Three animal related articles
Jan. 14th, 2012 11:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
One on a dog who jumped between his owner* and her abusive boyfriend. They both got tossed out a window. The women's shelter didn't accept pets, but when she said she couldn't go without her dog, they not only made an exception but decided to add a whole new wing for pet owners, on the grounds that many women stay in abusive relationships rather than leave their beloved pets with their abuser.
*I've noticed, when buying cat food and watching the occasional TV episode live, that more and more companies are referring to people as "pet parents". If it helps them sell their product, more power to them, but I, for one, refuse. I think it just sounds silly, and the alliteration doesn't help in this case. Are people really that averse to saying they own a cat or dog or ferret or hamster or fish?
Here's an article about the tiniest frog - nay, the tiniest vertebrate - yet discovered. I'm sure it's a good article, but I didn't read it. I was too busy cooing over the picture of the frog perched on a dime, with ample room to spare.
And here's an article with a video of a sledding crow. In the comments are links to more videos of corvids playing around.
One of the comments just bugs me. The guy says that obviously the crow was trying to get food, and obviously, since crows are crows, it's not sledding, and obviously anybody saying it IS doing such a thing is anthropomorphizing with no good reason.
Now, it's possible that the crow is trying to get food. It's also possible that the crow started out trying to get food, and then through serendipity realized that this was a lot of fun. Whee! I don't know, I'm not a crow and I'm certainly not this crow.
No, what bugs me is not the accusation that we're foolishly putting a human perspective on animal's actions, but the assumption that since anthropomorphizing can lead to stunningly wrong conclusions, this means that animals are unlikely to have the same motivations as humans once you move past the basics.
Clearly, saying "Well, if I did that for this reason, it's likely that this random cat/crow/cricket is doing a similar thing for the same reason" is flawed and illogical reasoning, but can "If I did that, it would be for fun, but this is a cat/crow/cricket and obviously it must have another, less human reason for its actions" truly be any better? I don't know why crows do what they do. All I know about them is that they are clever animals and can mimic speech. But it's not that far-fetched to believe that once in a while they might do things for the same reasons we do, is it? (Which isn't to say that the crow was necessarily doing this for fun. I really don't know much about crows and am not about to hazard a guess as to this one's motivations here. But I doubt these guys know either. Yes, that includes Mr. "I've kept pet crows". A pet crow, near as I can tell, is like a human raised by wolves. They may still be clever and friendly, they may be able to survive, but I wouldn't look to them as a guideline for normal behavior.)
*I've noticed, when buying cat food and watching the occasional TV episode live, that more and more companies are referring to people as "pet parents". If it helps them sell their product, more power to them, but I, for one, refuse. I think it just sounds silly, and the alliteration doesn't help in this case. Are people really that averse to saying they own a cat or dog or ferret or hamster or fish?
Here's an article about the tiniest frog - nay, the tiniest vertebrate - yet discovered. I'm sure it's a good article, but I didn't read it. I was too busy cooing over the picture of the frog perched on a dime, with ample room to spare.
And here's an article with a video of a sledding crow. In the comments are links to more videos of corvids playing around.
One of the comments just bugs me. The guy says that obviously the crow was trying to get food, and obviously, since crows are crows, it's not sledding, and obviously anybody saying it IS doing such a thing is anthropomorphizing with no good reason.
Now, it's possible that the crow is trying to get food. It's also possible that the crow started out trying to get food, and then through serendipity realized that this was a lot of fun. Whee! I don't know, I'm not a crow and I'm certainly not this crow.
No, what bugs me is not the accusation that we're foolishly putting a human perspective on animal's actions, but the assumption that since anthropomorphizing can lead to stunningly wrong conclusions, this means that animals are unlikely to have the same motivations as humans once you move past the basics.
Clearly, saying "Well, if I did that for this reason, it's likely that this random cat/crow/cricket is doing a similar thing for the same reason" is flawed and illogical reasoning, but can "If I did that, it would be for fun, but this is a cat/crow/cricket and obviously it must have another, less human reason for its actions" truly be any better? I don't know why crows do what they do. All I know about them is that they are clever animals and can mimic speech. But it's not that far-fetched to believe that once in a while they might do things for the same reasons we do, is it? (Which isn't to say that the crow was necessarily doing this for fun. I really don't know much about crows and am not about to hazard a guess as to this one's motivations here. But I doubt these guys know either. Yes, that includes Mr. "I've kept pet crows". A pet crow, near as I can tell, is like a human raised by wolves. They may still be clever and friendly, they may be able to survive, but I wouldn't look to them as a guideline for normal behavior.)
