As the article states, the burger cost about $325,000 to create. The meat he created required calf blood product, so it’s not entirely animal independent. Even if it was, the price would have to go down to below the cost that it currently takes to make a regular hamburger before anything would change regarding animal consumption. It certainly is a possibility, but that would probably occur very far in the future.

Thanks, Megan, for referring us back to the reading (p. 93 of Stiner and Feeley-Harnick). There’s a quote there we might want to keep in mind as we start talking about domestication today: “Domestication, like every other aspect of hominen existence, arose out of coevolutionary relations of mutual dependence, and the process continues to change both us and our partners in domestication today.” I’m really looking forward to talking about the many good issues raised in the posts during class this afternoon!

Losing 10% of calories for every step of the food chain doesn’t mean the calories vanish into thin air. It means they get used up and are no longer in a form for the next higher animal to consume and utilize. So a calorie can still count as a calorie in the end regardless of what step on the food chain you’re talking about.

I’m not sure where you got that I was saying Dunn treats humans as an exception to basic evolution, I didn’t write that.

Co-evolution does not mean that we share a gene pool. Gene pools refer to the genetic makeup of a species or population, from which all the genetic variations of that species are drawn (not a great explanation but good enough). We co-evolved with dogs, but humans and dogs do not share a gene pool any more than humans and scorpions do.

I don’t really understand your point about how we depend on animals to prosper, are you saying I disagreed with that?

Losing 10% of calories for every step of the food chain doesn’t mean the calories vanish into thin air. It means they get used up and are no longer in a form for the next higher animal to consume and utilize. So a calorie can still count as a calorie in the end regardless of what step on the food chain you’re talking about.

I’m not sure where you got that I was saying Dunn treats humans as an exception to basic evolution, I didn’t write that.

Co-evolution does not mean that we share a gene pool. Gene pools refer to the genetic makeup of a species or population, from which all the genetic variations of that species are drawn (not a great explanation but good enough). We co-evolved with dogs, but humans and dogs do not share a gene pool any more than humans and scorpions do.

I don’t really understand your point about how we depend on animals to prosper, are you saying I disagreed with that?

I do side with your viewpoint on disagreeing that “a calorie is a calorie,” in the reading on Energy. From a fitness standpoint, many would argue that actually counting calories does not produce the dramatic weight loss many seek. Why? In my personal opinion, the body requires a balanced diet, not solely based on the input and output of energy, but the proteins, vitamins, grains, etc. necessary for our growth and development. This applies much to the environment, not everything is used efficiently. As a matter of fact, only 10% of the energy remains as it travels up the food chain, so how can that one calorie come out as one calorie in the end? The basic math does not support this generic statement on energy flow. I also love how involved your post was; it covered various topics in an organized fashion and provided us with a visual to accompany our readings. However, I disagree with your claim that the passage treats humans as an exception to basic evolution. I thought that of the Dunn’s passage, when he stated humans chose to (as some would say) “claim our right” to the top of the food chain, but I found a contrasting viewpoint in the Energy article. One point on page 93 suggests that we co-evolved with the other animals, which in my opinion, puts us in the same gene pool as them. It also would suggest that we depend on the animals to prosper both in natural selection and in the modern world, which brings us to the point of the class; the relationship between man and animal.

I do side with your viewpoint on disagreeing that “a calorie is a calorie,” in the reading on Energy. From a fitness standpoint, many would argue that actually counting calories does not produce the dramatic weight loss many seek. Why? In my personal opinion, the body requires a balanced diet, not solely based on the input and output of energy, but the proteins, vitamins, grains, etc. necessary for our growth and development. This applies much to the environment, not everything is used efficiently. As a matter of fact, only 10% of the energy remains as it travels up the food chain, so how can that one calorie come out as one calorie in the end? The basic math does not support this generic statement on energy flow. I also love how involved your post was; it covered various topics in an organized fashion and provided us with a visual to accompany our readings. However, I disagree with your claim that the passage treats humans as an exception to basic evolution. I thought that of the Dunn’s passage, when he stated humans chose to (as some would say) “claim our right” to the top of the food chain, but I found a contrasting viewpoint in the Energy article. One point on page 93 suggests that we co-evolved with the other animals, which in my opinion, puts us in the same gene pool as them. It also would suggest that we depend on the animals to prosper both in natural selection and in the modern world, which brings us to the point of the class; the relationship between man and animal.

“I wondered if these actions are against nature.” This is such a great topic for debate! After all, every species is biologically programmed to do whatever it takes to survive and reproduce, so why shouldn’t human beings adhere to that? Other animals compete with each other for resources and survival; is that really any different? Just because we’re “winning” the biological arms race, does that mean we should stop? Should the extremity of our own advantages and effect on the rest of the world really matter? I’ve studied both arguments, and have my own opinions and beliefs, but I’m very interested to see how yours develop as a result of this class!

It’s easy to see why Dunn’s statement that we chose to claim our place at the top of the food chain is controversial. From a biological standpoint, I find this statement a bit misleading. Every species is internally hardwired to live in such a way that promotes it’s own survival and propagation of future generations. Chimps did not “choose” to be the apes living in the jungle instead of the apes building cities–genetics and natural selection simply didn’t work out in their favor. It’s only natural for a species to use whatever advantages it has to out-compete every other living creature for survival. The positive feedback loops associated with this principle generally ensure success. We made the same choices any other species does with regards to ensuring our own survival–we were just lucky enough that our DNA usually came out on top.

I’m glad you made the point about wolves! While watching this vid I kept waiting for Diamond to mention what I consider to be one of the primary examples of domestication- the dog. As the first animal domesticated and done so for a completely different reason, the dog is an important and unique animal which I think should factor into Diamond’s analysis, especially since the presence and domestication of dog-like animals first occured in Eurasia. This could have been an important factor in the division of “geographical luck,” as Diamond puts it, and I think he should have mentioned it.

I can’t imagine what I’ll know tomorrow – but I know it will be worth finding out! I like Kara’s point about controlling the weather. Cloud seeding is an example of a limited intervention with a specific objective, but what Kara suggests is that climate and environmental change are complex and affected by so many variables that it seems unlikely that humans will ever have complete control over them. Today I know that humans have had and continue to have a huge effect on the climate. I’m pretty sure that tomorrow I will still know that, but hope that I also know that we figured out a way to slow down the damage.