Slashdot Mirror
Attack of the Evil Monkeys From Hell
grrlscientist writes "A new form of communication between wild vervet monkeys and humans is causing humans distress — and a collapse of their food supply. Approximately 300 vervet monkeys in Kenya are sexually harassing the women of a village so they can steal their crops. None of the attempts to discourage the monkeys has so far worked."
Shoot the damn monkeys already
The monkeys fear men and harass women. Therefore, have the men work the fields, and send the women out to do whatever the men are doing now.
this is all because, morons from other countries have actually covinced these poor countries that they shouldn't kill animals like monkeys, to satisfy thier own pathetic middle class guilt.
I hope the villagers buy themselves some ak's and blow those monkeys a few new holes.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
As soon as your done having your laughs, folks, remember that it's a hell of a lot funnier when it isn't your family that's at risk of hunger.
I hate killing as much as the next guy, but if 300 humans were throwing rocks at my wife and stealing my food to the point where I might not be able to feed my children that night, after a while I'd start shooting the humans. I sure as hell wouldn't put up with it from a monkey.
I'm quite able to understand the why there. "why" in this case, can be any number of reasons, danger of extinction, protected habitat area, significant to plant growth of a protected wildlife area (fecal seeding, or the like). That's a no brainer. However, they're also a danger to farming operations in Africa, which for a good chunk of the last quarter century at LEAST has been plagued by drought, mismanaged farms and other issues which confound the ability of the populace to adequately feed itself. Therefore, the only real reason is a WWF/UN imperative created by 1st world enviromentalist interests to protect the animals.
However, regardless of how many monkeys of that particular species there might be, we're doing overreaching amounts of harm by allowing them to become attached to a method of food gathering that relies on raiding human foodstocks. A raiding party clearly needs to be made example of (harmed preferrably, but face it, it's Africa, they're getting killed.) So that the monkies return to a sustainable natural gathering method that would allow them to function smoothly and avoid attracting human ire in the long run. Failing the luxury of such a solution, the other viable alternative is moving the clan of monkeys entirely.
Anyways, in response to your post, that why should be something like "why are they being blindly protected" not "why are they protected". Protection schemes that interfere with the ability of an organism to cope with certain challenges damage that organism when that challenge arises.
a raiding party is their sustainable natural gathering method. if you make them give up that, then you will be eradicating them. and, even if you kill half of a raiding party, in 1-2 generations, which wont be 1-2 years, they will have forgotten it.
Read radical news here
You mean HIV, AIDS is a progression of the symptoms. And no, HIV is not passed ingestion. shows how much you know.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
We aren't talking about the monkeys standing in the way of me having a 2nd car, or having a new play station. We are talking about them preventing some of the poorest people in the world getting enough food just to survive. So yes, fuck the stupid monkeys.
"can we not try something just as effective that doesn't involve killing them first"
What are you, dense? they have already tried nasty tasting baits, dressing up to scare them and hitting them with sticks. I'd say that's a fucking good effort for people facing starvation because of the monkeys.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"Despite their new problems with the monkeys, it is a criminal offence[sic] to harm or kill any of them, so the besieged villagers must figure out a way to outwit the monkeys instead."
Given the artificial constraint that the women can't just carry a small caliber rifle with them, and the government is not willing to relocate the animals I only see one solution. Relocate the humans. If the monkeys cannot coexist peacefully with the local human population, then one or the other must go. In most cases the humans win, but under artificial constraints that is not always the case.
If little animal started "sexually harassing" me with rude gestures, I would find it funny. I think it is ignorant to be offended by what an animal does, because it is an ignorant creature with out a fine understanding of human society and culture. Obviously the real problem is the stealing of food, physical harassment of people, and invasion of people's homes. (won't be so funny when a monkey passes a disease along to an infant or attacks one in a home)
I can only hope that the laws are flexible enough that if a monkey physically assaults someone that they have a right to defend themselves. It seems like a small cudgel or even a sap would be a practical solution for the women to carry. And if the government is worried about fabricated stories of monkey attacks to justify unprovoked culling, just make the flexibility of the law only apply to the female population.
A higher tech solution would be pepper spray or even garden hose, but I suspect neither are practical for a small agrarian village.
Here in the US, most of our pest animals are also over populated. Nobody bats an eye if you kill mice, rabbits, raccoons, wild pigs or deer in the parts of the US where they are serious problems to the agriculture industry and they are often threats to public health. Poisoning, kill-traps and shooting is very common. (except for mice, we don't shoot mice)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
More to the point, if pandas start to steal food from humans (yes, I know they wouldn't, it is just an example), we wouldn't wipe them out as a 'pest'. You have to take into account the fact that pandas are critically endangered. That said, I believe vervet monkeys are far less endangered than pandas, so it might make sense to allow some reasonable action against them.
How on earth you make a link between corperations and road side gangs stealing food is a theory i truly need to hear for my own amusment.
lastly, i'd like to point out that it's YOU that's the insensitive one. how the fuck can you sit there and propose that a poor farming afican community should go with LESS FOOD so that the monkeys are ok, and still claim the moral high ground, i'll never know. As CLEARLY stated in the article, they already tried their best to just scare the monkeys off (which i'm in favour of if it works). I suggest you get a little perspective and lose the aggorance.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
*sigh* That actually seems like a valid question.
If the article is rigth, then the monkeys are threathening the food-supply of the villagers. This ain't a "minor" problem. Taking care of the environment is important, but that doesn't mean self-defence ain't allowed.
Norway, for example, has in general very strict hunting-regulations, mosts predators are completely legally protected. That does, however, not mean that a farmer isn't allowed to defend his animals. By lethal force if nessecary. The moment a bear starts attacking your dog, cow or sheep, you're in your perfect rigth to shoot it dead.
Non-lethal is better offcourse, but in any case the monkeys need to learn that human food-supply and humans themselves are not to be messed with. Philosophical dicussion is unlikely to convince them, they need to have negative experiences. A problem is that the monkeys are large enough to be potentially dangerous, most non-lethal defence-systems would be risky for the women to employ. An electric cattle-prod for example would certainly teach the monkeys a lesson, but you need to be very close, close enough that you won't get away if the monkey goes for an all-out attack. Quite possibly, as from the description it doesn't appear the monkeys have much fear.
right, didn't think so.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
its dead simple why we have to come up with a more mutually beneficial solution.
check out the evolution process.
when you dig around, you will see that its not being tougher or stronger or more aggressive that propels some species into higher evolutionary stages, but cooperation, mutually beneficial acts WITHIN the social structure of the species and with the other species. lets now examine examples :
stellar example - humans. the evolution of humans have gone parallel to their capacity of being cooperative within the specie or even the social unit, and therefore besting out dangers and dire situations. caring for the weak, protecting the infant, nurturing the needy were the strengths that allowed the early primate societies to be able to go into playing with this and that and come up with tools that were eventually to be used in survival.
lets get it further - humans have established mutually beneficial relations with many other species and caused both parties to thrive - wheat might be one of the most abundant plant specie on the face of the earth, and this is solely due to human dependence on them. same goes for cattle. they are protected, and they give out something in return. there are kinks to work out as to the degree of mutually beneficialness because we slaughter the cattle in parts of the relationship, but as with recent human history this will be evolving into a more mutually benefical relationship too.
taking human near history - in the last 2000 years, wars and aggressive acts have decreased in FREQUENCY and distribution to geography - compared to what it was before and after a brief stellar period during rome, you do not have any chance of a local raider living 100 km to you to come raid you, rape your wife and take your child as slave. therefore in the last 2000 years we have seen an increasingly consistent level of civilizational development. again, excluding rome, which is a real anomaly in regard to history - in that the modern concepts we still use are taken from rome, from the concept of apartment to modern law, and even medicine in parts.
you can increase examples just as you wish - there are seemingly weak fish and lobster species in the ocean that live together, one is acting as sentry and other is digging the hole both will live in. they never go further from each other than 10 cm. yet, in an ocean of many dangers, these two species best out many other species and thrive despite when compared to other species as a single unit, they should be long extinct. or the jellyfish - bacteria mutualism in southeastern asia.
therefore, it is conclusive that the acts which mutually benefit a specie and the other continually elevates the chances of both species. from this comes the conclusion that "we are further advanced since we need to find a less aggressive, more beneficial way". acting otherwise have brought many problems to the modern world, that are making the worldwide news today.
Read radical news here
But they're only black African savages, so it's "funny".
At first I thought this was a scam or a joke. But then I noticed the source at the bottom of the article. And it is one of the most credible news sources there is: BBC.
It would have been better if the article linked to that, rather than to some, at least to me, rather obscure blogger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6959209.stm
nay, maybe i miscommunicated. or did not explain all parts of my point.
apex of evolution need not and should not be being on top of food chain. apex of evolution would be to be the governing body of a living, breathing, entirely integrated ecosphere of mutual relationships - no species grinding each other down by killing, yet every specie using byproduct of one or more species' activities. that would eliminate the instinct/gene to breed rapidly in many species too, like rabbits. is this possible ? yes. evolutionary history says so - a few billion years ago there were species that even ate their own species, leave aside others, yet today cannibalism is something that is rarely seen in species and our ecosphere is much more mild and plausible, and cooperative within itself than the ancient ecosphere of live and let die. if no stellar disasters happen to nuke earth ecosystem into oblivion, things will progress in that direction apparently.
in such an environment that would be the result of this process, impossible is possible. it would be possible to terraform land using other species, and tap untapped resources.
actually the abundance would get so overboard that noone would know what to do with the excess resources around.
Read radical news here
I do? Where? Whatever Kuwait's faults, Iraq was, actually, worse. But that's internal to each country — as long as they keep it internal. We might criticize them, but we would not invade on the grounds of "poor government". Even in the face of genocide (as in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur), we'd be dragging our feet agonizing over the non-interference principles.
No, it is unbelievably stupid to allege, that "stealing oil" was our reason. Only the least-educated of the "Arab street" think so... If this really were our motivation, we would've taken over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (both governed by rather unpleasant regimes, BTW). And, of course, something as desperate as Congo would've been an even lower-hanging fruit (would've been good for them, actually).
But no, that was not our reason — these days natural resources are much easier bought that stolen.
He did? Khmm... I don't know anything about your family, unfortunately. Nor do I know another American, whose dad was explicitly and deliberately targeted by Saddam Hussein. No, our reasons were simpler — Saddam attacked our ally (in 1991), we drove him out and ceased fire — pretty much on the board. We would not even help the hapless Shia, who rose up expecting our help (that foot-dragging was America's shame too).
But Saddam has violated many items of the peace agreement — he initially promised to destroy those (in)famous WMDs within 12 months, for example, but still had them in 1997 and some remnants were even found in 2003-4. He also continued to sponsor terrorism against our other ally — Israel — to the tune of $10K for each suicide bombing (the last payouts were given out a month before our invasion). His ground forces continued to attack our patrolling planes. List of smaller violations (such accounting for all Kuwaiti prisoners) is longer...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.