It’s interesting to me that you make this comparison of rats as mirrors of the more negative qualities of humanity. Although rats themselves are pretty clean animals (except for the countless bugs they might carry), we associate them with filth and detritus created by mankind, so they serve as a constant reminder of just how unclean our cleanliness really is- something most of us would rather not think about. I think that your theory of rats as a manifestation of the “shadow” is particularly intriguing because we also draw a parallel on a more physiological level between rats and humans when we use them as a model organism in biomedical research, and in this sense we have no objection to the similarity of rat and man.

I think that the “inevitable bond” between a researcher and lab animal doesn’t have as much to do with the individuality of the animal and humanity of the researcher, but more the attachment of the researcher to his research. Most researchers actively try to avoid a bond with their lab animals because it can affect their judgement and skew the results of the research. I’m all for animal rights, but in most cases in research, the health and happiness needs of the animal are only met so that the data collected can be effective and reliable– no matter how complex the animal may be. Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as case studies of bonobos or gorillas.

Kara, that’s a really great point, and I hadn’t thought about it. It delves into examining our real priorities when caring for animals that we use as model organisms in research – do we care for them just because we need to keep them healthy, or because we actually care? However since rats and dogs are primarily used as model organisms in biomedical research (like cancer research), I don’t think it’s likely that one of them will prove to be more useful than the other- they’re both different enough and similar enough to human beings that their validity as model organisms pretty much balances out. Rats are easier to use, however, because of their reproduction rate and ease of care. Dogs cost a lot more and require a lot more hoops to jump through when using them in research studies, so I think we’ll continue using rats the most.

I agree that to me the more important thing is finding the cure for cancer is more important than the per se humane treatment of rats but if one of the more domesticated species i.e. dogs/cats is one day discovered to be useful in the cure will we abandon our loyalty to them?

I like the comparison of achievement and destructiveness because it makes me wonder whether given time the rats can evolve the negative destructive characteristics out of their natural habits?

I think Kelly makes an important point here — We need to always take an author in context. And by Victorian era standards, Darwin was a revolutionary! By developing theories of change by natural and artificial selection (evolution / domestication), he made the advances in scientific thinking we take for granted now possible.

It’s great that Brantz’ selection helped clarify the connection between the biological and cultural components of domestication. You’re right – we have talked about it a lot in class, and several of the readings have taken this theme up, but it’s not an intuitive concept, and sometimes it just takes repeated exposure and work (in this case on the pig!) for the ground to be ready for that “aha moment.”
On the chickens: I would say that in the contemporary US, the “success” of chickens as defined by their overall numbers is mostly due to our quest for cheap protein and willingness to manipulate the birds to that end. Whether that means that chickens are really “doing well” or “benefiting” from the relationship they have with us is a different matter.

I like how this post touches on the (sometimes subtle) distinctions between acclimatization efforts and the unintended introduction of species that become invasive — rabbits in Australia, feral pigs in Hawaii, the cane toad, gypsy moth, kudzu, Burmese python, etc. in the US. Nineteenth-century acclimatization projects were deliberate efforts to help particular animals adapt to new environments at time when the mechanism of evolution (and its underlying premises) were still much debated. Most invasive species, on the other hand, are an accidental by-product or unintended consequence of human activity.

I agree that your post isn’t one-sided. I was really interested to read this story. In my opinion, the most devastating part of the story is that all those rabbits had to be brutally killed simply for existing in a place they didn’t belong. I don’t mean to sound like a hippie here, because it’s certainly true that the risk to human health by diseases carried in rabbits is certainly an issue, but I think if animal welfare could be considered a little more in decisions like the one this hunter made to bring the rabbits with him, it could have saved a lot of trouble. I think this story demonstrates the problem with our culture, which is that animal welfare is hardly considered until human welfare is first taken care of. Maybe the mutual benefit that has been missing in domestication for a long time could be introduced to our actions towards wild animals as well.

My favorite part of the reading was also definitely the connection to culture. I think that the things you mentioned, such as using pets as status symbols and recent trends of desiring exotic pets, are all things that were done with human wants as the driver, and no concern for what humans actually need, and more importantly what is best for the animals. I think it’s a shame that one of the biggest aspects missing from so called human culture is a lack of consideration for the environment and for the ecosystem, including the animals that are vital to ecosystems.