> Few things in this world are as elusive as a hippopotamus testicle
A family friend used to run a travel business with tours to the Okavango Delta. When I asked him how it was going, he replied "Great, we've only ever lost one honeymoon couple to hippos"! People don't realise they are one of the most dangerous animals to humans.
Yeah those are not good numbers.
The death was caused by an "unknown pre-existing condition" but doesn't elaborate further.
There's also the animal's death.
Yes it matters. Causing suffering to a consciousness that can experience pain is inhumane.
Now, reasonable people can disagree how far to extend our circle of empathy. Some would exclude animals or even other humans (eg criminals or someone of a different ethnicity), while other people would go so far as to include ants, plants, or rocks. I think both extremes are wrong.
Perhaps more poignantly to you question, what if you ask yourself:
- does your answer change considering humans are also animals?
- regardless of target, what does it say to the character of a person who chooses to be cruel when they don’t have to
Of course this changes greatly if the sufferer(s) survive the ordeal for a significant amount of time beyond, as there may be repercussions, depending on the degree of the effects caused and the capacity (physical, psychological, social, etc) of the sufferer(s).
If you have surgery that involves painful recovery, should the surgeon refuse to perform it? Only if it's elective? Or it's ok because you elect it? What about required surgery on a non-human animal? Is the painful recovery justified by the surgery's necessity [to achieve a human-desired goal]? What if it's necessary to extend the animal's life, or ameliorate other pain?
In the case of TFA the intervention is part of habitat management -- preserving the species in the face of human encroachment, or even just in the face of encroachment that occurred even if no further encroachment is allowed. That seems to me like a reasonable justification for the pain caused in that case, and this is also the case for cats and dogs even though the justification is slightly different there.
Agree. Similar story about elephants, who can wreck havoc on an ecosystem. Culling them is a good practice.
sounds interesting and definitely something worth looking into as well
Why in human males is the prostate such a troublesome thing? Because by the time the prostate becomes a problem, males have generally done any breeding they're going to do, so there is no advantage to natural selection to improving it further. Is it optimal? Definitely not.
Presumably it is (taking the wide view) probably a good thing that evolution doesn't find global optima or there would be far less ecological diversity.
It's not really that it doesn't matter, just that there are several different options to allow good enough fertility.
If sperm has to be stored/generated at a temperature lower than 36°C, then external testes are a solution to that, but a lower body temperature works as well. Developing enzymes that work good enough at a higher temperature also works (apparently what birds have done). And maybe just accepting a lower fitness of sperm cells works if the animal produces more of them.
Hippopotamuses have a low body temperature of about 35°C, so internal testes work for them.
A hippo doesn't care much about looks ;)
gnabgib•1w ago
aaronbrethorst•1w ago