Slashdot Mirror
Trained Rats for Mine Detection
rikomatic writes "The dangerous profession of anti-personnel mine detection is getting a surprising new tool: giant Gambian rats (NY Times reg). Some resourceful Belgians have figured out how to train these 30-inch rodents to hunt out landmines. They are cheaper and work harder than dogs and are more reliable than metal detectors. Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?"
Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.
Now if only we could just train humans not to plant the mines, *then* we'd be getting somewhere.
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
as they refuse to sign any mine treaties, just like every other treaty
do you see where the hate begins ?
Maybe someone could cry if them don't blow up. Introducing new species in some environments could be harmful, and if they escape you could have a new plage on hand. There are already some examples of that happening, but as most should have seen the Simpsons examples of frogs in australia or lizards in springfield i think by now is evident why is bad.
I, for one, welcome our old rodent overlords. They're responsible for our wonderful planet, and if they want to perform experiments on us, I have absolutely no problem with it.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
In most of the slashdot penetrating world, we think of dogs primarily as companion animals, and find the thougt of them being blown to bits in mine clearance as "sad" (at least I certainly would)
I suspect from the point of view of the mine-clearing-canine group from Canada (they were recently spotlighted in a television program on National Geographic here) - it is the cost of training the animal that is the more serious loss, than the emotional suffering the handlers may suffer from the loss of a companion. For one project they had on the order of a half-dozen animals. So, losing one in an accident would be a pretty serious reduction in force.
Hopefully with rats, the cost of training, supporting, and getting them into the mine fields would be low enough that the mission would be less adversely impacted by losing one animal.
I am certain my friend who keeps pet rats would be just as horrified imagining a rat being killed ina clearing accident as I would be imagining a dog suffering the same fate.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Too bad PETA threw away all its credibility on stupid, bullshit issues.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.
How exactly do dolphns detect mines on a soccer field? Perhaps you meant water polo?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yeah, lets leave these extremely dangerous explosives in the ground so we can mame samll children and adults. Killing for the sake of killing is wrong but don't call landmine detection frivolous. Anything that could saves lives, I just don't consider frivolous.
I figure if anyone complains about training rats for this, they should feel free to sign up as a "mine field clearing" expert and help clear minefields personally. I think this is great, since who knows how many people worldwide get maimed or killed each year by landmines.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
In order to survive on this world we must eat living creatures - be they plant or animal. For a balanced diet we must have animal flesh; plant food just doesn't hack it alone. To get animal flesh we must kill the animal. Similarly, these same creatures can serve us in other useful ways (seeing eye dogs, carrier pigeons, and Gambian rat mine detectors) that is certainly more 'humane' than being food.
Given the above, as long as these giant Gambian rats are treated well until their eventual explosive demise (which is a quicker cleaner death than some of the destruction and death caused to humans by PETA fanatics), I don't have a problem with it.
What I get angry about is people who don't treat their animals well: they don't feed them, care for them, or provide an environment that is enriching for the animal during its life. The wanton destruction through neglect is really the problem - not animals used in testing, or Gambian rat mine detectors. What is worse is when people decide they have to abandon an animal 'in the wild'.
I can't count how many dogs and cats have been dropped off at the rural crossroads near my house. If you aren't going to be able to take care of an animal, why have it in the first place? We end up having to kill them anyway when they become a nuisance (hungry, scared and lost, they put pressure on the local ecology and farms - and become dangerous to young children). It would be more humane for these people just to take these animals into their back yards and shoot them in the head in the first place.
This lack of responsibility is immature and disturbing; adults who in many cases hold responsible positions in society - yet stoop so low. Worse is the poor example they show their children - who themselves become poor stewards.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It's called teamwork and C-4.
You use mine detectors to locate potential mines.
You detonate a shaving of a C-4 brick over
the 'susptected' mine.
No mine? small bang. Mine? small bang with a large
woofer kick.
Accident rate? 0%
Problem? F'n dorkos get upset because we don't attempt to kill ourselves defusing it and finding out where the F' it came from.
Fuck em. 100% NO-accident rate is worth it in my book.
Maybe I'm seeing things, but did you just try to back up your argument with anecdotal evidence from The Simpsons? And then you got modded up as "Insightful"?!
Sir, you are clearly a better Slashdotter than I.
(P.S. - I'd imagine the rats would be sterilized.)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
There is a difference between people (of any color) and animals. That difference is sapience. That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human. Its the same reason that animal based medical research is ok.
Now don't get me wrong, if animals arn't need they shouldn't be used. Its not ok to substitute an animal for a machine just becuase its cheaper. In this instance there isn't an as effective alternative to the rats. In this case not only is it fine to use the rats we have a moral requirement to do so.
No matter how you want to cut it non-sentient species just don't rate as highly as sentient species.
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
Tell that to the parents of some kids that would have been alive if the rats had been available in their mine-infested landscape.
Tell that to me, married to the daughter of a diabetic that required pig insulin to live. My wife also required experimental heart surgery that had been perfected on dogs 40 years ago. Sorry, that argument just doesn't rub with me.
Let's see:
this article suggests that there are 868,000 acres of farmland in Egypt alone!
How many rocks does it take to clear a single acre?
I'll leave the math as an exercise.
Actually, thinking about it you do make a point. I agree that there should be an ethical differentiation of sentient species and non-sentient species.
However, I think you are wrong in saying that any number of animals should be risked to save a single human. The key point being: how do you decidee when a species is sentient or not? You really can't, can you? To some degree, maybe. Apes, for instance, should be considered sentient. And what about robots? (OK, that part of the discussion is probably best left out for a few more years :)
It seems that you just think that only humans are sentient, which I certainly don't agree with.
Whether dolphins are cute, or rats not, is a matter of opinion. I think it's typically a matter of uninformed opinion, but that's just my opinion. :-)
I personally think rats are cute. I have a exceptionally cute rat sitting on me licking my hand as I'm typing this, so I'd argue that I have some idea of what I'm talking about. They're also intelligent, clean (yes, clean), and they make excellent, and increasingly popular, pets. I have eight myself (not as excessive a number as it might sound - they're social creatures who like company, and looking after multiple rats isn't hugely different from looking after one).
Most people when they've met rats I've had have tended to find them cute, despite some of their initial preconceptions. That's just my experience of course, and if you think rats aren't cute, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I do find it somewhat depressing that the majority of people (and I'm not saying you're one of them) who express that opinion know pretty much nothing about rats. Just shows how easily people in general accept the opinions foisted on them by the society in which they develop I suppose.
Anyway, I'd also argue that whether they're cute or not is irrelevant to this topic, or it should be anyway. 'Animal rights' shouldn't be based on the cuteness of the animal in question, it should be based on the actual facts of the situation in question, and cuteness doesn't really enter into that. In this case, the rats are rewarded for the work, and there's little risk - as the article says, they're too light to set off the mines. So while I care - and as I expect anyone else who is concerned with 'animal rights' and isn't irrationally prejudiced against rats cares - I don't have a problem with using rats for this purpose, so long as they're treated humanely otherwise.
Why don't they use lawyers and politicians? There'd be a lot less liklihood of protesters...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Personally, I try not to burn my food, much less reduce it to ashes.
Perhaps another good idea would be to STOP USING FUCKING LANDMINES
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Hah, you know how many gophers you've got to plough under to grow an acre of corn? EVERYTHING we do impacts nature, kills living stuff, and reduces resources.
We need only to be aware, to respect, to manage, and to not be cruel. Give a little respect to that cow that made that delicious burger. Honor that wonderful salmon steak.
It's not wrong to kill to eat/survive/learn. It's wrong to not appreciate or to carelessly waste life.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
I thought the line for sentience was self-realization. For (bad) example some animals can tell if the image in the mirror is them, and some can't.
;)
Humans don't develop this ability until 1 or 2 years of age. So maybe we should use infants for mine detection?
Cheers.
That alone makes it alright to risk any number of animals to save the life of one human.
Maybe in your opinion, but that is very, very far from being considered a universal truth of any sort. Certainly not all of us have such a high opinion of humans. If I had to choose between saving the life of a cat or my boss, sentient or not guess which I would choose? And I'd feel it was at least as morally neutral as choosing one human over another to save.
Most animals with moderately sized brains have the ability to learn. This at least qualifies them as intelligent, and therefore equal, in my books. And some are not more equal than others. Sentient is a rather meaningless term as far as I'm concerned, and should not be used to decide whether a creature deserves to live or die any more than the same choice should be made based on distinctions such as whether it has feathers or fur, or is green or pink, or is large or small.
I don't argue that sometimes animal testing is needed for the good of all, but it should be decided based on careful consideration of the issues and types of suffering involved, rather than a blanket "moral right".
cut it non-sentient species just don't rate as highly as sentient species.
I'm just glad there are plenty of people who don't think that way.
Random and weird software I've written.
The thing is, there's a difference between "vegetarians" and "vegans". I haven't found vegetarians to be much of a problem; they usually have no trouble finding stuff to eat. The problem is vegans. Not only will they not eat meat, but they won't eat anything that has anything to do with animals (eggs, cheese, milk, etc.). Cut all that out, and you're basically left with leaves to eat.
I eat vegetarian food quite frequently: pizza, pasta dishes, etc. But vegans can't eat any of that, since there's usually cheese in it somewhere. They can't even eat a cake or many other desserts (cakes are made with eggs).
The effect is an extreme difference between the two groups. One has simply eliminated actual animal meat from their diets. Sure, I think it's silly, but I don't know of any restaurant where you can't find a non-meat entree, so they're usually not much of a problem to be around. The other group has basically sworn off almost all Western foods, since there isn't much that doesn't have at least some milk, eggs, or cheese in it.
As far as I'm concerned, these vegans can believe whatever they like. There's people who believe that they must dance with poisonous snakes, and let themselves die of snakebite if they get bitten. They're obviously fools, but as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try to convince me to do it, I really don't care. Vegans would also be fine if they just accepted that they're completely out of line with 99.9% of the society they live in, and kept their beliefs to themselves. And when their team at work decides to do a "team lunch", they need to just stay out of it, or not eat anything and shut up about the selection. Instead, I've found that they tend to be very vocal about their food choices, and try to convert everyone else; it's a religion to them.