A new theory claims that
many human behaviours are a
result of our long-standing relationship with dogs, and vice versa.
Dr Paul Tacon from the Australian
Museum and Adelaide bio-archaeologist Dr Colin Pardoe put
forward their ideas in yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Australia.
"We were asking the questions, 'What is a human?' and 'What is a
dog?'," explained Dr Tacon.
"The answer was not straightforward and we found the two were
intertwined."
Wolves were the first animals to be domesticated by humans — and the
researchers believe this may have happened much earlier than previously
thought.
Domestic dogs appear rather suddenly and widely in the geological
record between 13,500 and 14,000 years ago. But the lack of
evidence before then may be due to the lack of burial sites, said
Dr Tacon.
It was only about that time that humans began settling down and farming
— prior to that, most people led a nomadic existence, so burial sites
were rare.
Other evidence points to earlier domestication, note the researchers.
DNA analysis suggests a split between dogs and wolves over
100,000 years ago, and possibly as much as 135,000 years ago.
In addition, fossil canine skulls much smaller than those of most
wolves have been found at archaeological sites in England along with
human artefacts. These are estimated to be 190,000 to
130,000 years old...
In their paper, the researchers argue that an early relationship
between humans and dogs directed the evolution of both species.
"Most studies have concentrated on the effects of human–canine
cohabitation on dogs rather than the reverse," they write.
"But the effects on humans, on their psychology, hunting practices,
territoriality and social behaviour, would also have been profound."
In fact, dogs may have chosen us rather than the other way around...
Both wolves and humans are social animals with complex communication
signals, leading them to adopt each other's behaviour, say Tacon and
Pardoe.
For example, humans may have adopted the practice of making symbol
marks on rocks from the wolf behaviour of territorial marking. These
symbol marks, which appeared between 40,000 and 50,000 years
ago, are quite different to engravings and paintings, the researchers
point out.
Another wolf-like behaviour is big-game pack hunting, which does not
appear to have occurred among pre-Homo sapiens groups. It
requires special powers of cooperation and negotiation in complex
situations...
So is it true that that dog people are different to cat people?
"Cats were domesticated 4,000 years ago, but our relationship with
the dog goes back much further in time," Dr Tacon said.
"Dogs and humans have similar social systems and are ideally suited
towards living with each other."
Archive Listing
September 29, 2011 - September 22, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
Quick. Don't
Look.
Anybody
can make a continuous 'mistake' for most of a decade...
WHAT WE CAN OVERLOOK BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE IT. I took some heat a few days ago when I suggested God had a purpose in the instant new mega-celebrity of Michael Vick. What hardly anyone (er, no one) realized was that I was grappling with the atheist model that there is no God and therefore no judgment of what we do with our lives. The American generosity about forgiveness and second chances has been perverted through the secular cult of celebrity into an image game. How you look, how you perform on camera, and what you say to interviewers have somehow become a substitute for what used to be known quaintly as morality. If you're a charismatic celebrity right now, that fact seems to erase everything dark and sinful about your personal past. Unless. Unless even celebrity and its instantaneous starbursts of admiration are meant as a lesson to the rest of us, its highlights and lowpoints orchestrated by a power that really would like us all to think about life, the universe, and everything.
I dared to suggest that the monolithic condemnation of Michael Vick in which I have participated at greater (documented) length than any of my commenters might have been rebuked by an ostentatious display of God's gifts to a sinner we find it conveniently easy to damn without having to make any real demands on ourselves. The result was more condemnation of the easy-target sinner.
Allow me to make it even easier for you. A few weeks ago, I offered up a judgment about abortion. I said:
I
believe there are things
people can do that deserve the death penalty. And in my simple Scottish
mind, those things are not about closure, Old Testament "eye for an
eye" cant, Christian compassion, or revenge. They're about justice.
Kill willfully in some cause other than self defense and what? You've
forfeited your own right to live. You're a failed soul the rest of us
shouldn't have to fret about. You just need to be put down like a rabid
dog.
I feel the same way about abortion. Sorry. That doctors could do this...?
Or hadn't you thought about the morality question with vivid pictures in front of you? They're crime scene photos. Nothing else.
It's not about choice. It's about murder. (As is 9/11, Which the MSM also doesn't want us to see anymore. Because it would upset us or distort our judgment or make us suspicious of muslims or something. Something they know better about. Like abortion.)
I know "no one cares about the social issues this time." Except that a lot of us still do. At least 30 million babies have died this way since Roe v. Wade.
I'm for the death penalty. For murderers. And, no, in my heart of hearts. I see no contradiction in terms. [boldface added in service to my current argument]
I feel the same way about abortion. Sorry. That doctors could do this...?
Or hadn't you thought about the morality question with vivid pictures in front of you? They're crime scene photos. Nothing else.
It's not about choice. It's about murder. (As is 9/11, Which the MSM also doesn't want us to see anymore. Because it would upset us or distort our judgment or make us suspicious of muslims or something. Something they know better about. Like abortion.)
I know "no one cares about the social issues this time." Except that a lot of us still do. At least 30 million babies have died this way since Roe v. Wade.
I'm for the death penalty. For murderers. And, no, in my heart of hearts. I see no contradiction in terms. [boldface added in service to my current argument]
So, for all those who feel any temptation to participate in the feel-good story of the redeemed Michael Vick, who must be a good guy because he now watches game films instead of snorting cocaine and gives touchdown footballs to fans instead of partying with his thug entourage, here's a real picture of the dogfighting world he chose to finance and seek underworld status in as a "player" during his era of superstardom with the Atlanta Falcons:
And just so you know it's no anecdote but a lifestyle and a perniciously nasty form of organized crime, here are Parts 2. 3. 4. 5.and 6 of the same damning documentary. Moreover, Michael Vick was not motivated by easy paydays that overrode recognition of evil incarnate in this 'sport.' He liked the dogfighting subculture enough to live a double life of fine restaurants and dirty dives, as well as the lies that double life entailed to fool people who trusted and believed in him.
Feeling good now? Justified in your dudgeon, are you? Does it confirm your view that cruelty to animals is principally a function of the criminal hip-hop lifestyle, even though you'd never admit to any racial component of your self-righteousness? I mean, if only you'd known, if only you'd had any capability to intervene in a world that is entirely closed to your influence, life experience, and knowledge. In that case, there would be no dog murder anywhere and respect for animals would reign supreme. Right? Right.
Funny thing. A guy called in to SportsTalk in Philadelphia over the weekend. He got blown off because he had the misfortune to talk with Rob Charry, but he made an excellent point. Why, he wanted to know, was it okay to condemn Michael Vick for things that are every day and everywhere sponsored, administered, and profited from by governments? What was he talking about? Greyhound racing.
Huh, what? uh, dog tracks. Why, perfectly nice people go to the dog track. It's actually kind of sophisticated, isn't it? Something Dorothy Parker might do in between literary luncheons. Always was, anyway. And it's always been there. Until, oddly enough, this year, legal and a source of tax revenue in 15 states of the U.S., including such enlightened blue states as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire:
United
States [1]
- Alabama
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Connecticut
- Florida
- Guam (Greyhound racing is legal, but the only operating track closed on November 8, 2008. Ban is being debated.[2])
- Iowa
- Kansas (Greyhound racing is legal, but not currently conducted)
- Massachusetts (Racing ceased January 2010, banned by Question 3. (Passed November 4, 2008.))
- New Hampshire (Racing banned as of January 1, 2011, by HB 630. (Signed into law July 8, 2010.)[3])
- Rhode Island
- Texas
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin (Greyhound racing is legal, but the last operating track closed on December 31, 2009)
- Colorado (Racing suspended in June 2008.[4])
- Oregon (Greyhound racing is legal, but not currently conducted)
- South Carolina (Greyhound racing is legal, but not currently conducted)
In the United States, greyhound racing
is governed by state law, which
ranges from total prohibition in some states, to lack of regulation in
others.
The National Greyhound Association
founded in 1906 strictly regulates
greyhound ownership in the U.S. and has established comprehensive
animal welfare guidelines based on veterinary recommendations. These
guidelines cover nearly every aspect of greyhound care on the farm and
at the racetrack. The American Greyhound Council conducts unannounced
inspections each year on the nation's 300 breeding farms and kennels to
enforce compliance with the industry's animal welfare guidelines. Minor
violations are noted and corrected and more serious violations are
addressed in hearings before the NGA's governing body. Those found
guilty of these violations can be banned from the sport for life. Ref.
http://www.agcouncil.com/node/7
Greyhounds live in climate-controlled kennels, usually on or near the tracks where they race. They are turned out several times daily for mild exercise and play, exercised on sprint paths and taken for walks...
Greyhounds live in climate-controlled kennels, usually on or near the tracks where they race. They are turned out several times daily for mild exercise and play, exercised on sprint paths and taken for walks...
There's more of the same in the Wiki text, but it's not reprinted here because it's bullshit. This is a form of dog abuse, torture, and murder that is traditionally acceptable and under the radar because it's institutionalized and not associated with other forms of societal dysfunction. But it is dysfunction.. And cruelty. Here are the opening paragraphs of a website you should read if you think government bureaucrats treat dogs as sources of gambling revenue more humanely than do illegal urban gamblers:
The majority of people attending
[greyhound] races have little knowledge of what actually happens to
these animals. Little do they know, or care, what kind of life these
dogs lead. To them it’s a lot of fun, have a few drinks, make or lose a
few bucks, and return to their comfortable homes. The life of the
Greyhound is one of misery, fear, mistreatment, and finally a painful
death. The remains of approximately 3,000 Greyhounds from Florida
tracks were discovered on the Alabama property of a track security
guard who “took care” of unwanted dogs with a .22 rifle. Their horrible
life began the day they were born, and ended the day they died...
The Greyhound is not considered as a living animal, but rather a running machine. Thousands of Greyhounds are produced each year, many more than are needed. Dogs that are considered as too slow to make it are killed. Any dog that is injured, or develop[s] muzzle sores or... any problems is killed. If they win they live. If they lose they die. Very few make it to 4 years old.... Dogs suffer at every track [from] neglect, and soon meet a cruel death... Many suffer from malnutrition and dehydration. Without the proper air conditioning they die from heatstroke. Any dog that slows down or becomes unprofitable is killed. One kennel owner faced felony charges for selling over 1,000 Greyhounds for medical experimentation. So how are [they] killed.? The favorite method is a .22 bullet in the brain. In an Idaho Greyhound Park, a female Greyhound was placed on a wet floor, a metal wire shoved in her rectum and attached to her lip with an alligator clip, and she was electrocuted. Many are beaten to death, buried alive, and hung. In Florida six Greyhounds were found along the highway near a dog track. All met a horrible death.
The Greyhound is not considered as a living animal, but rather a running machine. Thousands of Greyhounds are produced each year, many more than are needed. Dogs that are considered as too slow to make it are killed. Any dog that is injured, or develop[s] muzzle sores or... any problems is killed. If they win they live. If they lose they die. Very few make it to 4 years old.... Dogs suffer at every track [from] neglect, and soon meet a cruel death... Many suffer from malnutrition and dehydration. Without the proper air conditioning they die from heatstroke. Any dog that slows down or becomes unprofitable is killed. One kennel owner faced felony charges for selling over 1,000 Greyhounds for medical experimentation. So how are [they] killed.? The favorite method is a .22 bullet in the brain. In an Idaho Greyhound Park, a female Greyhound was placed on a wet floor, a metal wire shoved in her rectum and attached to her lip with an alligator clip, and she was electrocuted. Many are beaten to death, buried alive, and hung. In Florida six Greyhounds were found along the highway near a dog track. All met a horrible death.
Some pictures of government-acceptable treatment and/or retirement of racing greyhounds:
20 track dogs killed
Allowed to starve.
Useless Racer to be killed -- not competitive
One of 10 Greyhounds Found in Phoenix
Greyhounds
decapitated at end
of season
I'm going to close by asking all you sanctimonious Vick haters if you've ever 1) felt as much anger about the whitebread abuse of greyhounds as you have about inner city dogfighting, 2) done anything about either by, say, adopting a greyhound or a pitbull, or 3) managed to refrain from condemning pitbulls as a breed that is dangerous to children, decent dogs, and human beings in general?
But I'm not closing yet. While you think about my previous questions, I'm going to deal with the PETA defense. The lame rationalizations of those who can somehow employ moral relativism to forgive the Michael Vicks of the world because they condemn those of us who eat chicken, veal, and fish as co-conspirators in the oppression of all animals. Which is to say that there is no crime because belonging to an omnivore species makes all of us criminals.
Dogs are not chickens or veal calves. They're not even cats. They are likely as important to the development of human civilization, and even human consciousness, as any factor yet discovered in the anthropological record. It's not me saying this. It's scholars who have made a study of the subject:
The cohabitation of dogs and humans would have greatly improved the chances of survival for early human groups, and the domestication of dogs may have been one of the key forces that led to modern humans. Anthropologists Tacon and Pardoe argue that the effects of human-canine cohabitation on humans would have been profound, and hypothesize that some of the effects could have been moving from scavenging to large game hunting, the establishment and marking of territories, living in optimally sized social groups, hunting/working in synchronised teams, and negotiating partnership bonds.The human-dog partnership set both species on a new evolutionary course.
The paragraph above references academic work done by Drs. Tacon and Pardoe. Here's the briefest of reports on their theories:Humans live a dog's life
Tuesday, 26 March 2002
NOW I'll close. Wolves and human beings were in prehistoric times the two most successful predator species on earth. A subset of one chose to live with the other, and the evidence suggests that both expanded the range of their talents and emotional depth thereby. Wolves have bigger brains than dogs. But Neanderthals had bigger brains than modern humans. Today, wolves are endangered and Neanderthals are extinct. We are condescending in our research when we note that the difference between wolves and dogs in test situations is that wolves will persist in a failed problem-solving situation because it doesn't occur to them to ask for help from humans. Wildness! We admire it so.
Dogs, with their smaller brains, give up quickly when a problem is beyond their powers and look hopefully at humans. We humans are happy to provide the answer, and they -- amazingly enough -- have the communication skills to understand and act on the answer. Are wolves really smarter than dogs? Who is it that lies in front of a peacedul fire in winter and snores under an air-conditioner in summer, with cake, spaghetti, and Big Macs an occasional treat in the offing?
uh, how is this different in any way from Madison Avenue's characterization of the difference between the human male and the human female? Not much. The same kind of blindness is at work.
These days, we enjoy the pretense that the female is the superior sex, because she's so much better at the juggling of minutiae than the sex which produced Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, the Sistine Chapel, the works of Shakespeare, Mozart, and all the world's major religions (including the only evil one). But if we are now, belatedly, learning to appreciate the small things as something equivalent or even superior to the big things, it's definitely time to accept the virtues of the oldest partnership of all.
Dogs are not our possessions or chattels. They are not fish, cuts of meat, or the source of eggs. They are co-creators of the civilization we both rely on and whose fruits we both passionately enjoy. When we maunder on about core values, we can never in good conscience exclude them. They are our better half when it comes to the senses, the simplicity of love, the stone eternity of loyalty, and the importance -- despite every complicated distraction -- of play. They're content to act like the dumb ones in our partnership, but they're the ones who know more of our language than we do of theirs, and they're the ones who keep teaching us that life is to be lived in the moment, this moment, which is just about as close to the genius of Einsteinian physics as any human can ever get.
And, no, I'm not equating women with dogs. Except that I am. Because I'm also equating men with dogs and women. We're all three better for the presence of the other two. Dogs inure women to the disgusting physical habits of men. Men inure dogs to the stormy emotional reactions of women (Woof!). Women inure dogs to the temporal failures of men about vital matters like water, dinnertime, and treats. And men and women learn to bond over the fate and well being of a creature who is neither the child of their loins nor the hope of their destiny. They all learn about love for love's sake.
Hurting a dog isn't like eating veal. Being a man who has hurt dogs isn't a sin that goes away. But being a man or woman who has never rescued a greyhound or a pitbull or a shelter dog or a stray on the side of the road isn't the world's loftiest moral platform either.
Just saying.
Here's a greyhound rescue site, where there are dogs who need you to learn what stairs are.
Here's a pitbull rescue site, where there are dogs who need you to learn what hanging out on the couch means.
You can't actually go wrong either way. Greyhounds are probably better for older or quieter folks. They want their own sofa; the love is automatic and assumed. Pitbulls are probably better for active families; the love is something they want to demonstrate to their humans in every way possible. I've known both. A long list of greyhounds tilts me in that direction. But I also remember Peter's Sullivan, a pitbull so anxious to please, and so thoroughly gentle, that the very thought of him makes me angry at the endless slanders of this handsome and maliciously maligned breed.
Or go to your local shelter. Just don't buy a damned toy poodle and tell me you can't ever get past Michael Vick. Or do. But please don't tell me about it. I won't be listening.
posted at
8:22 am
by
CountryPunk
Friday, November 19, 2010
Because it's Friday...
Missing Sam Kinison
We
were having fun then. What are we doing now?
SOMETIMES COMEDIANS SING. I'll begin with a definite nod to Big Hollywood's John Nolte, who today remembers the late comedian and offers up videos of some of Kinison's more politically incorrect routines. They're NSFW for reasons of language, but the larger point is that they're also Not Safe for the 21st Century (NSF21?). Who could have guessed that this irrepressible spirit would seem an impossible anachronism less than 20 years after his death? Sad to consider how devastating his take would be on the post 9/11 world he didn't live to laughscream at.
I'm sharing what may be the only PG-rated video clip of him on YouTube. Well, maybe PG-13. Truthfully, I'd forgotten just how much fun Kinison's version of Wild Thing is. How could so much hostility have such a vital sparkle in its eye? But it's there, along with a slew of rock and roll royalty (extra points for identifying all the stars who were so evidently delighted to participate as props for Kinison's anthem of betrayed love).
You can look at the Big Hollywood stuff or not. I don't care. All I know is that I laughed out loud watching the clip shown here. It's just a great good time. Something therapeutic for another grim Obama Friday.
Enjoy.
posted at
9:33 am
by
InstaPunk
Because it's still Friday...
We're
so jazzed about Sam
Kinison we can't help ourselves.
TGIF. Not all covers are good. But some are great. Here's your chance to weigh in. Here are the covers and the originals. Vote. You're still Americans, aren't you? The cover is first, the original second. Which is better? Sometimes it's a close call. Sometimes it isn't.
All Along the Watchtower.
Hendrix:
Dylan:
Comfortably Numb
Van Morrison:
Pink Floyd:
I Can't Get No Satisfaction
Devo:
Rolling Stones:
Blue Bayou
Linda Ronstadt:
Roy Orbison:
Barry McGuire:
The Turtles, The Kingston Trio, the
songwriter, etc:
Light My Fire
Jose Feliciano:
The Doors:
Sympathy for the Devil
Guns'n'Roses:
Rolling Stones:
Mother
Sinead O'Connor:
Pink Floyd::
Something
Frank Sinatra:
The Beatles:
Ain't Too proud to Beg
Rolling Stones:
Temptations:
Crimson and Clover
Joan Jett:
Tommy James & the Shondells.
Salt of the Earth
Joan Baez:
Rolling Stones:
Have fun. It's Friday. Whatever you think, nothing much matters on Fridays.
