So not content to persecute human beings with their anti guy laws, the Russian government has now decided to persecute wild creatures who have no voice with which to scream. To this end two wild orcas have been captured by Russian hunters and are now on their way to a 'dolphinarium' to be displayed during the Winter Games.
White Sphere, the Russian company behind this, can't care less that the orcas were stolen from their ocean home or that they are going to be kept in a "small concrete tank" after a 4,614 mile flight from the far east of Russian. For a creature that can grow up to 22ft long and swim 100 miles a day this is intolerable. It would be like taking an autistic and forcing them to socialise 24/7 for six months with out a break even to sleep. Animal experts say that transporting orcas causes them stress, that keeping them in captivity shortens their life and can even turn them dangerously "psychotic".
Tell White Sphere not to display these wild orcas for entertainment.
Reports have surfaced that the whales are, right now, bound for Sochi's 'Aquatoria', whose officials have remained quiet on the topic. Reporters’ requests for comment sent to the International Olympic Committee, Aquatoria, or its Moscow-based managing company White Sphere have not been returned.
This isn’t the first time White Sphere has done something like this - reports say that it has captured eight wild orcas in the last year alone, all for public display. And according to Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), the Russian Federation’s attempt to catch orca whales over the years has resulted in several animals being killed.
The world should now turn its gaze on Russian President Putin and the International Olympic Committee, neither of whom can afford any more embarrassment. Putin is putting his personal reputation on the line by hosting the Sochi Olympics, but he hasn’t done a great job of it so far. If the world committee makes enough noise about White Sphere's despicable behaviour, just a week before the Games begin, there is more chance that Putin and the International Olympic Committee will have to take notice or lose even more credibility.
Demand that White Sphere drops its plan to display the orcas.
The Sochi Winter Olympics has been embroiled in controversy. Over 400,000 of the SumOfUs community have already petitioned Coca Cola, as a sponsor of the Winter Olympics, to speak out on Russia’s brutal anti-gay laws. Now, thousands more of us are protesting the display of the wild orcas. We have one week left until the Sochi Olympics open. Let’s make sure our voices are heard!
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
Europeans, DNA and 7,000 Years
So, in a snub to all racists, the DNA of a hunter gatherer who lived in what is now Spain 7,000 years ago has been analysed and has revealed that Europeans gained our white skin a lot later that first believed.
The genetic material was recovered from a tooth of La Brana 1, an ancient man whose skeleton was found in a deep cave system in Spain in 2006, revealed the extremely odd combination of dark skin and blue eyes, according to the study in the journal Nature. Europeans from the Mesolithic Period between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, when La Brana lived, were thought to have already been fair-skinned due to low ultraviolet radiation levels at these high latitudes.
"Until now, it was assumed that light skin colour evolved quite early in Europe, (during) the Upper Palaeolithic... But this is clearly not the case," study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox from Spain's Evolutionary Biology Institute said. "This individual had the African variants for the pigmentation genes."
For those of us who are not history geeks, the Upper Palaeolithic or Late Stone Age stretched from 50,000-10,000 years ago, followed by the Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age that lasted until about 5,000 years ago, when it was followed in Europe by the Neolithic or New Stone Age.
It is widely accepted that Man's oldest common forefather was dark skinned, and that people became more pale as they moved further north out of Africa into colder climates with less sunlight and subsequent migrations and mixing created the wide range of hues we have today.
La Brana's genome is the first of a European hunter-gatherer to be fully sequenced and when compared to today's humans, it was found to be most closely genetically related to northern Europeans like the Swedes or Fins. Lalueza-Fox and his team also found the genetic signature for blue eyes and dark hair and while the exact hue of skin cannot be determined, the scientists say its combination with blue eyes was not to be found in modern Europeans today. I have to admit that if I saw someone with that combination of features walking down the street they would certainly draw my attention.
So light-skinned Europeans emerged "much later" than once believed - possibly only in the Neolithic era when erstwhile hunter-gatherers became farmers and the cause may have been a change in diet and lower vitamin D intake associated with this lifestyle change. In the absence of natural vitamin D, the human skin can produce its own in contact with the Sun - but dark skins synthesise much less than fair ones - creating an evolutionary incentive for change. So my guess would be that blue eyes were needed earlier to cope with the low light levels but we didn't need the white skin until later.
The probe also found that La Brana 1 had not yet acquired the genetic mutation that allowed later humans to digest milk and starch more easily - an adaptation that probably coincided with the birth of agriculture in the Neolithic age.
This change in skin tone and digestive trait, if it was caused by the arrival of agriculture in our society, would certainly be compatible with the program 'Mankind the History of Us All'. According to this program, which I watched last year our original ancestor, the first Man that they have been able to genetically trace, lived in the African Rift Valley and was dark skinned. So 'Adam' wasn't white like they depict him in all the illustrated Bibles, he was black. He was also two inches taller than the average modern American.
Say what you like about the 'savages', a hunter-gatherer lifestyle obviously got homo sapiens off to a good start.
However, many thousands of years later, long after mankind had domesticated the wolf, the mother of farming, as she is known, realised that if she planted so of the grain she had gathered then she would know where is was growing and harvesting it would be that much easier. This was the start of farming and according to 'Mankind the History of Us All', farming has been at the root of most of mankind's problems since. It tied us down to the land so we couldn't move so we came into conflict over resources, which was the start of war. All the major plagues, from TB to the Bubonic, where introduction to mankind by living in close contact with farm animals, so disease seriously arrived when we started farming. Then when the crops failed there were too many of us to go back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle so people starved, which is famine. Does it appear that I'm listing the four riders of the Apocalypse?
It has also been found that about a thousand years after we started farming the human race shrunk. The average farmer man was only five foot two inches and the average farmer woman was only four four eight. Farming in other words, was not good for us. So you have to ask why are we so hung up on it? Oh that's right, with 7 billion people now living on earth there is no way we can feed that many out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I'd say we could be in big trouble if the crops fail big time.
The genetic material was recovered from a tooth of La Brana 1, an ancient man whose skeleton was found in a deep cave system in Spain in 2006, revealed the extremely odd combination of dark skin and blue eyes, according to the study in the journal Nature. Europeans from the Mesolithic Period between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, when La Brana lived, were thought to have already been fair-skinned due to low ultraviolet radiation levels at these high latitudes.
"Until now, it was assumed that light skin colour evolved quite early in Europe, (during) the Upper Palaeolithic... But this is clearly not the case," study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox from Spain's Evolutionary Biology Institute said. "This individual had the African variants for the pigmentation genes."
For those of us who are not history geeks, the Upper Palaeolithic or Late Stone Age stretched from 50,000-10,000 years ago, followed by the Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age that lasted until about 5,000 years ago, when it was followed in Europe by the Neolithic or New Stone Age.
It is widely accepted that Man's oldest common forefather was dark skinned, and that people became more pale as they moved further north out of Africa into colder climates with less sunlight and subsequent migrations and mixing created the wide range of hues we have today.
La Brana's genome is the first of a European hunter-gatherer to be fully sequenced and when compared to today's humans, it was found to be most closely genetically related to northern Europeans like the Swedes or Fins. Lalueza-Fox and his team also found the genetic signature for blue eyes and dark hair and while the exact hue of skin cannot be determined, the scientists say its combination with blue eyes was not to be found in modern Europeans today. I have to admit that if I saw someone with that combination of features walking down the street they would certainly draw my attention.
So light-skinned Europeans emerged "much later" than once believed - possibly only in the Neolithic era when erstwhile hunter-gatherers became farmers and the cause may have been a change in diet and lower vitamin D intake associated with this lifestyle change. In the absence of natural vitamin D, the human skin can produce its own in contact with the Sun - but dark skins synthesise much less than fair ones - creating an evolutionary incentive for change. So my guess would be that blue eyes were needed earlier to cope with the low light levels but we didn't need the white skin until later.
The probe also found that La Brana 1 had not yet acquired the genetic mutation that allowed later humans to digest milk and starch more easily - an adaptation that probably coincided with the birth of agriculture in the Neolithic age.
This change in skin tone and digestive trait, if it was caused by the arrival of agriculture in our society, would certainly be compatible with the program 'Mankind the History of Us All'. According to this program, which I watched last year our original ancestor, the first Man that they have been able to genetically trace, lived in the African Rift Valley and was dark skinned. So 'Adam' wasn't white like they depict him in all the illustrated Bibles, he was black. He was also two inches taller than the average modern American.
Say what you like about the 'savages', a hunter-gatherer lifestyle obviously got homo sapiens off to a good start.
However, many thousands of years later, long after mankind had domesticated the wolf, the mother of farming, as she is known, realised that if she planted so of the grain she had gathered then she would know where is was growing and harvesting it would be that much easier. This was the start of farming and according to 'Mankind the History of Us All', farming has been at the root of most of mankind's problems since. It tied us down to the land so we couldn't move so we came into conflict over resources, which was the start of war. All the major plagues, from TB to the Bubonic, where introduction to mankind by living in close contact with farm animals, so disease seriously arrived when we started farming. Then when the crops failed there were too many of us to go back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle so people starved, which is famine. Does it appear that I'm listing the four riders of the Apocalypse?
It has also been found that about a thousand years after we started farming the human race shrunk. The average farmer man was only five foot two inches and the average farmer woman was only four four eight. Farming in other words, was not good for us. So you have to ask why are we so hung up on it? Oh that's right, with 7 billion people now living on earth there is no way we can feed that many out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I'd say we could be in big trouble if the crops fail big time.
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Dolphin Slaughter in the Feroe Islands
Stop Press!
I've just encountered the sick 'right of passage' that is practise in the Feroe Islands that lie between Scotland and Denmark.
The Feroe Island are an autonomous, self-ruling set of islands that ceded from Denmark in 1948 where every year the bays turn red with blood. However, the only war here is man's war on those that cannot defend themselves.
Every year hundred of the highly intelligent Calderon dolphins are slaughtered by the young teenagers of the islands in a stomach churning 'right of passage' to prove that they are 'adult' and 'mature'.
The playful creatures are lured in because they will interact with humans, such is their intelligence. However, instead of receiving the friendship they are expecting, they are beaten to death with thick hooks that look like a cross between anchors and butcher hooks until they drown, screaming, in their own blood.
It seems that ordinary whaling with explosive harpoons was not brutal enough for these people, they had to take it to a whole new level with whole pods of dolphins being butchered in this vile festival, where just about every one on the islands turns out, as either participants or spectators.
I'm sorry but even if the meat is being eaten afterwards, I cannot condone this disgusting practise. It is the duty of a hunter to make sure their prey dies as swiftly as possibly, the respect of what you'd wish for if the positions were reversed and you were the one dying. Beating a creature to death is not swift, dutiful or honourable. It is sadistic and doing as a 'right of passage' is just enshrining within a culture that which should be condemned in society.
I'd say that Denmark should take a long look at the quality of the people it's allowed to rule themselves as they are now casting a very bad light on their parent country.
Failing that Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd should start campaigning in this area.
To the youth of Feroe I say this - it takes bravery to stand in the way of a terrified creature that has no defence but to swim as fast as it can; it takes even more to stand in the face of your peers and your elders to say 'no, I refuse to do this thing'.
I've just encountered the sick 'right of passage' that is practise in the Feroe Islands that lie between Scotland and Denmark.
The Feroe Island are an autonomous, self-ruling set of islands that ceded from Denmark in 1948 where every year the bays turn red with blood. However, the only war here is man's war on those that cannot defend themselves.
Every year hundred of the highly intelligent Calderon dolphins are slaughtered by the young teenagers of the islands in a stomach churning 'right of passage' to prove that they are 'adult' and 'mature'.
The playful creatures are lured in because they will interact with humans, such is their intelligence. However, instead of receiving the friendship they are expecting, they are beaten to death with thick hooks that look like a cross between anchors and butcher hooks until they drown, screaming, in their own blood.
It seems that ordinary whaling with explosive harpoons was not brutal enough for these people, they had to take it to a whole new level with whole pods of dolphins being butchered in this vile festival, where just about every one on the islands turns out, as either participants or spectators.
I'm sorry but even if the meat is being eaten afterwards, I cannot condone this disgusting practise. It is the duty of a hunter to make sure their prey dies as swiftly as possibly, the respect of what you'd wish for if the positions were reversed and you were the one dying. Beating a creature to death is not swift, dutiful or honourable. It is sadistic and doing as a 'right of passage' is just enshrining within a culture that which should be condemned in society.
I'd say that Denmark should take a long look at the quality of the people it's allowed to rule themselves as they are now casting a very bad light on their parent country.
Failing that Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd should start campaigning in this area.
To the youth of Feroe I say this - it takes bravery to stand in the way of a terrified creature that has no defence but to swim as fast as it can; it takes even more to stand in the face of your peers and your elders to say 'no, I refuse to do this thing'.
Monsanto
Monsanto, one of the biggest companies in the GMO field and one that has always insisted that it is doing nothing wrong while opposing any request to be open about the risks of its produce, even under the Information Act. So when yet another intrepid group of people stand up to Monsanto and demand that the company comes clean it should just be business as usual i.e. one big hush up.
But this time, it’s Monsanto’s own shareholders who are asking questions. Their simple request is that Monsanto stops keeping them in the dark on genetically-modified food -- and they need our support.
After over 6,000 of donators chipped in, SumOfUs organisers are headed to St Louis for the crucial shareholder vote -- working tirelessly to win the support of the big investment funds. But unless Monsanto and its shareholders feel the massive community opposition to their agenda, they’ll conclude they can ignore the people, yet again and vote against GMO transparency. That’s why people need to act now.
The brave group of shareholders who will present this resolution at Monsanto’s annual meeting want the company to be straight with its shareholders. They’re asking Monsanto to report on the costs and business risks of GMOs -- from the contamination of non-GMO crops, to the effect on bees and other “non-target” organisms, and more. These are real risks and costs, and it’s a sensible proposal -- for anyone other than a corporation that thinks that suing family farmers and fighting truth-in-labelling laws is business as usual.
Monsanto is trying to defeat this shareholder vote -- using the same tactics it uses to defeat all opposition to its agenda. Its business model is based on keeping everyone all in the dark. It has fought against every effort to label genetically modified ingredients, spending $15 million to defeat laws in California and Washington alone.
However, more and more people are standing up and shouting for the truth. Now that even its own shareholders are joining the fight Monsanto can feel the tide turning against it and that tide is gaining momentum. Already, numerous US states and countless countries have restrictions on GMOs and rules about their labelling and like every snowball effect, the more that join the more that consider joining.
However, instead of recognising the community sentiment and business risk, Monsanto is still fighting. That is why these shareholders are so important. They are in the position where they can make Monsanto take responsibility for what its doing but Monsanto is doing its best to shut them up.
That’s why it’s crucial that we support these shareholders who are taking a stand at Monsanto’s annual meeting, and demand that Monsanto study the risks and costs of GMOs and come clean to their shareholders and the public. Unless they know we’re watching, many of Monsanto’s biggest shareholders will feel free to support Monsanto’s management and vote against the shareholder resolution.
It doesn't take much to let them know that we are watching what they are up to, just a name on a petition and with the Internet that only takes a few minutes at most these days but it is immensely important for the future of consumer rights. Once Monsanto is forced to answer to us all then other big companies will know that they are not safe from public scrutiny. At that point it will be that much easier to make them clean up their business practises because they will remember that every business is ultimately dependant on it public accepting what they do and buying their produce.
Vox populii, Vox del (the voice of the people is the voice of God)!
Thursday, 23 January 2014
The Parasol Protectorate
O. K. at a total loss of what to write for a blog post this week I've decided to do a review. My subject 'Souless' by Gail Carriger, the first of the Alexia Tarabotti novels.
Set in a Victorian London, like and unlike our own, where the main difference is that during the reign of Henry VIII vampires and werewolves integrated with human society, driving Henry VIII and Britain to be cut off from the Catholic Church of Europe. Since then the supernatural set, as they are collectively know, have driven Britain to become the world power of the British Empire, the werewolves providing the muscle on the battle fields and the vampires advancing science about as fast as they can.
Enter into this interesting scene one Alexia Tarabotti, a preternatural i.e. she was born without a soul. As such she can negate supernatural powers, although that is usually only an embarrassment, especially when she's involved in the 'killing' of an unknown vampire, as it draws far too much attention from the supernatural set.
Not long after she accidentally 'kills' the unknown vampire Alexia finds herself tangled up with a vampire Hive on one side and Lord Maccon (loud, messy, gorgeous and werewolf) on the other. When the Queen herself becomes interested in the whole affair Alexia finds herself in rather more trouble than a proper English spinster should have to deal with.
Turns out not all of the British scientist scene are keen on allowing the vampires and werewolves as much influence as they have.
I love this book for the brilliantly drawn characters and the brilliant wit in the dialogue and description such as:
"Goodness gracious me," exclaimed Alexia, "what are you wearing? It looks like the unfortunate progeny of an illicit union between a pair of binoculars and some opera glasses. What on earth are they called, binocticals, spectoculars?"
The earl snorted his amusement and then tried to pretend he hadn't. "How about glassicals?" he suggested."
Although my out right favourite character has to be Lord Akeldama, a vampire who has an outrageous taste in clothes and the ability to speak in italics, most of the time.
Set in a Victorian London, like and unlike our own, where the main difference is that during the reign of Henry VIII vampires and werewolves integrated with human society, driving Henry VIII and Britain to be cut off from the Catholic Church of Europe. Since then the supernatural set, as they are collectively know, have driven Britain to become the world power of the British Empire, the werewolves providing the muscle on the battle fields and the vampires advancing science about as fast as they can.
Enter into this interesting scene one Alexia Tarabotti, a preternatural i.e. she was born without a soul. As such she can negate supernatural powers, although that is usually only an embarrassment, especially when she's involved in the 'killing' of an unknown vampire, as it draws far too much attention from the supernatural set.
Not long after she accidentally 'kills' the unknown vampire Alexia finds herself tangled up with a vampire Hive on one side and Lord Maccon (loud, messy, gorgeous and werewolf) on the other. When the Queen herself becomes interested in the whole affair Alexia finds herself in rather more trouble than a proper English spinster should have to deal with.
Turns out not all of the British scientist scene are keen on allowing the vampires and werewolves as much influence as they have.
I love this book for the brilliantly drawn characters and the brilliant wit in the dialogue and description such as:
"Goodness gracious me," exclaimed Alexia, "what are you wearing? It looks like the unfortunate progeny of an illicit union between a pair of binoculars and some opera glasses. What on earth are they called, binocticals, spectoculars?"
The earl snorted his amusement and then tried to pretend he hadn't. "How about glassicals?" he suggested."
Although my out right favourite character has to be Lord Akeldama, a vampire who has an outrageous taste in clothes and the ability to speak in italics, most of the time.
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
For the Love of Dogs... And Other Animals
Just watched Paul O'Grady's Orphans and thoroughly enjoyed it.
As he puts it himself "I'm no David Attenborough" but his love of all animals and his willingness to muck in and help them stand out as all his own. The program also shows that, despite all the bad press and stories that come out of Africa, there are still people more than willing to bend over backward to help those that cannot speak in their own defence.
There are some funny stories that make you smile and others that will make you weep. The sanctuary for the African Penguins is the scene for stories of both sorts. The funniest being Paul trying to convince a reluctant penguin to come out into the rain. Que "You're a penguin for pity's sake, you're meant to be waterproof".
The saddest was the penguin that came in blind and ended up having to be put down. Whether the staff liked it or not they are fighting to save a species and not an individual that can't give anything for the survival of that species. That's the darker side of conservation, sometimes very hard decisions have to be taken on where and when and upon which animals to spend the limited resources that they have. Ultimately those decisions mean that some of the animals have to be euthanized, which is not a decision that anyone is happy with but when you get down to it is what Mother Nature does. For the lion to eat the wildebeest must die. To my mind what sets man above the animal is that we can practise mercy to the weakest of the community whereas animals drive out the weak and injured or else use them as a meat shield between the healthy and the predator.
However, not all humans are as pleasant as those who protect those that can't protect themselves, as the baby elephant Suni can testify.
After her mother was killed by poaches someone attacked her with an axe, resulting in sickening wounds that nearly severed her spine just above her pelvis. This has left her with a half paralysed leg which means that she may never be able to return to the wild.
What sort of person does that to an animal that can't fight back? What sort of person half cripples a baby creature and then leaves it to drag itself along the road on its front legs? I could almost understand it if they had killed her and butchered her for her meat but to hack her up and then just leave her to die? That to me makes no sense, unless it is the sense of a twisted mind that enjoys inflicting pain.
I am sorry but the older I get and the more of the depravities of the human world I see the more I think that some humans ought to be put down.
On a more cheerful note, the African Penguin is also known as the Blue Penguin and its greatest threat is the loose of its nesting sites because it nests in burrows in sandy dunes. However, I saw a program back in the nineties about a seaside community in South Africa who, when they extended the sea front, built it all on stilts so that the penguins can still nest in their traditional sites. What this didn't take into account is the fact that African Penguins have little to no natural fear of humans and are quite happy to be around us. So if you ever visit the Blue Penguin Night Club you could find yourself tripping over one of the clubs namesakes as they sometimes climb up the front steps and come on to the dance floor.
As he puts it himself "I'm no David Attenborough" but his love of all animals and his willingness to muck in and help them stand out as all his own. The program also shows that, despite all the bad press and stories that come out of Africa, there are still people more than willing to bend over backward to help those that cannot speak in their own defence.
There are some funny stories that make you smile and others that will make you weep. The sanctuary for the African Penguins is the scene for stories of both sorts. The funniest being Paul trying to convince a reluctant penguin to come out into the rain. Que "You're a penguin for pity's sake, you're meant to be waterproof".
The saddest was the penguin that came in blind and ended up having to be put down. Whether the staff liked it or not they are fighting to save a species and not an individual that can't give anything for the survival of that species. That's the darker side of conservation, sometimes very hard decisions have to be taken on where and when and upon which animals to spend the limited resources that they have. Ultimately those decisions mean that some of the animals have to be euthanized, which is not a decision that anyone is happy with but when you get down to it is what Mother Nature does. For the lion to eat the wildebeest must die. To my mind what sets man above the animal is that we can practise mercy to the weakest of the community whereas animals drive out the weak and injured or else use them as a meat shield between the healthy and the predator.
However, not all humans are as pleasant as those who protect those that can't protect themselves, as the baby elephant Suni can testify.
After her mother was killed by poaches someone attacked her with an axe, resulting in sickening wounds that nearly severed her spine just above her pelvis. This has left her with a half paralysed leg which means that she may never be able to return to the wild.
What sort of person does that to an animal that can't fight back? What sort of person half cripples a baby creature and then leaves it to drag itself along the road on its front legs? I could almost understand it if they had killed her and butchered her for her meat but to hack her up and then just leave her to die? That to me makes no sense, unless it is the sense of a twisted mind that enjoys inflicting pain.
I am sorry but the older I get and the more of the depravities of the human world I see the more I think that some humans ought to be put down.
On a more cheerful note, the African Penguin is also known as the Blue Penguin and its greatest threat is the loose of its nesting sites because it nests in burrows in sandy dunes. However, I saw a program back in the nineties about a seaside community in South Africa who, when they extended the sea front, built it all on stilts so that the penguins can still nest in their traditional sites. What this didn't take into account is the fact that African Penguins have little to no natural fear of humans and are quite happy to be around us. So if you ever visit the Blue Penguin Night Club you could find yourself tripping over one of the clubs namesakes as they sometimes climb up the front steps and come on to the dance floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)