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?"
Well, they can't be trained too well or they'd have enough sense to stay away from those land mines.
Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Screw PETA, kids avoid getting blown up while playing soccer etc beacuse of stuff like this.
"Rodents of unusual size? They don't exist!" *rat attacks*
"Rats don't have a union and get paid 1/10th the food dogs do..."
That's OK, just wait 'til those damn rats get outsourced to IT workers, who don't have a union and get paid 1/10th of the rats.
Plus, if one of them blows up, who's going to cry?
The rats' pan-dimensional, super-intelligent kindred will care, and I would not want to tangle with them.
And how long 'til we hear "Hey! Whose rat is this?"
"MINE!"
from Dr. Fegg's Encyclopedia of All World Knowledge
::Note::
Dr. Fegg has only ever written one national anthem. Here it is, reproduced for the first time. Dr. Fegg would like to remind all his readers that he has not yet been paid for it.
-The Gambian National Anthem-
Gambia, Oh Gambia,
Though only small and thin,
When it comes to being called Gambia,
You are the one to win.
Your capital is Bathurst
A name that means so much
To you who live in Gambia,
Though less so to the Dutch.
Gambia, where men are men
And trees fit in the ground.
The one six-lettered nation
Where Gambians abound!
Gambians! O Gambians!
Though your country is so thin
And most of it a river
It's the place that you live in.
From mountains down to flat bits,
Ring out your anthem great,
Though now you're part of Senegal
The words are out of date.
-Bertram Wesley Fegg DD
WARNING: Humming of this anthem, even to oneself, renders the reader liable for royalty payments. These should be sent to Dr. Fegg personally and *not*, repeat *not* to the chisellers at the Gambian embassy.
Many people ask: What is Dr. Fegg a doctor *of*? Well, without going into specifics Dr. Fegg has tried his hand at many things in his time.
His is the sort of mind that can encompass deck chair repairing, sweeping, billposting and the buying and selling of cars with one previous owner. So it is perhaps unfair and irrelevant to confine his extraordinary talents to the mundane world of labels and categories.
Dr. Fegg *has* delivered babies, but only during the busy pre-Christmas period when the Post Office can't cope. And Dr. Fegg has done brain surgery-- though *never*, repeat *never* in the Bournemouth area.
Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them.
The article points out that you have to be at least as smart as a gambian rat to do this kind of work.
-Adam
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.
At least PETA won't raise a stink about them - they only care about the animals.
Reasons Why A Lawyer Won't Suffice
1. They're harder to train than rats.
2. They won't actually work, but they'll demand to be paid.
3. If there's a loophole, they'll find it. But they won't find any mines.
4. Lawyers won't die when you blow them up. You have to cauterize the wound, or two heads will grow in its place.
5. They're sure to object.
I watch too much Law & Order.
You'll see that since they only weigh three pounds they don't trigger the mines.
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
The solution is obvious... use PETA members instead of the rats. I like rats.
Or...
Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Pinky: I think so Brain, but I'd rather go hump a landmine.. Narf! {BOOM!!!}
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
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
Hey I think you just invented the next x-game.
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.
Actually, this isn't true. It's perfectly possible to have a balanced diet with all the human nutritional requirement simply by eating plants. The problem is that it's not easy: you have to know which foods have what nutrients, and be sure to eat enough of them. Protein is a big problem too; there are non-animal foods with a lot of protein (like nuts), but just eating salads isn't going to be enough. That's why there's so many college kids that have nutritional problems. They decide to become vegetarians because it's "cool" or whatever, but they don't actually do their homework and learn how to do it properly, so they end up with insufficient protein, low iron, etc. Eating meat makes it much easier to have a balanced diet.
For the record, I'm a happy carnivore.
Now, if you were talking about cats, you'd be correct: cats require certain amino acids that can only be found in meat. Dogs and humans are omnivorous, and can survive without meat if necessary, but not cats.
Yes. But I've never heard of dolphins being trained to find them.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.