Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Zoo Attempts To Mate Female Rhino With Her Brother For Species Survival
An anonymous reader writes "Unfortunately for the Sumatran rhino the fate of the species may boil down to a plan by the Cincinnati Zoo to breed their lone female with her little brother. 'We absolutely need more calves for the population as a whole; we have to produce as many as we can as quickly as we can,' said Terri Roth, who heads the zoo's Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife. 'The population is in sharp decline and there's a lot of urgency around getting her pregnant.'"
It's come to this!
I hate humans...
If it was good enough for the pharaohs, it's good enough for the rhinos.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
but was ignominiously rejected.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Roth, who began working on the rhino project in 1996, said it took years just to understand their eating habits and needs and decades more to understand their mating patterns. The animals tend not to be interested in companionship, let alone romance.
Oh. I think I see the connection to Slashdot now.
Sorry, no.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6
I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, please to explain how humanity got beyond the second generation without incest.
They were not the first two humans.
Contrary to what your local pastor may have told you, the bible says no such thing. Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.
Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.
There is much more to be said here, and much more potential insight to be gained, but since I doubt you are interested in more than the immediate question specifically insofar as it helps you reject theism and no farther, I'll leave that for another day.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
CREW biologists jerked off the rhino while he gorged himself. Pretty much any man's dream, right?
I'm just spitballing here, but you wouldn't happen to be a woman would you?
HERECY! GOD DID NOT CREATE ANY OTHER FIRST HUMANS BESIDE ADAM AND EVE.
on a side note, the imagination of religious nutjobs in order to avoid embarrassment, always amazes me.
A University Of Sarcasm Diploma.
He's a pastor. He downloaded a certificate to prove it.
Learn to love Alaska
Dude, give it up: Genesis 1 and 2 are already blatantly contradictory. You can insert unspoken context to change any fairytale into something vaguely consistent if you want, and tell me that God's just testing me because I refuse to re-interpret so it makes sense, but the fact is that it's just a playful fantasy written by someone was probably too high to review their notes.
Can be the backup plan if incest doesn't work. The only disadvantage would be that a viable eliphino would make the joke less funny.
exactly. "i got butthurt therefore i pointed out a spelling error". epic fail.
Well, the context isn't "unspoken", it's directly written, and it in no way is a fairytale, but rather allegory, but...
Just one word of advice, don't read George Orwell's Animal Farm.
You won't be able to hear people explaining it was political insights you were supposed to be taking away from it, over the sound of your head exploding about the symbolism.
Well, yeah, I understand you won't start lying about being unable to understand it isn't about talking pigs, unless Orwell started impeding your personal behavioral whims in some way, but still...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I ask as a person who cares about the environment. I strongly feel humans should have a smaller footprint and stop damaging the environment.
However, we seem to be spending a small fortune on the last few members of a species. Whatever ecological roles the rhinos might have played would have been filled (or the entire ecosystem would have changed faster than usual, possibly not-in-a-good-way).
Shouldn't we be spending that money for conservation where the damage isn't this extensive? In a while, maybe by cloning or using frozen sperms/eggs, we might be able to revive the species.
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation. You are in so doing off the topic of my point.
My stance is that humans existed before Adam and Eve. I have provided scientific and scriptural reasons for this stance.
You are then asserting other things about my supposed stance I never said. Quite seriously, what is your objective here?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Forgive me, but I'd like to ask a reasonable, well thought-out question. From looking at the other threads, I feel it may be out of place here. Anyway...
Do rhinos breed with siblings in the wild? I know some mammals do, and some don't.
If rhinos do, then I don't see any problem with doing the same in captivity. They would be evolved to better handle the results of inbreeding.
If they don't, then it seems not only unlikely to work (unless done artificially), but also unlikely to be a viable way to propagate the species.
The brother was humping his sister, when she said "you fuck much better than dad." He then replied "yeah, mom said the same."
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here.
The discussion of the garden begins in verse 8. You're still on verse 5, dude. Read through the whole of Genesis 2. It's repeating several events which have already occurred in Genesis 1. Likely two different adaptations of the same fairytale. Perhaps the authors had a disagreement?
My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.
And better students of the book than you have decided time and time again that Genesis contains multiple creation stories. Most likely, then, is that the Bible is an often vague set of fairytales ("allegories") with no real concern for consistency or clarity - clarity's a dangerous thing in religion. Least likely is that the Bible is a perfect, divine word which happens to require contorted interpretations in order to make perfectly connected sense.
2) Bringing up sets isn't going to convince anyone.
3) OK, what do Genesis 1&2 symbolise, please?
4) Having reviewed your language a second time, and compared it with the advice given in your special book, I'm pretty sure you're going to Hell.
How people who are so thrilled with the idea of Darwinian survival are so concerned about extinction.
The two are inextricably linked.
> Show your proof they didn't exist.
There you have why it ain't scientific.
Nice try, though.
Well, WTF is herecy, anyway? Would that be one of Heracle's cousins? His little sister? Did Hercules bang his little sister then? HERESY I SAY!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yes, CREW biologists jerked off the rhino while he gorged himself. Pretty much any man's dream, right?
Yeah, those lucky lucky biologists.
Several species have "successfully been conserved in captivity" up to the point that no zoo wants any more of them. They are effectively killing animals and doing global birth control on these species in captivity, while the natural population is so small that they lack even genetic diversity to be viable enough to reliably survive extinction. Given these fact, you'd say they would reintroduce captive bread animals in the wild. This never happens and never will, unless they are going to change a lot of things. First of all, captive release is extremely costly, nobody wants to foot the bill for a reintroduction program of Black's Rhino. Second of all, captive animals may have diseases that could in theory threaten wild animals, even animals of different species. For that reason, nobody will permit these animals to be released in the wild, or have them interbreed with wild animals.
Zoos are nothing but the living equivalent of a postage stamp collection. All these breeding programs are nice for fellow stamp collectors, but will never ever help wild populations with genetic diversity or just plain extra animals. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. If we and our kids can't actually go to a zoo and watch these poor caged animals, we wouldn't give enough about them to actually fund some (often rather futile) attempts of saving the habitat of the wild version of what we just fed a bag of peanuts.
Unless the above changes and animals are actually released in the wild on a regular basis, incestuous cross breeding Sumatran rhinos in a Zoo won't help the extinction of these animals a single bit. I suggest we find a solution for this first, before we risk Down Syndrome Rhinos in our Zoos.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Your arrogance is astounding. You're so slow on the uptake that you still have a childish belief in the supernatural, and you pretend to be superior to those who have grown out of their superstitious beliefs. Spinning additional stories in support of fairy-tales, to keep yourself from realizing that you've been deeply delusional, is insanity.
I'm betting that the offspring will look like Jim Carrey.
You mean by reading for oneself and not putting too much faith in the versions of the bible the church wants you to have access to and then on top of that King James interpretation of that word.
I'll stick with Darwin thanks. At least his theories can be proven or dis-proven.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!