All posts by meganimals17

Comment on More than just a pile of bones by meganimals17

I agree that the human race was destined to prevail no matter what, but I do not agree with Dunn’s general reason for it. His claim is bold and intriguing, but he does not go on to support why we magically became top dog. I see your point that genetically, we as humans have many advantages, but I do not feel that Dunn supports his theory with that as well. We each have personal beliefs about how humans became the dominant species, and I wish Dunn would have gone further in describing and supporting his. Overall though, he is a respectable writer and brings up important issues.

Comment on Postdomesticity: Making up your own word doesn’t mean you should write a book about it by meganimals17

I concur about this book being somewhat difficult to follow. My post reflected on it as a very abstract history lesson, linking (somewhat mindlessly) the domestication of animals to human sexuality and violence. While he does support his claims with various examples of the time periods (hence my history lesson title), he could be throwing around claims he has either assumed or completely made up. I think it’s accurate, genius, and hilarious that you pointed out his basing an entire novel off a term he coined himself. While reading it, I felt skeptical of his overgeneralized claims that the level of domesticity accounts for the sexual preferences of society. He brings up interesting and unique points, but I too had to keep re-reading until I finally got what he was trying to say. He also failed to include specific dates, such as when he described Utopia, and I would really like to know exactly where he gets his information from. I have probably never heard of some of these periods, such as the one of open bestiality, due to the taboo nature of the topic, but I do not understand how he seems to know the sexual history of society. Furthermore, he does not always define which area of the world he is referring to; did the whole world act this way? He will say things like the farmers of “blank,” but what about everywhere else? I liked the beginning of the first chapter when he referred to specific time periods readers are familiar with, such as the late 60′s (1969 to be exact), but he becomes more ambiguous and complex after those first few paragraphs. Do not think I don’t find this book interesting or insightful, I just agree that SOME of his claims are a little shady and pretty overgeneralized.

Comment on Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers… A unique and intriguing, but somewhat uncomfortable history lesson by meganimals17

I see your point that for the time period specifically, that viewpoint on slavery would not seem adverse or uncommon. However, I still am baffled by the concept of slavery at all and just wanted to point out an example of the mentality behind slavery. That slightly makes a difference that some of the slaves were in fact criminals, that was a really good point, and I will look further into that!
I agree that there have to be a multitude of factors contributing to the replacement of blatant animal sex with an increase in fantasized sex. He makes some valid statements that support his argument well, but the extent to which he attributes the domestication of animals to social normalcies is a bit excessive. Many factors such as the type of government, the type of labor (which he somewhat mentions), the level of schooling, the extent of religious beliefs, etc. would most likely contribute largely to the sexual trends of the time period

Comment on WEEK 1 – READINGS by meganimals17

I do side with your viewpoint on disagreeing that “a calorie is a calorie,” in the reading on Energy. From a fitness standpoint, many would argue that actually counting calories does not produce the dramatic weight loss many seek. Why? In my personal opinion, the body requires a balanced diet, not solely based on the input and output of energy, but the proteins, vitamins, grains, etc. necessary for our growth and development. This applies much to the environment, not everything is used efficiently. As a matter of fact, only 10% of the energy remains as it travels up the food chain, so how can that one calorie come out as one calorie in the end? The basic math does not support this generic statement on energy flow. I also love how involved your post was; it covered various topics in an organized fashion and provided us with a visual to accompany our readings. However, I disagree with your claim that the passage treats humans as an exception to basic evolution. I thought that of the Dunn’s passage, when he stated humans chose to (as some would say) “claim our right” to the top of the food chain, but I found a contrasting viewpoint in the Energy article. One point on page 93 suggests that we co-evolved with the other animals, which in my opinion, puts us in the same gene pool as them. It also would suggest that we depend on the animals to prosper both in natural selection and in the modern world, which brings us to the point of the class; the relationship between man and animal.

Comment on WEEK 1 – READINGS by meganimals17

I do side with your viewpoint on disagreeing that “a calorie is a calorie,” in the reading on Energy. From a fitness standpoint, many would argue that actually counting calories does not produce the dramatic weight loss many seek. Why? In my personal opinion, the body requires a balanced diet, not solely based on the input and output of energy, but the proteins, vitamins, grains, etc. necessary for our growth and development. This applies much to the environment, not everything is used efficiently. As a matter of fact, only 10% of the energy remains as it travels up the food chain, so how can that one calorie come out as one calorie in the end? The basic math does not support this generic statement on energy flow. I also love how involved your post was; it covered various topics in an organized fashion and provided us with a visual to accompany our readings. However, I disagree with your claim that the passage treats humans as an exception to basic evolution. I thought that of the Dunn’s passage, when he stated humans chose to (as some would say) “claim our right” to the top of the food chain, but I found a contrasting viewpoint in the Energy article. One point on page 93 suggests that we co-evolved with the other animals, which in my opinion, puts us in the same gene pool as them. It also would suggest that we depend on the animals to prosper both in natural selection and in the modern world, which brings us to the point of the class; the relationship between man and animal.