would prefer to keep concealed lest it damage the image of this much loved (and very profitable!) "sport".

Judge Lewis said it was "a sad state of affairs" when a trainer, in a bid to entice a horse to perform better, reverted to inflicting pain on a horse via an electrical shock.

entice: to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire.

No, that's not quite the word I would have used.

Canaries in the coalnickel mine?

Thousands of birds have been mysteriously dying in Esperance - literally falling from the sky according to this report. An older article indicates that this has been going on for the past month or so.

Acting chief veterinary officer Fiona Sunderman said toxins were the most likely cause but the deaths could be due to anything from toxic algae to chemicals and pesticides.

Birds convulsing as they died is clearly symptomatic of poisoning, which seems to be view of this report. But poisoning with what? My armchair bird forensic scientist skills tell me that toxic algae seems unlikely given the number of honey-eaters dying.

Meanwhile, the discovery of over 60 dead birds resulted in a temporary shutdown of 10 blocks of downtown Austin. Signs of the coming apocolypse or just some bird-hatin' Texan?

The Greenhouse Gas Indicator

Mr Thwaites said he expected the figure to decrease. "Now that people are aware that we are emitting about 2 million tonnes of greenhouse gas every week, I expect that people will start looking at ways to cut back. One of the problems with greenhouse gas emissions is that people haven't been aware how much we are emitting and why." [source]

You obviously can't change what you can't measure, so it's nice to see the launch of a weekly indicator of statewide greenhouse gas emissions (found here)

I'm wondering if Thwaites will be correct though - will that figure decrease in the near future? I'm doubtful of any significant decreases for two reasons:

• Our population is still growing at more than 1% per year, (which happens to roughly coincide with the 25% increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the last 17 years).
  
  
• I've reluctantly come to suspect that Jevons paradox is very real. (Anecdotal evidence: the number of houses in my neighbourhood that have installed efficient air-con units that are then continually run day and night seems to be increasing).

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we Mr Thwaites?
If the indicator *does* continue to go up in spite of our efforts, it might provide a bit of a wake up call to those who believe that token efforts like "switching appliances off at the power point wherever possible" are going to cut it. It might show that we need to think bigger, and start re-examining some of the things that we consider not-negotiable in our modern way of life.

Retrospective 2006 reading list

The following list of books read during the course of last year gives a pretty reasonable idea of where my interests are lying these days. Highlights included the surprisingly entertaining and fascinating story detailing the origins of Greenpeace, and yet another classic Philip K. Dick novel.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life

In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave

First Casualty, The

Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World

The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

The End of Oil

Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World

How to Stop Worrying and Start Living

Green or Gone

Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

How to Talk to Anyone

Silent Spring

Ubik

The Man in the High Castle

The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature

From Naked Ape to Superspecies

Well & Good: How We Feel & Why It Matters

David Suzuki: The Autobiography

Hypotheticals, hypocrisy and untruths

ANIMAL liberationists – people either hate 'em or love 'em. So what do you think of animal libbers? Do you think they play an important role in working to reduce cruelty to animals? [discussion]

I've always thought that web-based discussions can have a positive effect on participants and readers. Not always of course and not for every participant, but sometimes people learn valuable lessons from online discussions between people arguing different viewpoints. In fact, my own views on many issues have often changed based on discussions I've read, or been involved with online. Re-examining, evaluating and making adjustments to my beliefs is typically a pretty slow and on-going process, but well thought out viewpoints that are clearly presented in sometimes otherwise rowdy discussions have on occasion jolted me into changing my own thinking about all sorts of issues.

So I find it disappointing and discouraging to read something like this train wreck of a thread. So many lousy talking points, poorly thought out arguments and ad hominems. So little sensible discourse. Do any of the readers of such a discussion take away anything new or useful? Do the posters even think through what they are writing? A few examples:

Appeals to hypotheticals:

"Send them back to the "Ice Age" and watch them cry when they see that the ONLY way to keep warm is to skin an animal and use its hyde [sic] to keep warm."

This argumentative technique is unfortunately common and trys to "force" otherwise compassionate people into admitting that yes, under some unlikely circumstances that they'll never find themselves in, they would kill or otherwise harm other living creatures. A generic form of this goes something like... "If you were starving to death on a desert island, would you... etc etc". By utilising unlikely hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on the reality that most of us live in today, the user of such arguments attempts to discredit their opponents ethical stance and justify their own animal killing ways. Of course, simply pointing out that your ethical choices are shaped by the world and reality that you actually inhabit, as opposed to some unlikely fantasy world is often met with hostility, or a shift to some other argumentative technique...

Accusations of hypocrisy:

"I would like to ask this of all of the “activists”, how many of you have a pair of leather shoes or a leather belt or bag or even a purse??????"

A just cause doesn't become unjust simply because all supporters aren't practicing what they preach. Either the cause (animal liberation in this case) is just and worthwhile or it isn't. Implicit in this type of argument is the notion that if you aren't perfect then you're whole viewpoint can be dismissed - ridiculous but I imagine very convenient - simply dismissing the entire argument of the so-called hypocrite means you don't have to examine your own beliefs and actions at all.

Blatant untruths:

"The laws relating to animal treatment, are already far harsher than those laws relating to other human beings."

As far as I know, I can't confine a human for it's entire life, slaughter it and then feast on it's flesh. For non-human animals though, this practice isn't just condoned, it's actively encouraged and endorsed. Be warned though, that questioning this practice leads to idiotic discussions involving many poorly thought out arguments.