The Monster

Celestial had a few posts about the coming of human-animal hybrids, where they’ll be used as weapons of some sort. She pointed out about the coming of human-pig chimeras, given pigs are commonly used in science and medicine as a proxy for humans. So much so that pig implants are oftentimes compatible with human bodies, but successfully creating a pig-human chimera is another ballpark altogether. That American scientists will experiment on animals (even ducks) to make them talk like humans is pretty frightening, even if there’s already an Australian duck species that does that without their tinkering.

They are playing God because they don’t trust and respect God, if God is the one who created humans and animals then they really don’t respect his action of creation and care for life at all. There is a Bible verse somewhere stating that humans are wise and good if they take care of their animals, that God will use any animal to either help humans such as ravens feeding Elijah, teach humans about something when he made a donkey talk or act as comeuppance whenever humans sin such as the time Jezebel got eaten alive by dogs is something only he can do.

Celestial had other prophecies but concerning artificially grown humans where she said that they’ll not go to Heaven because the way they’re made is an affront to the Lord, if humans are created in his image then they’re not going to Heaven at all despite their good actions. Only God knows the heart, true thoughts and intentions of people. Another person at another website had a prophecy of both humans (especially Christians) and dogs going to Heaven suggest that God will spare a remnant from something worse, though I think this would also apply to any other animal like cats for instance.

Somebody commented somewhere on YouTube that they had a vision of a tiger in Heaven, so animals go to Heaven because even if they seemingly do bad things they don’t really sin the way humans do so they go there immediately. So human-animal chimeras are never going to Heaven because they too are abominations in the eyes of the Lord, only he can create life and recreate it if you ask him to. The emergence of human-animal hybrids, especially in warfare, would be frightening to behold that biotechnology would be advanced enough to allow these things to happen.

That Americans will lose their sense of bioethics when they create them will certainly anger animal rights activists and the like.

Monster Mash

Celestial had a prophecy where America genetically engineers future soldiers to be chimeras of humans and nonhuman animals, chimeras are pretty much organisms that contain two different sets of DNA. Though they do occur in nature and if God created nature, then he could also create chimeras if he wanted to. But this is not your ordinary chimera, these are ones deliberately created by biotechnology for military purposes. They are living weapons of mass destruction, one engineered by technological advancements. If it’s not enough to enhance pure human beings, then finding ways of mixing human and animal DNA would.

She mentions soldiers that are human-dog chimeras, human-wolf chimeras, human-cat chimeras and human-pig chimeras but these are not the only ones around, I think there could be more of them constructed from both human and non-carnivore, non-porcine DNA with the same purpose. Whereas ordinary organisations and institutions would use humans trained in espionage equipped with the right technology to aid them, the US will engineer human-mustelid chimeras to do the job and I think this would be really horrifying to see an actual human-animal hybrid come into being. Or at least the closest thing to it as they are chimeras, but it’s generally the same thing in some regards.

While artists have always dreamt of different ways of creating human-animal hybrids, be it kemonomimis (anatomically human with the bare minimum of nonhuman animal traits) or anthropomorphism the way furries do it, the emergence of human-animal chimeras as used by the US military will be the first time people will see actual human-animal hybrids in the flesh. I have no idea what they would actually look like, as the technology has yet to emerge let alone in the form Celestial is describing. But it would no longer be the realm of flight of fancy when a human-animal chimera does come to fruition.

The way I think it would be played out in the future, the US army will deploy human-canid chimeras for tracking, human-felid chimeras for stealth, human-bear chimeras for sheer carnage and so on. It’s as if the prophecy about Mystery Babylon being surrounded by detestable, monstrous birds is true in some way that some of those chimeras are human-bird chimeras. I think they’d be really frightening to behold if they ever become a thing in the future, albeit not in ways artists have ever imagined even if they come close at various points. It wouldn’t be science fiction anymore, when this ever becomes science fact.

The odd possibility of America ever deploying those in warfare, especially against its enemies is frightening to consider. Especially given the way America repeatedly defies God, tries to play him when it wants something done and so on that it’s really going to be either wiped out or forgotten in due time. I have no idea what these human-animal chimeras would actually look like if they really do exist in real life, since Celestial said that they might already be a reality but they’re hidden from public view. It would be like the Island of Doctor Moreau where the titular character grafts human traits onto animals, except this would be genetically engineered.

They wouldn’t be people in animal costumes either, I think they might really look frightening and unusual if somebody ever photographed them. But they will be revealed in due time, especially as America finds a way to try to remain a superpower longer when it’s going to fend itself from its enemies.

Invasive species: what you should know

An invasive species is any introduced species with a negative impact on the environment, whether if it’s predation, pathogenesis, hybridisation or competition over food and prey. To put it this way, when it comes to the entire continent of Africa all dogs, pigs, chickens, cattle and horses are introduced but only the dog is invasive in that it has not only introduced a disease that severely reduced the lion population but also prey on native wildlife such as Barbary macaques in Morocco and Vervet monkeys in Uganda.

Dogs are even considered an invasive species in South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina, that’s not to say they hate dogs (actually a lot of Brazilians and Argentinians own dogs themselves). It’s just that there’s more awareness of what they do to the environments than with North Americans. But the thing here’s that if dogs do have a negative impact on the environment, then they’d rightfully be considered an invasive species regardless of the mental gymnastics you say to prove otherwise.

Then there are the invasive species that are endangered or near-threatened in the old world but invasive in the new world, that’s the European rabbit in Australia and Argentina. At home in Spain and Europe in general, it’s near-threatened but in Australia and Argentina where there’s not much threat from predators they not only spread rapidly but also harm the environment by eating vulnerable plant species and destroying the native soil there. I’m not saying rabbits are bad and like dogs, they’re fine animals in their own right but they’re also invasive.

When it comes to combating the impact of invasive species, one of the methods used is hunting and another is poisoning but this is met with controversy among some characters. While a humane method is possible to an extent, the neutered animal’s still capable of destroying the environment so another method used is to keep the pet indoors. My wish is that people need to stop walking their dogs outdoors so that they won’t harm the environment whenever they prey on vulnerable species.

Somewhere there’s even a study where people who walk their dogs risk endangering some bird species and there are news reports of dogs hunting wildlife whenever their owners aren’t looking, which suggests that dogs really do have a negative impact on the environment. Yes, dogs can be used to combat invasive species but they can become one themselves when the opportunity arises. When it comes to invasive species, they can take many forms and sometimes the use of them starts out as rather noble or understandable.

Rabbits and foxes were first introduced to Australia for the sake of game hunting (hunting for sport), likewise cats and dogs are introduced for pest control and guarding. Once feral or let loose, their populations go out of hand and wreck havoc on the environment when they do eat or prey on vulnerable species. Despite liking animals, this is a sad fact of life when invasive species like cats and dogs are around. But we must confront this subject matter if we were to save vulnerable species from them.

Another look at wolf-human interactions

When it comes to wolves and humans, while there’s no doubt these interactions do exist yet attitudes to wolves vary from culture to culture and between individuals and sometimes these attitudes exist in perplexing ways (perplexing for some people). In the case with the Middle East, while Turks and Turkic people revered the wolf the same can’t be said of Iranians where they mistrust it. At some point, Iranians believed that wolves were the creation of Ahriman as the evil counterpart of dogs (which are good animals) hence why they’re similar. (This belief long predated scientific discovery that dogs are wolves.)

Wolves were despised for stealing livestock, while dogs are valued for guarding them. While this isn’t unique to Iranians since some people have similar feelings towards dogs and wolves, but it does give a good insight into what their cultural beliefs are like and why Middle Easterners aren’t all alike when it comes to attitudes to wolves. (For another matter Muslims since some Muslims are very sympathetic to dogs, especially with the Sufis.) While the Middle East’s also another place where dogs were first domesticated, yet attitudes to wolves aren’t universally favourable.

If the ancient Iranians are any indication, even if dogs come from wolves that doesn’t explain why Zoroastrian Iranians mistrust wolves who see them as evil copies of dogs. Either the dog’s imported from elsewhere or that like with the Chinese, Iranians mistrust wolves on some level despite being related to the dog. Consider the Chinese and Japanese, while the Japanese historically loved wolves and the word for wolf contains a word or character for deity, the same can’t be said of the Chinese where they have negative proverbs about wolves.

And that the Chinese word for pervert contains the character for wolf, while proverbs about dogs are more ambivalent (not always favourable but still tolerated). My understanding’s that with both Iranians and Chinese, dogs are tolerated at best for being useful but there’s not much practical use for wolves so they mistrust them a lot even if that’s not case for other animals. But it makes better sense in that animals are treated and regarded differently if there’s any practical use for them.

Cultural and individual attitudes to animals aren’t universal, the point of anthropology’s to study a culture from its own perspective and nearly free from a projected bias. While you might say that wolves are selected to be wild due to persecution, it’s really not that simple in real life where as what some people say or rather imply the bolder wolves get persecuted for going near livestock and human habitation. Dogs also get persecuted, not just for attacking animals but also for their link to witchcraft at some point for some cultures and in some countries.

Retrieverman’s reasoning doesn’t explain why semi-feral dogs exist and why some people allow their dogs to roam freely and why some dogs hunt on their own despite being trained and owned, which means dog domestication isn’t that straightforward as it should be. Wolf-human interactions are complex, but not always for reasons you think it is.

Who cares?

There aren’t that many people, even those who’re into animals (well at least most of them) who’re concerned about the lives of smaller, less charismatic species (let alone non-mammals). The uncharismatic species frequently get overlooked in favour of the showier animals, so while one could argue about closeness to humans it can still be unfair to animals that aren’t that charismatic. Not many people care about amphibians, even though they’re very endangered and risk becoming extinct.

Nor do many people care about reptiles. though I could be guilty of the same thing at some point. But the thing here is that there’s a bias against the less charismatic animals even by those in the know that risk being unfair to the less popular species of the animal kingdom. How many people care about a frog that risks being endangered by logging, habitat loss or killed by other animals? How many people ever give a damn about cloud rats?

The tendency to ignore these animals, even if they might be important to the environment especially when they do disperse seeds in the ground or something like that, can be wrong especially if these animals risk being extinct one way or another but they keep on getting ignored in favour of the more charismatic animals that it’s wrong. If only more people cared about them, we could preserve more species this way if only we stopped ignoring the rodents and frogs among us.

The Irish Naturalist, Volumes 30-31

The Irish Naturalist, Volumes 30-31
The Irish Naturalist,

November.

THE EARLIEST IRISH ZOOLOGIST.

BY R. F. SCHARFF.

We possess only a few fragmentary notes on the animals
that inhabited Ireland in ancient historical times. From
these no idea can be formed of the composition of our
fauna as a whole at that period, although the cave researches
have yielded some clues as to the larger animals which
existed in this country along with the old inhabitants.
The two earliest references to Irish animals both date from
the gth century. By^far the most interesting of these is
what may almost be called a zoological poem written in
Irish, which was translated by Mr. Eugene Curry and
incorporated in a paper by Sir William Wilde. ^ This poem
contains the names of dozens of animals, some of which
have never been identified. The second reference is rather
vague and negative. St. Donatus, who died in the year
840, asserts that the bear, lion, snake and ” noisy frog ”
did not exist in Ireland. Still even this meagre information
is of some value.

About 300 years later (in the 12th century) Giraldus
Cambrensis visited Ireland and describes several animals
which he saw. It is interesting to note that he does not
mention the bear, which we know must have been extremely
abundant at the time when the Reindeer and Irish Elk
lived in this country. We may assume therefore that it
had already died out in the 12th century.

A much older note on the Irish fauna — like the others
it is very fragmentary — does not appear to have been
noticed before by Irish zoologists. It is a short reference
by an Irish monk called Augustine dating from the 7th
century. Nothing is known of his life or abode except his
being of Irish origin. The value of his essay from a
zoological point of view far exceeds anything written in
the course of many centuries after his death for he attempted
to solve problems which were not revived until about a
hundred years ago.

1 Wilde, W. : ” Upon the unmanufactured Animal Remains belonging
to the Academy.” — Proc. R. Irish Acad., vol. vii,, i860.

I92I. ScHARFF. — The Earliest Irish Zoologist. 129

The writings of this remarkable Irish monk were
pubhshed as an appendix to the third volume of the collected
works of Saint Augustine, because they were formerly
ascribed to that eminent divine. The volumes made their
appearance in Paris in 1837 and the appendix is entitled
” De mirahilihus sacrae scripturae lihri tres.” The
manuscript is known to have been written by ” August inus
hibernus ” as he is sometimes called, in the year 655.^

In the first part or book the author comments on the
creation of heaven and earth, of the beasts, birds and fishes,
and of man. He then dwells on the nature of the flood
and on the accommodation provided for the beasts and
birds in the ark. His acute observations tend to show
that he was a keen naturalist who carefully pondered over
all the difficulties connected with the biblical account of
the origin of our fauna. I may be excused for quoting the
exact Latin words of the author as in some cases I may
have mistaken their correct rendering in English. On
page 2726 the discussion is continued as follows : —

” De animalibus quoque quae nec in terra tantum, nec in aqua tantum
vivere possunt, quaestio vertitur, quomodo diluvium evaserunt, quales
sunt lutri, vituli marini, et multum avium genera, quae in aquis escarum
suarum victum requirunt, sed in arena dormiunt et nutriuntur, et
requiescunt. Si ergo area includerentur sine aquarum adjumento vivere
non possent : et si extra arcam remanerant, aquis universa tegentibus,
ubi requiescerent quomodo haberent ? ”

In other words Augustine was puzzled how such animals
as the otter and the seal fared during the flood. If a pair
of each had been taken into the ark they could not have
lived, he thinks, without an ample supply of water. If
they remained outside where and in what manner did they
survive the flood ?

. What next follows constitutes the most interesting part
of Augustine’s speculations, for it directty concerns the
Irish fauna and its origin. Many pages of the Irish
Naturalist’ contain discussions on this subject, and it has
been the principal aim of the writers to show that many
of the animals now existing in Ireland could only have
reached this country by means of a former land connection

1 1 am indebted to Mr. de Burgh of the Trinity College Library for
permission to study this valuable work.

130

The Irish Naturalist,

November,

with Great Britain. It is assumed also that the latter
country was united by land with the continent. The two
islands would then have formed together a great promontory
of the continent. These ideas were considered as altogether
modern, and it was never dreamt of that an Irish monk
could have held those views more than a thousand years
ago. Yet such is the fact.

Augustine continues on page 2730 : —

” Unde etiam insulas quae ab initio conditi orbis ut multi affirmant
non fuerant, processu temporis faciunt, dum propinqua promontoria
marini finibus a continenti terra dividunt.”

I would take this sentence to mean that although many
writers asserted that islands did not originally exist they
no doubt were formed by promontories becoming detached
from the mainland through marine action. In this manner
he explains how animals which were originally members of
a continental fauna came to be found on islands.

” Per quod intelligitur, quod illae ferae quae insularum orbibus
includuntur non ; humana diligentia devectae, sed in ilia divisione
insularum a continenti terra repertae esse probantur. Quis enim, verbi
gratia, lupos, cervos et sylvaticos porcos, et vulpes, taxones et lepusculos
et sesquivolos in Hiberniam deveheret ? ”

I beheve I am right in translating these two sentences
as follows : — It must therefore be assumed that the wild
animals now found on islands have not been conveyed
there by human agency. Who indeed could have brought
wolves, deer, wild swine, foxes, badgers and little hares to
Ireland ? x\ugustine was evidently not in favour of the
view, maintained by some writers until quite recently, that
the Irish fauna was introduced by man. Fortunately he
had heard nothing about the Glacial Period which, according
to some geologists, completely \\dped out the previously
existing animals of Ireland. The passage in Augustine’s
writings is of importance as a contribution to Irish natural
history in showing that six kinds of large animals inhabited
Ireland when he wrote this account in the year 655. Wolves
and wild swine are now extinct in Ireland. Deer no longer
roam about the country, although it is believed that some
of the descendants of the old wild stock still Hve in the

192T. ScHARFF. — The Earliest Irish Zoologist. 131

large demesnes near Killarney. Only foxes, badgers and
hares are still with us. If the term ” lepusculus ” refers
to the rabbit it would indicate that this animal is probably
indigenous. I cannot imagine why the author should
have used this word if he meant ” hare/’ as the ordinary
Latin word is ” lepus ” not ” lepusculus ” which stands for
leveret or little hare. What Augustine wished to convey
by the word ” sesquivolos ” is not clear to me. ” More than
half-fiying ” animals might be the correct rendering of this
word, which I cannot find in any dictionary. As I was
writing this review of Augustine’s essays Prof. Henry
pointed out to me that the late Bishop Reeves had published
an account of this eminent Irish monk.^ On consulting
this paper I find that the Bishop had alluded to the sentence
just referred to and had translated ” lepusculus ” by hare
and ” sesquivolos ” by rabbits or weasels. In a footnote
Bishop Reeves acknowledges that the last word occurs
nowhere else, and while translating it as above he submits
the suggestion that it might have been squirolus ”
denoting a squirrel. Indeed it is quite possible that the
original word in Augustine’s manuscript was wrongly
transcribed. In any case I scarcely think we are justified
in translating the word by either rabbit or weasel. Bishop
Reeves treated Augustine’s essays from a standpoint rather
different from my own. He was more concerned with the
writer’s originality of thought and intimate acquaintance
with sacred literature and expressed the opinion that from
a theological point of view Augustine’s essay is the most
interesting relique of Irish learning.

A Swedish author, Mr. Nils von Hofsten,^ refers to the
writings of the Irish Augustinus, as he calls him, in the
most glowing terms and speaks of him as having been the
first to explain the discontinuous distribution of animals
by the assumption of a former land connection between
territories that are at present separated.

1 Reeves, Rev. William : ” On Augustin, an Irish wTiter of the
seventh century.” — Proc. Royal Irish Academy, vol. vii, 1861.

iNils von Hofsten : ” Zur alteren Geschichte des Diskontinuitats-
problems in der Biogeographie. ” — Zoologische Annalen, vol. vii., 1916,

132

The Irish Naturalist.

November,

A man of the type of Augustine might have told us a
great deal more about the Irish fauna. It is unfortunate
he did not do so. He does not mention the Bear as still
existing in Ireland in the year 655. The Deer he alludes
to were presumably Red Deer, for it is probable that both
the Reindeer and Irish Elk had already been exterminated.
It would be interesting to know what the wild swine were
like. It is certain that fierce wild boars inhabited the
ancient Irish forests, and we are told also that small
so-called wild swine abounded in the woods in the 12th
century. The latter I believe were not truly wild swine
but the feral descendants of an old domesticated stock.
All these and many other zoological questions might have
been answered by Augustine, who had a rare capacity for
observation and was endowed with a surprising amount of
learning and knowledge.

Knockranny, Bray.

Kind of refuge for the awkward

Though this isn’t always the case as one could be socially inept and not be so super into animals to whatever degree, but it seems for some people nonhuman animals seem more appealing by the virtue of having more simplified societies. Maybe not entirely that simplified as primates are known to make tools, so do some dingo dogs and I did have a cat that tried to get food by forcing a container to open or something. But still more simplified than the human version.

Especially when it comes to rules (predictably accompanied by scolding whenever somebody screws up) and beliefs, including taboos. Not that nonhuman animals don’t scold at all but not when human societies have stricter rules on behaviour it does feel suffocating for some. At some point it was highly taboo to make fun of a deity or use their name in vain. Some human societies go secular but the complexity of rules hasn’t disappeared.

Only this time it’s aimed at not offending certain demographics, whether it’s if the rape jokes, the racist stereotyping, homophobia or fat-shaming. The new boss’s the same as the old boss. Nonhuman animal societies, even if they get complex or have religious tendencies (especially with some primates) are still very simple. They can scold or fight but other times it’s pooping, peeing, eating, hunting, scavenging and by chance, mating and caring for offspring and others.

Rinse, wash and repeat. Humans do the same or similar things but there’s also lots of rules, beliefs, customs and problems complicating things. Something like expecting somebody else to not only care for their children but also parent the latter the right way and not to lose their cool real badly. That and taking children to good schools, being made to set an example, making children’s stuff and the like. Ad infinitum.

(As for the mating thing, sex was sometimes intended to accompany marriage as to raise the next generation with any degree of arrangement whenever a couple marries at all. Especially with added obligations should they marry at will.)

Nonhuman animal societies are appealing to some marginalised characters if unconsciously because they’re highly simplified. Nearly free of taboo and complications that are part of human societies. Even if they anthropomorphise said beasts, their societies still pale in comparison to those of humans. If humans are the highest form of animals, they deserve to be and have very complicated societies to boot.

Whatever the degree of technological and cultural advancement, it’s still kilometres ahead of their animal counterparts.

Human Complexity, Animal Simplicity

Admittedly my knowledge of animals isn’t that great though I think it goes without saying that even if some animal societies get complex, it pales in comparison to their human counterpart. Especially given that human societies tend to have rules, beliefs, customs, problems and taboos that complicate things. Homosexuality was at some point stigmatised but even among gay communities (at least to my knowledge) there are still rules and problems.

Though there are drag queens and twinks, there are also bears (as in hairy, fat men), otters (hairy skinny men) and muscle Marys as well as outliers like Mr Stephen Fry (though he might not be the only one). Despite this, there’s considerable pressure to be really straight-passing and highly masculine at that. The more masculine a man is, the more sexualised he gets in the gay community leading to all sorts of problems.

Things like masc4masc, people of certain ethnicities detesting such fetishisations and drag queens being marginalised by the wider gay community. They also can’t stand drag queens who pass as women. That’s practically how complicated human society gets. It’s not that animal societies aren’t without rules, customs and problems. But they’re much more simplified.

Even the most complex nonhuman animal society pales in comparison to the human version and that’s saying. Not just technologically but also socially and culturally speaking.