When I think of rats I mainly think of the gross rodents carrying the Bubonic plague. I never really connected how rats domestication and alterations over time paralleled with urbanization and human development.  Burt talks about how powerful and destructive rats can be and that the major way to control their populations is because they end up self destructing and eating their own. Rats and mice show up in historical/biblical/ancient references but are generally considered sewage rodents and not are not cared for like other “cuter”animals. However, there contributions to science and discovery is something we should be very thankful as a species for.  “The bioengineered mouse,” Donna Haraway recently wrote, “is simulataneously a metaphor, a technology, and a beast living out its many layered life as best it can.” Indeed, in order for this creature to be able to live its life at all, it must inhabit a technosciencetific reality that is perhaps inevitable, perhaps not-but its most certainly a world of our own making. This was an interesting summary of part of the Rader article because of how humans have redefined and controlled the role of rats. We have almost created a new type of rat altogether, except instead of using it for food/dairy we use it for medial advancements in our own species. Where would science be without the lab rat?

Here are the topics Tanner and I have come up with for tomorrow’s discussion:

I liked the connection to a cultural domestication, it is something I haven’t thought fully about before. I like the reference to pets representing a higher social status in France and Germany. I think today other animals represent wealth especially in the new trends to keep acquiring exotic animals and mixed breeds. The readings stated that as people’s personal engagement with livestock diminished it coincided with a shift to urban populated areas. This trend has also continued today . The most interesting relationship to me is how humans treat some animals over others. People love their dogs more than other people sometimes but when it comes to cattle we readily eat it. How did the domestication process evolve to produce emotional connections with some animals and not others ?

When I think of reindeers prance, dancer, and Rudolf are the first things to come to mind. The only “contact” I have had with the animals was in Norway this past semester. I went to a Christmas market and reindeer burgers were being sold along with moose and fish burgers. The thought of domesticating these animals seems strange and it was interesting how the novel couldn’t really determine how the process occurred either. I also thought it was interesting how the wild reindeer found today were thought to be impossible to domesticate, even when bred with a domesticated female. Have we changed the genes so much that the division between wild and domesticated is irreversible? This novel reminded me of goat song when it talked about the nomad lifestyle and how reindeer became commodity like animals within this time period. Is this just a natural part of the domestication process? The change from animal to commodity? The story told an interesting perspective of a domesticated species in a Communist political structure as opposed to the goats in a capitalist one. “This was my first inkling of the self-reliant and anarchic spirit that coexisted with the delicate discretion of traditional Eveny culture as well as with the nervous fear under Communism of doing anything that was not officially authorized.”

The relationship in the native cultures and the animals is far different than that of our domesticated species today. The hunters would say, “I obtained” some animal instead of glorifying the kill. Additionally, each part of the animal was used and distributed based on the family relationship. “If I deny a guest a share, that is the worst offense of all” The community aspect and the respect they had for the animals differs greatly from how we treat domesticated food animals.

It seemed to me after reading everyone’s posts about Goat song that the novel was more or less enjoyable for everyone to read and we all have a new found respect and interest in goats. While no one seemed to appreciate the graphic descriptions of some of the scenes in goat song pretty much everyone liked the deep connection he formed with the goats over the course of the story. Some common trends emerged in what seemed to interest people the most from the novel.

1. What was the impact on society when man moved from hunting to farming? Why did this occur? When the animal was considered a commodity how did labor become considered a commodity as well? Do you think a shift like this can/will happen again and in what way?

2. The relationship between humans/nature/animals, is it truly inseparable? Can it always be mutualistic for domesticated animals? Is it cruel and considered going against nature to alter animals for our own benefit?

3. Does the process of growing our own food have a correlation to human happiness or worth? What are the sustainability impacts of making our own food?

4. How did the pastoral influence change religion/language/mythology and genetics? What are the similarities in our language and animal/pastoral history?  Why do most people not know about this origination?

It seemed to me after reading everyone’s posts about Goat song that the novel was more or less enjoyable for everyone to read and we all have a new found respect and interest in goats. While no one seemed to appreciate the graphic descriptions of some of the scenes in goat song pretty much everyone liked the deep connection he formed with the goats over the course of the story. Some common trends emerged in what seemed to interest people the most from the novel.

1. What was the impact on society when man moved from hunting to farming? Why did this occur? When the animal was considered a commodity how did labor become considered a commodity as well? Do you think a shift like this can/will happen again and in what way?

2. The relationship between humans/nature/animals, is it truly inseparable? Can it always be mutualistic for domesticated animals? Is it cruel and considered going against nature to alter animals for our own benefit?

3. Does the process of growing our own food have a correlation to human happiness or worth? What are the sustainability impacts of making our own food?

4. How did the pastoral influence change religion/language/mythology and genetics? What are the similarities in our language and animal/pastoral history?  Why do most people not know about this origination?

I fully enjoyed reading the Goat Song and am happy I am leading the discussion on it since it was such a remarkable and interesting story. I also chose Goat as my project animal and this book has made me truly appreciate that choice. The story was a great way to see a bond develop between an owner and domesticated animal. The sustainability of the relationship was what stirred most of my emotions during the story. The goats truly became part of his family by the end and the relationship was much more than just a human taking products from the goat. The labor involved and the difficulty the goats caused at times shows how devoted he became to the animals and how much he appreciated them. The book has made me think about trying to be more sustainable and organic with the food I am eating and hopefully I am able to find realistic ways to do this.

It seemed to me after reading everyone’s posts about Goat song that the novel was more or less enjoyable for everyone to read and we all have a new found respect and interest in goats. While no one seemed to appreciate the graphic descriptions of some of the scenes in goat song pretty much everyone liked the deep connection he formed with the goats over the course of the story. Some common trends emerged in what seemed to interest people the most from the novel.

1. What was the impact on society when man moved from hunting to farming? Why did this occur? When the animal was considered a commodity how did labor become considered a commodity as well? Do you think a shift like this can/will happen again and in what way?

2. The relationship between humans/nature/animals, is it truly inseparable? Can it always be mutualistic for domesticated animals? Is it cruel and considered going against nature to alter animals for our own benefit?

3. Does the process of growing our own food have a correlation to human happiness or worth? What are the sustainability impacts of making our own food?

4. How did the pastoral influence change religion/language/mythology and genetics? What are the similarities in our language and animal/pastoral history?  Why do most people not know about this origination?

The wildlife of our bodies:

I thought it was interesting how Dunn elaborated on the mutualistic relationship we had with cows. By allowing us the milk and preventing others from their grass we used each other to survive and thrive. I had no idea about the past relationship between humans and cows and how much they may have altered our genetics.  I think it is also interesting to see how our personalities were affected by this relationship and vs the hunter gatherer relationship. Dunn brings up how obesity has risen in the past decades especially in the United States. I am interested in the idea about how we could all eat the same thing and not look the same based on our genetic predisposition. How much would we alter? Obviously height and build are not able to be altered but if relatively similar people ate exactly the same how much would their bodies still differ? How do we tailor a diet so that it most efficiently helps the person reach a target weight or size and then further to maintain that reached level? He talks about how milk is in the food pyramid still but most adults aren’t actually able to digest it. What are the top substitutes or what should be there instead that would give the same benefits?

“At some point in their association with humans and human habitats, these animals developed closer social or economic bonds with their human hosts than did other commensals inhabiting this niche. These bonds brought them, eventually, into a domestic partnership with humans. The classic example of an animal that likely traveled this pathway to domestication is the dog, whose domestication is thought to have begun when less wary wolves were drawn to human encampments to scavenge on human refuse (Coppinger and Coppinger 2001, Morey 1994)” This was the most interesting in the different pathways to domestication article because of our past discussion about the wolf domestication process and how some see the dog as a dumbed down version of the wolf. It is interesting to think about how much humans have altered the process of domestication and to think about where these truly domesticated animals would be had they not ever made that human contact. Where would traditionally domesticated animals today be without humans?

The Part wild excerpt for this week was an interesting look into the life of owning a wolf dog hybrid as a pet.  The relationship between Inyo and Terrill is compelling enough to make me want to own a wolf dog myself one day. Out of all the roles Inyo played in Terrill’s life, I was most struck by that of, “protector.” Terrill alludes to a past physically abusive relationship between her and her former boyfriend Eddie that resulted in her fleeing and constantly fearing his return. This is her initial motivation behind wanting a dog, a companion and protector to keep her calm and company while fearing Eddie’s reappearance in her life. While Inyo isn’t the first wolf dog she fell in love with, Inyo and Terrill have the advantage of bonding since Inyo’s birth making their relationship strong. The role of protector interests me because of the gentle nature Inyo has when around Terrill. It is intriguing that this partly, “wild” animal has the capacity to be both aggressive when exposing the role of protector while similarly passive with her owner. This opens up the topic of whether and to what extent animals are able to sense human emotions. For instance, if Eddie was to return and Terrill felt fear, how does Inyo pick up on that emotion and respond to it accordingly.  I used to ride horses in middle school and my instructor always told us not to fear the horses because they could notice this fear and it would make them jumpy and uncomfortable. Whether or not this was a lie to make us more comfortable around the animals or not is up for judgment. I think the science behind understanding the extent animals respond to human emotion is interesting. Animals are far more observant then we give them credit for sometimes. Recently there was an article in the news about a Doberman finding cancer in a woman while she was sleeping. I have attached the link below but what are everyone’s thoughts on the interaction between human emotion and animal observation?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/02/10/troy-doberman-pinscher-fox-and-friends-westminster-dog-alerted-owner-breast-cancer

Again, while none of my studies involve science I have also been the process of evolution. I enjoyed the scholar article by Russell  outlines three steps  variation, inheritance and selection.  I liked that he took such a complex process and broke it down into three easier requirements.  The article then goes on to talk about some of the problems with organisms somewhat outsmarting our defenses for illness. The example he gave was will tuberculosis but what I immediately thought of was the flu being that it is currently flu season. Every year I hear the debates about whether or not to get a flu shot. Some people believe that the virus is becoming stronger and stronger by us constantly finding immunity to it and others believe it is completely reckless not to protect yourself because of the serious consequences that can arise. I would like to know some of the facts that back both of those arguments up because as of now I always get a flu shot out of habit. How quickly can the virus outsmart the immunity?

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC:

“is that with most of the early animals—dogs first, then pigs, sheep, and goats—there was probably a long period of time of unintentional management by humans.” The word domestication “implies something top down, something that humans did intentionally,” he says. “But the complex story is so much more interesting.”

I liked the short national geographic article especially the last quote posted above because when I have thought about domestication I have always associated it with the process humans did to animals instead of a more complicated process suggested by the article. What was the extend of this unintentional management? Are we currently unintentionally domesticating another animal?

I liked Dunn’s writing style better than Bulliet and Clutton-Brock. While I enjoyed more of Clutton – Brock’s scientific analysis, I believe Dunn includes similar references in an easier to understand manner. I also think he raises some interesting points especially with the relationship animals and humans had post weapons. I think he brings a humorous style to his writing while still managing to get his point across in an educated manner. For example, when he says ,” we (humans) are nearly as well packaged for consumption as a hot dog.” He draws attention to how poorly adapted we are to being able to defend ourselves but in an easy joking fashion. I enjoyed reading chapter 11 about how , “each species constructs the world out of the signals received from its senses.” This was interesting to me in a broader view because even amongst humans everyone sees the world differently. In theory with more or less the same capabilities humans should have similar views of the world but that is becoming increasingly opposite in today’s world. More wars, conflicts, and disputes are emerging because of differences of opinion, beliefs, priorities, religion, and desires. Do animals have these same types of conflicts or are we just more intelligent and advanced and therefore these types of disputes only exist within our species? Dunn addresses some of these human differences by saying, “relatively few of the truths we hold to be self-evident are held to be so everywhere.”