Thursday, April 22, 2010
Infanticide
A few posts back (Morality vs. Liberty), I stated that "abortion is different - a species should not kill it's own". It's funny that looking at that statement by itself makes me look pro-life - which I am. But I'm also pro-choice. Some things are not so cut and dry.
So anyway, I made that statement which I really didn't give much thought to - but today I started thinking about certain cases in the animal kingdom where species DO kill their own, and I'm not just talking about adults killing adults (for instance, where the female praying mantis consumes the male while copulating with him, or where the dominant hippo kills a younger male who challenges his right to a territory). No, I'm talking about adult animals killing young, powerless members of their own species. From a human perspective, many pro-lifers equate abortion of an unborn child to the killing of a young child, so the following list of animals that commit infanticide may come as a shock to them. In other words, it is a more common practice than you might think.
--> Many rodents show infanticide, including rats, ground squirrels, lemmings, hamsters, mice, voles, muskrats, gerbils, prairie dogs and marmots.
--> Rats and mice: When populations of mice and rats rise rapidly, the hungry and stressed survivors may kill and eat young. Ratbehavior.org goes into detail about infanticide in Norway rats. This is usually directed towards newborn rats. A mother pet rat may eat her own offspring. Mothers tend to kill deformed or wounded infants, which may allow her to allocate resources to the healthy pups, which are more likely to survive. Mothers may also kill litters when they are stressed, perhaps because she perceives the environment as too hostile for pup survival, or if she cannot to rear the litter successfully. She recuperates some her energetic investment by consuming the young. Malnourished mothers, and mothers who have an abnormal birth experience, may also become infanticidal. An unrelated adult male rat may kill young to bring the mother back into estrus sooner, so he can sire a litter of his own. Maternal aggression after the birth of a litter may reduce infanticide. Unrelated females may kill young rats to gain food and take over the nest.
--> Eastern grey squirrels: This website states that some males kill the young so that the females re-enter estrus. The Tennessee Animal Biogeographic System website states that captive, stressed females may kill their young.
--> Belding's ground squirrels: When Belding's ground squirrels fail to attend their territories, unrelated females or one-year-old males may arrive and kill pups. Yearling males usually eat the carcasses, so their infanticide may be motivated by hunger. When a predators kill a female's young, the female often emigrates to a new, safer site and kills the young there before she can settle. By removing juvenile females who may remain in the preferred area, infanticidal females reduce further competition for a nest site. Mothers with close relatives as neighbors lose fewer young to infanticides than females without neighboring kin. This is because groups of females detect marauders more quickly and expel them more rapidly than individuals acting alone, and because a female's relatives defend her young when she is away from home.
--> African hunting dogs: I remember a documentary about hunting dogs, where a dominant female tried to kill all the pups of another female. The documentary crew retrieved the last pup and named it Solo. Eventually Solo was reintroduced to the pack.
--> Lions: The University of Michigan zoology website and others state that when new adult lions take over a pride, they often kill the young and thus eliminate the chance of any rivalry against offspring he later fathers. This often causes the females to enter estrus after 2-3 weeks, much more quickly than if a female came into estrus after her cubs have become independent. The males mate with the female and help protect the females and their offspring, rather than protecting the young sired by the previous males. Lions may occasionally eat the cubs. Successful males that takeover a pride have about 2 years before another younger, stronger coalition will replace them. This is the same time a male would have to wait before nursing females entered estrus after their cubs became independent – by this time, a new male would probably take off the pride and the ‘patient' males would not longer be able to mate. Killing the cubs means that the males have a chance of leaving offspring, although females vigorously defend their cubs during a takeover.
--> Butterflies: The caterpillars of Monarch and Queen butterflies often eat the eggs of the species.
--> Bottle-nosed dolphins: The Polperro Dolphin Swims website states that adult bottle-nosed dolphins kill the young of their own species. This may be because competing adult males may be killing the offspring of their rivals so that the dead dolphin's mother will be receptive to mating. Researchers believe that females remain sexually inactive for years when raising their young, but become active again soon after their loss. This murderous behavior is not an uncommon feature within the animal kingdom. Large terrestrial carnivores, such as bears and lions, have been known to perform similar acts of infanticide to help start up their own dynasties to compete with their rivals.
--> Baboons: Ryne A. Palombit, of Rutgers University, studies male infanticide in chacma baboons, where a social relationship between males and lactating females leads to a decrease in infanticide. Similar relationships occur in olive baboons, where male infanticide is much less common.
--> Langurs and other primates: The males of several primate species, including the common langur, practice infanticide. Bands of male langurs will attack a mixed troop, driving off the males and killing the offspring before mating with the females. Baboons also kill their young and occasionally even eat them. Dominant male gorillas and chimpanzees may kill the young of their species, but infanticide does not seem to occur in bonobos.
--> Gulls and other birds: This strange website states that many species of gull that nest in large colonies eat eggs and young. This may be a response to crowding, but male gulls, which lack young of their own, are more likely to eat the eggs and young of their own species. Some parent birds may eat the young when populations become dense, or food scarce. Crows may eat eggs and chicks of rivals to improve their own chance of successful breeding.
--> Kangaroos: Kangaroos can have three young at different stages of development. One inside the body, one in the pouch and one that lives outside the pouch for much of the time, but still suckles from the mother. In severe conditions, the mother may not have enough energy to feed the older young, so this is left to its own devices. If conditions deteriorate, the mother will remove the pouch young. This means that the embryo in the body develops and soon occupies the vacant pouch. Whether this course of action counts as infanticide is debatable, but if the mother died, so would the young.
Naturalists have identified dozens of species that kill their young, including the animals listed above, as well as hippos, bears, wolves, hyenas, herring gulls and more than 15 types of primates other than man. Humans are not alone. Like these animals, we are not non-maleficent robots that live for the group and kill only to eat. Instead, we are programmed for selfish, even murderous acts when survival and propagation are threatened. Luckily for all of us, survival and propagation are not as difficult to achieve as humans. Maybe this is why some view abortion as such a heinous crime - it is usually done for only selfish reasons. Then again, I think we can afford to be, given that humans are one of the most successful species this planet has ever seen.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Hip-Pocket Politics: How To Become a Tack by Gary North
Hip-Pocket Politics: How To Become a Tack by Gary North
Ron Paul continues to attract young conservatives which gives me some measure of hope for our future. This Gary North fella says some things I'd like to repeat here. Here's one:
"Ron Paul is still dismissed as a gadfly or kook by the mainstream media. He is not taken seriously. Yet he keeps scoring straw poll victories. This should not be happening, they believe.
When I was his research assistant in 1976, we knew that on some votes, the outcome would be 434 to 1. He would be the lone "no" vote. This has not changed. He is still the lone ranger in the House.
The problem for the Republican Establishment is that he represents a rising swing vote nationally. He and Palin together represent a growing threat to the Party's Punch and Judy show that Republican incumbents play with incumbent Democrats. The doctrine of representation matters in politics. These two represent disillusioned Republican voters who are in a position to inflict permanent losses on Republican candidates who operate in terms of politics as usual.
In 2010, Ron Paul remains the ultimate loner inside the Beltway. Outside the Beltway, he is not a loner. The Republican voter in the street knows who he is. There is no other person in Congress even close to his ability to gain votes at this stage.
This is causing consternation inside the Republican Establishment. Paul can raise tens of millions of dollars on the Web. They know that. He has a constant YouTube presence. They don't. He has a hard-core audience inside the Tea Party movement. Only Sarah Palin matches him, which gives the big-spending Republican Establishment no comfort. They hate her, too."
His conclusion perfectly illustrates my personal position on the subject. Read on:
"The most important power in politics is the power to impose pain on politicians. Civil government is about imposing negative sanctions on law-breakers. So is politics.
Any time a politician begins to think you are in his hip pocket, make sure he knows you are a tack.
The Tea Party movement is growing. Rising taxes and rising deficits will guarantee that this will continue.
If the Tea Party bloc cannot get its candidates nominated, it should run third-party candidates every time. It should kill the chances of any Republican candidate unless he decides to pander to them.
The Establishment Republicans will wail in despair. "This is keeping the party from winning." Exactly! The goal is to do this for as long as the Republican Party does not publicly pursue the agenda of the Tea Party wing.
Two election cycles later, the wafflers will be gone. At that point, the Tea Party bloc will control the Republican Party's grass roots.
The political cancer today is big spending. Big spenders must be removed with surgical precision. Every candidate must know that he will lose in November if he waffles.
Politicians see the light only when they feel the heat. This is the doctrine of hell in politics. It is time to give politicians hell."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Things that make us Human
If you were to ask someone on the street what they though made us different from animals, they might say, "tools, ...
10. Life after children
Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can survive long after ceasing reproduction. This might be due to the social bonds seen in humans -- in extended families, grandparents can help ensure the success of their families long after they themselves can have children.
9. Long Childhoods
Humans must remain in the care of their parents for much longer than other living primates. The question then becomes why, when it might make more evolutionary sense to grow as fast as possible to have more offspring. The explanation may be our large brains, which presumably require a long time to grow and learn.
8. Blushing
Humans are the only species known to blush, a behavior Darwin called "the most peculiar and the most human of all expressions." It remains uncertain why people blush, involuntarily revealing our innermost emotions. The most common idea is that blushing helps keep people honest, benefiting the group as a whole.
7. Fire
The human ability to control fire would have brought a semblance of day to night, helping our ancestors to see in an otherwise dark world and keep nocturnal predators at bay. The warmth of the flames also helped people stay warm in cold weather, enabling us to live in cooler areas. And of course it gave us cooking, which some researchers suggest influenced human evolution -- cooked foods are easier to chew and digest, perhaps contributing to human reductions in tooth and gut size.
6. Clothing
Humans may be called "naked apes," but most of us wear clothing, a fact that makes us unique in the animal kingdom, save for the clothing we make for other animals. The development of clothing has even influenced the evolution of other species -- the body louse, unlike all other kinds, clings to clothing, not hair.
5. Speech
The larynx, or voice box, sits lower in the throat in humans than in chimps, one of several features that enable human speech. Human ancestors evolved a descended larynx roughly 350,000 years ago. We also possess a descended hyoid bone -- this horseshoe-shaped bone below the tongue, unique in that it is not attached to any other bones in the body, allows us to articulate words when speaking.
4. Hands
Contrary to popular misconceptions, humans are not the only animals to possess opposable thumbs -- most primates do. (Unlike the rest of the great apes, we don't have opposable big toes on our feet.) What makes humans unique is how we can bring our thumbs all the way across the hand to our ring and little fingers. We can also flex the ring and little fingers toward the base of our thumb. This gives humans a powerful grip and exceptional dexterity to hold and manipulate tools with.
3. Nakedness
We look naked compared to our hairier ape cousins. Surprisingly, however, a square inch of human skin on average possesses as much hair-producing follicles as other primates, or more -- humans often just have thinner, shorter, lighter hairs.
2. Upright Posture
Humans are unique among the primates in how walking fully upright is our chief mode of locomotion. This frees our hands up for using tools. Unfortunately, the changes made in our pelvis for moving on two legs, in combination with babies with large brains, makes human childbirth unusually dangerous compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. A century ago, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women. The lumbar curve in the lower back, which helps us maintain our balance as we stand and walk, also leaves us vulnerable to lower back pain and strain.
1. Extraordinary Brains
Without a doubt, the human trait that sets us apart the most from the animal kingdom is our extraordinary brain. Humans don't have the largest brains in the world -- those belong to sperm whales. We don't even have the largest brains relative to body size -- many birds have brains that make up more than 8 percent of their body weight, compared to only 2.5 percent for humans. Yet the human brain, weighing only about 3 pounds when fully grown, give us the ability to reason and think on our feet beyond the capabilities of the rest of the animal kingdom, and provided the works of Mozart, Einstein and many other geniuses.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Morality vs. Liberty
I was thinking about the laws governing marijuana use as well as abortion rights. Consider these questions:
Is it right to grant more liberty at the expense of morality?
Is it right to command strict morality at the expense of liberty?
Is forced morality actually … immoral?
In other words, in the balance between morality and liberty, which is more important to you?
Which is more important to our country?
I personally find it ludicrous that our government tries to force us into not smoking marijuana. The chemical THC is not as dangerous or addictive as alcohol or nicotine. And yet the alcohol and tobacco industries are doing just fine. Some regulations surrounding harmful and potentially harmful substances are appropriate, such as making alcohol and tobacco use by teens illegal, but banning the use of something as inconsequential as marijuana is immoral. Our government needs to address real problems. Marijuana use isn't one of them. For the record, I've never touched the stuff, but I think I should have the right to if I so desire.
Now abortion. From a physiological perspective, a sperm and an egg are as alive as any other cell in your body - including the cells in a developing embryo. Life did have a beginning, but that probably only happened once. When we see a baby being born, what we're seeing is a continuation of life - an absolutely beautiful thing. But the question I'm asking is - Should the government force us into a moral corner on unnatural abortion?
Most citizens of this country find no problem putting to death murderers and child molesters. I think it's because deep down, we feel that what they were convicted of is below us, and as dehumanized flesh, do not deserve to be part of the human species. We kill every species of animal and plant out there if they stand in our way. Killing is all around us. We see it when we eat a hamburger or spread herbicides and pesticides on our immaculate lawns. We can’t relate to a dandelion. Nor to a roach. But it could only be because we lack the motivation, and for most of us, ending the life of non-human species is a "natural" consequence of our own survival.
But abortion (the unnatural kind) is different. A species should not kill its own. Humans ending the life of humans is wrong because it’s not in the interest of our species' survival. From this perspective, abortion is wrong ... but let's consider one very important thing.
Humans have the most peculiar ability to make choices. We are unlike any other life form in this respect. We can visualize an outcome before it occurs. We can change and adapt our emotions and thought-processes. Among other reasons, we do it to arrive at more rational conclusions. Our days are full of choices. Some we make quickly because we can and should. Some take more time. Abortion is one of these issues.
In my personal opinion, the government should not infringe on a person’s right to their own body. If a person wants to kill herself, that is her right. If a person wants to remove a small mass of cells called an embryo growing within her, that is her right. Would it be the morally correct decision? No, I don't believe so. But in my book, liberty trumps morality, and as long as we as a species are not in danger of being wiped out, why can’t we just let it alone?
The Grandpa "get-er-dun" list
My folks have been in town since Wednesday, and let me tell you - it has been nice. Mother has kept us fed with yummy food and has babysat the kids with games and books (Lon Po Po and Charlotte's Web). Daddy-O has kept himself busy working on what had been MY to-do list. Luckily, he is much more of a handyman than I am, and most of the things I was having trouble with were no trouble for him.
The sprinkler pipe on the east wall has been leaking for a couple years. He inspected it, tightened it, sanded down the universal joint, but no luck. So he tore it off the wall and cut the pipe coming outside from the basement. That's his style. He ended up replacing the copper sections with PVC. Works for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)