What a wonderfully crazy idea. But the game seems to be non-deterministic from the pig's perspective, as it depends on humans cooperating with the pigs (and the pigs don't know that). I assume that makes the outcome too biased to yield any meaningful results (beyond mutual entertainment).
My life definitely needs more pig interaction, this is brilliant!
Love the concept behind the game. Playing the game actually yields some actual utility in real life past the enjoyment the player gets (entertains the pigs).
Although you could probably quite easily create a robot player to move the light to entertain the pigs, I think it's a really interesting concept.
I think this is novel enough you could probably monetise it quite easily (and app where it's $1 a go or something).
What I find most brilliant about this is the emotional connection you could build between human and animal, in this case. I imagine the same concept, but with other humans instead, perhaps situated in horrible situations. Obviously not chasing dots.. hope you get my point.
http://agar.io/ lets you play with other humans, you are a little cell that can float around.
It is an interesting concept, because you can't speak with your fellow players, but even without means of direct communication you can still form alliances, and "befriend" other cells.
I was strictly vegetarian for a year, almost to the day, and it was a great experience. I learned a lot about how to cook with new foods and made and ordered foods I might not normally have. I still cook lots of vegetarian meals, although I've switched back to eating meat again.
I ended up switching back because I was missing out on a huge amount of cuisine. Vegetarian and vegan food has plenty of variety, and if our culture swung that way I would have no complaints, but leaving out a big chunk of culture was just too much for me. I also found it was nearly impossible to be vegetarian while traveling in Europe (Netherlands, France, Belgium). A random restaurant in the US has a much higher chance of being accommodating of vegetarian diets than a random restaurant in Europe.
In any case, I would highly recommend a strict vegetarian diet, even if you only do it for a set amount of time. When you're forced to change how you think about food, it really gives you an appreciation for how many varieties of food there are.
Pigs are smart; way smarter than dogs. I guess dogs must not taste very good, or we should be eating them instead.
I had a pig for a pet as a kid - Habeas Corpus was his name. A great outdoor pet for a kid - fun to play with, expressive and funny, nearly indestructible!
The studies that I've seen say that pigs have the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old, which is easy enough to look up. They are trainable (they can do tricks), they have fun (like most mammals), but they are not a cuddly as a dog. Dogs are better at reading human emotions and "connecting" with people. Pigs I've worked with are typically just looking for food, a scratching post, and taking naps.
most types are not, but if you ever have the chance try to get to know KuneKune pigs. They are rather small, hairy, friendly domesticated pigs originally from New Zealand. See [1] for some pictures. Anyway they are very cuddly, for example when I call ours (whistling works but they usually see/hear/smell me before I need to call them) they'll come running over. If you then start petting their back they lay themselves on their side because they want you to rub their belly. If you sit down they'll try to come sit on your lap.
Here's an anecdote. Habeas roamed free all day, but went back into his pen at night. Around dusk in the summer, it became hard to get close to him. He'd browse around in the grass, pretending to not notice you, but try to get close and he'd wander away, keeping about 6 feet between.
His pen was a wire fence ring around a tree (so he couldn't push it around the yard). I sat down next to the wire and ignored him.
He came closer to me, just to be companionable, still browsing in the grass head down. Silently I picked up the wire fence, moved it over him, set it down so now he was inside the ring.
After a minute he glanced up, looked around in a panicky way, and began to scream! You tricked me! Oh he was mad, charged around yelling.
The value proposition of a dog as a pet or as a working dog is much, much higher than keeping them for meat. They've been domesticated for hundreds of years and are loyal, easy to train, and smart enough for useful tasks. They also can be vicious defenders of your property, your kids, etc.
The value proposition for pork is really good. Pigs are huge, yield a lot of meat, meat considered safe and desirable by Westerners, etc.
Some places rear dog breeds for meat. Mostly they are for special occasions as they tend to be on the expensive side. While westerners aren't used to eating dog, it's not that unusual in some other places. These places also do enjoy pet dogs, and the dogs aren't interchangeable, they breed specific ones for meat.
pretty sure you wont make many friends by just throwing "pigs are way smarter than dogs" into the room without citing any sources. i mean, there are a lot more proud dog owners than pet-pig owners.
that said, my guess as to why dogs are mainly pets and pigs are usually food is: dogs have a higher carnivorous bias - they need more costly meat than pigs, making them more expensive to breed as food on a mass production scale.
also, dogs were extremely valuable pets since the beginning of human civilisation, so i guess it's culturally ingrained not to view them as a food source.
Show me some evidence that pigs are "way smarter" than dogs.
Although figures seem to vary, there is evidence that dog domestication began at least 30,000 years ago. Dogs co-evolved with humans to the point that we can communicate with them to a really impressive extent - humans can understand dog emotions and vice versa. It has also been shown that dogs can understand human pointing, a feat that even chimps are unable to accomplish, and I don't see any evidence of pigs doing the same either.
Dogs have been used for hunting, pest control, guidance (as in guide dogs), and companionship (individuals with PTSD or emotional problems) amongst many other uses. I have never heard of pigs being capable of any of these tasks. Their only other major use appears to be for truffle hunting.
I do not eat pork and I respect that pigs are highly intelligent creatures, but to claim that they are "way smarter" than dogs is absurd. To insinuate that we should eat dogs because they are supposedly less intelligent than pigs is even more ridiculous, and shame on anyone who thinks that. Without dogs, many human populations would not have survived, the Thule and Inuit being prime examples.
For example: "Additionally, pigs can use pointing by humans (under certain circumstances) to lead them to a food reward (Nawrothet al., 2013b)."
But from a cursory glance, it seems that pigs are not "way smarter" than dogs, however they may be "about as smart" as dogs, which is surprising in and of itself.
I never doubted that pigs are pretty much on par with dogs, but the original poster claimed that pigs are "way smarter," and there isn't any conclusive evidence to support this. I went through that paper and as you mentioned, it just points to the fact that all evidence suggests that pigs are fairly comparable to dogs in intelligence.
One key point about the paper is that we still have an incredibly long way to go in the research of animal intelligence, especially with regards to animals apart from chimps and cetaceans. Even though dogs are so tightly ingrained in human lives, there is still so much that we have yet to understand about their intelligence, even more so with pigs and other animals.
In any case, I think it's silly to prioritize one life over another solely based on intelligence. I consider dogs to be family so eating one would essentially be cannibalism in my book, but I also really value animal lives in general and I would never eat a pig either.
I'm lucky enough to live on a piece of land surrounded by hobby farmers. It's a strange thing to say, but when you get up close and personal to farm animals you see through the "stereotypes" of them. Sheep aren't brainless followers, and can actually be pretty smart and as friendly as dogs. Pigs are cool too, and will actually recognise you and wag their tails when they see you bringing them treats like apples.
I'm not a vegetarian, but you do start to respect them as animals in their own right, rather then just meat products.
As a human being you don't need a real live creature to play on your touch-enabled device du jour to get the same `entertainment'. What's in for the pigs ? Forget that, it'd be even more fucked up if the pig was rewarded for playing with colors on the wall (because don't fool yourself, those flashes of light are going to be stressful in the long term).
You want to get back to basics and connect with a pig ? Even - wow! - feed them with apples, breads or old lettuce ?
WWOOF organisations connect people who want to live and learn on organic
farms and smallholdings with people who are looking for volunteer help.
WWOOF hosts offer food, accommodation and opportunities to learn about organic
lifestyles. Volunteers give hands on help in return.
WWOOF is a network of national organizations. To become involved in the WWOOF community explore the drop down menu or list below and connect with the local WWOOF organization. For hosts in countries with no WWOOF organization yet check out WWOOF in Other Countries
Make a difference! Get involved! Join WWOOF! Think global – act local!
edit: No, I am not a PETA poster boy, I like meat.
edit2: could someone kickstart or crowfund something to give those pigs a fucking straw litter ? How about paying for the game and buy something for the whole group of pigs.
As to 'WWOOF', any organization that continues to perpetuate the myth that 'organic' means anything of value to anyone is one I'm never going to like. 'Natural' is a dumb buzzword with no meaning that is useful when deciding what food is good. Yeah, let's cover our food with natural fertilizers that are less effective, sometimes dangerous, and more likely to run off into rivers and cause ecological damage, just so someone can think they are gaining something while spending more. Great.
There is also among `Woofers' a lot of people into <edit> natural/magical </edit> healing and clearly living in la-la-land.
But guess what, that won't come into play when you move boxes of apples from the barn to the pig stable(? not sure of the word here).
Be it organic or industrial or whatyacallit it's not a bad idea to sometimes get down on the ground to pick up vegetables for supper for a short 2-3 days farm trip.
> Yeah, let's cover our food with natural fertilizers that are less effective, sometimes dangerous, and more likely to run off into rivers and cause ecological damage,
Huhu, you totally know what you are talking about.
For the record I am not into organic (but I am into the local food thingie, to each its own).
I'm not saying natural things are bad, I'm saying 'natural' (and, by extension, 'organic') means nothing about if the product is safe, tasty, ecologically friendly, effective, local, etc... (all the things people traditionally tout organic food as) It's a nonsense bit of advertising, and anyone using it to imply their products are good either believes that or is trying to trick me - either way, I don't want to buy/be involved with that thing.
> Huhu, you totally know what you are talking about.
And why do you think I don't? If you think something I'm saying is wrong, please explain it to me so I can learn.
> I'm saying 'natural' (and, by extension, 'organic')
Why are you conflating "natural," which in this context is as meaningless as you say, with "organic," which is not?
While I don't have confidence in the FDA to check or enforce the definition, it is defined for agricultural purposes in the USA. If you know someone that claims that their products are organic when in fact they aren't, you can report them. Here's some info:
My bad, I mixed up some wording when translating my thoughts on the fly, I wanted to refer to the whole chakra/mysticism/body-heals-itself and `holistic' came out (there must be some kind of cognitivo-linguistic explanation that would explain it but that'd be a poor excuse for what is essentially a lack of attention on my part).
Are you saying that people who use the chakra abstraction to think about the human body are claiming that they have magical powers? That is not my experience.
It's just an abstraction to ease consideration of the complexity. It's no different than dividing the body into "circulatory system," "endocrine system," etc. These designations are also not well-defined (ie, reasonable people disagree about whether various parts of the anatomy belong in one system or the other), but they make it much easier to learn about the body and how one can expect it to work.
The chakras were created (ie, defined) in the 700s and have worked well for many people since that time. Nobody (that I know of) is claiming they are "magic."
>Are you saying that people who use the chakra abstraction to think about the human body are claiming that they have magical powers? That is not my experience.
"Chakras" are from Indian/Hindu mythology. They are defined as the seven centers of "spritual energy" in the human body.
"Spiritual Energy" is just magic by a different name. If the concept is enlightening and helps with meditation and self-reflection, that's great! It doesn't mean that "Chakras" exist.
I can say "well, lympocytes and T-cells exist, but there is no scientific support for the immune system!" But how can you prove that the immune system exists as such?
The immune system isn't a "real" thing. Instead, we have created an abstraction by describing the function of a collection of structures and processes and named it the "immune system."
Similarly, there is no claim to prove or disprove about chakras. It's just a way to view the function of the body and mind.
And, for a very long time, it's been very useful for many people.
Your finger-pointing about who does or doesn't believe in "magic" is not pertinent.
It is not a myth. While some organic food is very similar to food grown with orthodox farming techniques, most of it is not, and some is very, very different.
I surmise that your contention is based on the Stanford study? Have you ever actually read the study yourself? Do you realize that its methodology is widely regarded as fundamentally flawed? Start here for a good review:
...and of course, the Stanford study is just one. Many other studies, which I and many others assert are of a superior design, have come to the opposite conclusion. This one is particularly compelling (sorry for the wordpress.com link, it's the only full text I can find online):
Even if organic food weren't healthier - and for some foods, it certainly is - there are still other serious matters to consider, such as the sustainability of the farmland and the levels of exposure to farm workers.
I agree about one flaw of "organic": that it is never a good idea to trust a government agency - especially the FDA - with food or drug safety advice without verifying it.
Thus, the best way to ensure that your food meets your standard is to visit a local farm and ask about what fertilizers and pesticides are used.
But that doesn't invalidate the entire 'organic' designation, which is in fact meaningful and significant.
I'd interpret the parent's statement that the term organic does not necessarily mean anything of value.
It does have a technical definition, which when applied strictly can have value, but it's also horribly abused as a feel-good term with no semantic content. (Just as 'holistic' is, looking elsewhere on the thread.)
If you know of someone who is advertising products as organic when they aren't, I suggest reporting them to the local farmer's group, chamber of commerce, industry association, or (groan) the FDA.
"Organic salt," although counter-intuitive, has a meaning: that the product does not have additives or anti-caking agents. (In some countries, the harvesting processing must also comport to environmental standards). Although the FDA does not certify salt as "organic," I believe that it still handles reports of salt that does contain additives or anti-caking agents being advertised as "organic."
I'm not sure that it's reasonable to care whether salt is "organic," but it's not a capricious term. It's well-defined and easy to understand.
Some other products, such as butter, are chemically quite distinct from their counterparts which are produced by orthodox techniques and quite worth caring about. It is easy to have these products lab tested to determine whether or not they are organic. If you eat butter, then switching to organic butter will remove a substantial mass of chemical pesticides, including organophosphate, prenatal exposure to which is known to cause some serious problems.
I didn't twig you were American. I live in Switzerland. Producing detectable quantities of anything in butter here that's not made of cow is probably a shooting offence.
(The last time I was in the US I looked at the ingredients on a packet of sweets and thought, I think all these additives are banned back home...)
Is the word 'organic' actually a controlled term in the US? I know the various certifications are; is the term itself?
Yes, in the US "organic" is a controlled term, and it is illegal to put the word "organic" on a food label unless it meets certain legal requirements:
(b) Products sold, labeled, or represented as “organic.” A
raw or processed agricultural product sold, labeled, or
represented as “organic” must contain (by weight or fluid
volume, excluding water and salt) not less than 95 percent
organically produced raw or processed agricultural
products. Any remaining product ingredients must be
organically produced, unless not commercially available in
organic form, or must be nonagricultural substances or
nonorganically produced agricultural products produced
consistent with the National List in subpart G of this
part. If labeled as organically produced, such product must
be labeled pursuant to §205.303.
WWOOF is an amazing organization. A wonderful model. I know more than a handful of people who found direction in their lives through WWOOF. I also know two farms that got awesome boosts from being injected with WWOOFers.
I had an idea to create a similar model for open source. I want to call it MEOW (Making Enterprise on the Open Web).
Why can't we leave the animals alone? Want to play with them? Then play with them in person, in natural surroundings. Those poor pigs are already stuffed inside a cage and now they have to chase a ball on a big screen for the amusement of humans?
I know I am going to be downvoted for this, but I don't understand this at all.
Why do you say 'forced'? They're not being punished for not interacting with the screen. In fact, looking at the pictures, they're not even being incentivised for interacting with the screen. There's nothing to stop them completely ignoring it and getting on with their own things; let them choose.
The fact that they're interacting with it all seems to indicate they're getting some kind of value out of the game.
Is there a choice? They are stuck in a cage bored out of their minds. It is not like they were roaming free in the wild and found the giant screen and started playing with it. I've no interest in video games - but if I am stuck in a cage and the only option is to play video games, what am I going to do? Sooner or later I'll check it out, no?
Sorry, I don't understand your last argument. There's a thing that you don't want to do, and you have a free choice whether to do it or not, but you're saying that you'd do it just because it's available? Surely that just means that you do want to do it, no?
Likewise, the pigs have the same choice. If they don't like the game, they can, e.g. face in the other direction so they don't have to see it (like I do in pubs that play sport on TV). (In fact, I'd be interested to see if any pigs do this.)
Besides, pigs are social animals, and there's plenty to do in that cage --- there are other pigs to interact with.
I guess the question becomes, if you had to choose between being stuck in a cage without video games and being stuck in a cage with them, which would you choose? There are many things I don't like, but in most cases I would rather have them in the cage with me than not. In short, my view is that if you add another option at no cost, no matter how bad that option is, the situation is never worse for it being added.
Why do you think the pigs want to be 'left alone'?
Why would a pig not enjoy a game just because it's not 'natural surroundings'? If it's enough to entertain a person, why would a pig not be entertained?
I'm not saying that pig and human ideas of enjoyment match up, but if they are not being punished for not doing it, I don't really see why it'd be harmful to them. If anything, it's stimulus and entertainment they'd otherwise not have - isn't that a good thing?
If it's enough to entertain a person, why would a pig not be entertained?
The difference is that the human has the option of choosing to play the game or walk away. The only option available for pigs are roam around the small cage bored out of their minds or check this game out. If they don't like the game, good luck.
Also, imagine how you would feel if there is a giant screen 3 feet from you flashing lights - and you don't want the screen to be there because those flashy lights are annoying to you. But you have no say in it.
>Why do you think the pigs want to be 'left alone'?
Why do you think the pigs want to be constantly exposed to a flashing digital screen?
>If it's enough to entertain a person, why would a pig not be entertained?
Probably for the same reasons you don't find pigs watching television or reading books. Human entertainment was designed for humans. Do you really think that pigs are going to find this enjoyable compared to just living on a farm?
"Researching the complex relationship between pigs and humans through game design". More like, "Messing with encaged pigs for fun through retarded game design".
Incredible how people yell that this is immoral and 'fucked up'. People who have no clue about whether the pigs are disturbed by this and whether they have another place to be if they don't like the light. Maybe they like the game? And even if they didn't - we eat them later, for heaven's sake. People today are crying moralists and wimps. Always go 'mi mi' complaining when something new pops up. Meanwhile people starve and get slaughtered worse than pigs and nobody bats an eye, haha.
If the authors truly cared about animals, they would not subject them to unnatural habitats and perpetuate the morally bankrupt ideology that animals are commodities for humans to enjoy -- they are not. They are sentient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge...), loving and caring beings with capacity to feel pain that is not different from ours. So, please ... just leave them the fuck alone!
What's delicious is the fat, salt and seasoning added to the meat; a raw animal carcass is not appetizing to humans. Since the same can be had with a plant-derived food, especially without associated health risks of eating meat, why celebrate "bacon" and other animal products?
This is not a realistic question for anyone who has experienced both real bacon and the wretched excuse for food that is Morning Star Farms veggie bacon strips.
It is interesting how many comments in this thread (and other threads on the Internet) have to preface their comment with some sort of "I'm not with PETA" or "I'm not a vegetarian" in order to have an opinion on an animal's welfare.
75 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadLove the concept behind the game. Playing the game actually yields some actual utility in real life past the enjoyment the player gets (entertains the pigs).
Although you could probably quite easily create a robot player to move the light to entertain the pigs, I think it's a really interesting concept.
I think this is novel enough you could probably monetise it quite easily (and app where it's $1 a go or something).
It is an interesting concept, because you can't speak with your fellow players, but even without means of direct communication you can still form alliances, and "befriend" other cells.
I ended up switching back because I was missing out on a huge amount of cuisine. Vegetarian and vegan food has plenty of variety, and if our culture swung that way I would have no complaints, but leaving out a big chunk of culture was just too much for me. I also found it was nearly impossible to be vegetarian while traveling in Europe (Netherlands, France, Belgium). A random restaurant in the US has a much higher chance of being accommodating of vegetarian diets than a random restaurant in Europe.
In any case, I would highly recommend a strict vegetarian diet, even if you only do it for a set amount of time. When you're forced to change how you think about food, it really gives you an appreciation for how many varieties of food there are.
I had a pig for a pet as a kid - Habeas Corpus was his name. A great outdoor pet for a kid - fun to play with, expressive and funny, nearly indestructible!
most types are not, but if you ever have the chance try to get to know KuneKune pigs. They are rather small, hairy, friendly domesticated pigs originally from New Zealand. See [1] for some pictures. Anyway they are very cuddly, for example when I call ours (whistling works but they usually see/hear/smell me before I need to call them) they'll come running over. If you then start petting their back they lay themselves on their side because they want you to rub their belly. If you sit down they'll try to come sit on your lap.
[1] http://americankunekunepigsociety.com/color
His pen was a wire fence ring around a tree (so he couldn't push it around the yard). I sat down next to the wire and ignored him.
He came closer to me, just to be companionable, still browsing in the grass head down. Silently I picked up the wire fence, moved it over him, set it down so now he was inside the ring.
After a minute he glanced up, looked around in a panicky way, and began to scream! You tricked me! Oh he was mad, charged around yelling.
So anyway, pigs are smart.
The value proposition for pork is really good. Pigs are huge, yield a lot of meat, meat considered safe and desirable by Westerners, etc.
For instance, China has a strategic pork reserve: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636507-ch...
Show me a pig that can herd sheep with the help of humans whistling and shouting words.
> I guess dogs must not taste very good, or we should be eating them instead.
A couple of Swiss cantons would disagree: http://www.thelocal.ch/20121227/dogs-still-eaten-in-switzerl...
here's a documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112431/
Allegedly this practice goes on in America, without the consumer's knowledge.
source?
http://gothamist.com/2010/07/30/dog_tooth_in_chinese_food_pr...
that said, my guess as to why dogs are mainly pets and pigs are usually food is: dogs have a higher carnivorous bias - they need more costly meat than pigs, making them more expensive to breed as food on a mass production scale.
also, dogs were extremely valuable pets since the beginning of human civilisation, so i guess it's culturally ingrained not to view them as a food source.
Although figures seem to vary, there is evidence that dog domestication began at least 30,000 years ago. Dogs co-evolved with humans to the point that we can communicate with them to a really impressive extent - humans can understand dog emotions and vice versa. It has also been shown that dogs can understand human pointing, a feat that even chimps are unable to accomplish, and I don't see any evidence of pigs doing the same either.
Dogs have been used for hunting, pest control, guidance (as in guide dogs), and companionship (individuals with PTSD or emotional problems) amongst many other uses. I have never heard of pigs being capable of any of these tasks. Their only other major use appears to be for truffle hunting.
I do not eat pork and I respect that pigs are highly intelligent creatures, but to claim that they are "way smarter" than dogs is absurd. To insinuate that we should eat dogs because they are supposedly less intelligent than pigs is even more ridiculous, and shame on anyone who thinks that. Without dogs, many human populations would not have survived, the Thule and Inuit being prime examples.
All of my claims are backed by this video, which does a lot more to explain how amazing dogs truly are: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html
A paper recently made the rounds regarding pigs: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c
For example: "Additionally, pigs can use pointing by humans (under certain circumstances) to lead them to a food reward (Nawrothet al., 2013b)."
But from a cursory glance, it seems that pigs are not "way smarter" than dogs, however they may be "about as smart" as dogs, which is surprising in and of itself.
One key point about the paper is that we still have an incredibly long way to go in the research of animal intelligence, especially with regards to animals apart from chimps and cetaceans. Even though dogs are so tightly ingrained in human lives, there is still so much that we have yet to understand about their intelligence, even more so with pigs and other animals.
In any case, I think it's silly to prioritize one life over another solely based on intelligence. I consider dogs to be family so eating one would essentially be cannibalism in my book, but I also really value animal lives in general and I would never eat a pig either.
BTW there is this fringe guy claiming that humans are pig-chimpanzee hybrids at http://www.macroevolution.net/index.html
Kind of insane, and likely all wrong, but actually interesting to read.
I'm not a vegetarian, but you do start to respect them as animals in their own right, rather then just meat products.
It could be nice if the screen was a place where they could choose to play, not directly where they live as it seems to be on the video.
It could be interesting to test out different feedback, like smells, sounds or maybe even haptic feedback.
As a human being you don't need a real live creature to play on your touch-enabled device du jour to get the same `entertainment'. What's in for the pigs ? Forget that, it'd be even more fucked up if the pig was rewarded for playing with colors on the wall (because don't fool yourself, those flashes of light are going to be stressful in the long term).
You want to get back to basics and connect with a pig ? Even - wow! - feed them with apples, breads or old lettuce ?
Spend some days on a farm http://wwoofinternational.org/
WWOOF organisations connect people who want to live and learn on organic farms and smallholdings with people who are looking for volunteer help.
WWOOF hosts offer food, accommodation and opportunities to learn about organic lifestyles. Volunteers give hands on help in return.
WWOOF is a network of national organizations. To become involved in the WWOOF community explore the drop down menu or list below and connect with the local WWOOF organization. For hosts in countries with no WWOOF organization yet check out WWOOF in Other Countries
Make a difference! Get involved! Join WWOOF! Think global – act local!
edit: No, I am not a PETA poster boy, I like meat.
edit2: could someone kickstart or crowfund something to give those pigs a fucking straw litter ? How about paying for the game and buy something for the whole group of pigs.
As to 'WWOOF', any organization that continues to perpetuate the myth that 'organic' means anything of value to anyone is one I'm never going to like. 'Natural' is a dumb buzzword with no meaning that is useful when deciding what food is good. Yeah, let's cover our food with natural fertilizers that are less effective, sometimes dangerous, and more likely to run off into rivers and cause ecological damage, just so someone can think they are gaining something while spending more. Great.
But guess what, that won't come into play when you move boxes of apples from the barn to the pig stable(? not sure of the word here).
Be it organic or industrial or whatyacallit it's not a bad idea to sometimes get down on the ground to pick up vegetables for supper for a short 2-3 days farm trip.
> Yeah, let's cover our food with natural fertilizers that are less effective, sometimes dangerous, and more likely to run off into rivers and cause ecological damage,
Huhu, you totally know what you are talking about.
For the record I am not into organic (but I am into the local food thingie, to each its own).
> Huhu, you totally know what you are talking about.
And why do you think I don't? If you think something I'm saying is wrong, please explain it to me so I can learn.
Why are you conflating "natural," which in this context is as meaningless as you say, with "organic," which is not?
While I don't have confidence in the FDA to check or enforce the definition, it is defined for agricultural purposes in the USA. If you know someone that claims that their products are organic when in fact they aren't, you can report them. Here's some info:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/About%20th...
What's wrong with holistic healing? Perhaps you are thinking of homeopathy?
It's not all bullshit. Medicine came from somewhere.
Also: > [redacted out] breathing actually has a dramatic effect on the parasympathetic nervous system and stress reactions
You aren't wrong, but that doesn't mean that "chakras" exist. Meditation is good for you, that's all. No magic here.
It's just an abstraction to ease consideration of the complexity. It's no different than dividing the body into "circulatory system," "endocrine system," etc. These designations are also not well-defined (ie, reasonable people disagree about whether various parts of the anatomy belong in one system or the other), but they make it much easier to learn about the body and how one can expect it to work.
The chakras were created (ie, defined) in the 700s and have worked well for many people since that time. Nobody (that I know of) is claiming they are "magic."
"Chakras" are from Indian/Hindu mythology. They are defined as the seven centers of "spritual energy" in the human body.
"Spiritual Energy" is just magic by a different name. If the concept is enlightening and helps with meditation and self-reflection, that's great! It doesn't mean that "Chakras" exist.
There is no scientific support for Chakras.
I can say "well, lympocytes and T-cells exist, but there is no scientific support for the immune system!" But how can you prove that the immune system exists as such?
The immune system isn't a "real" thing. Instead, we have created an abstraction by describing the function of a collection of structures and processes and named it the "immune system."
Similarly, there is no claim to prove or disprove about chakras. It's just a way to view the function of the body and mind.
And, for a very long time, it's been very useful for many people.
Your finger-pointing about who does or doesn't believe in "magic" is not pertinent.
It is not a myth. While some organic food is very similar to food grown with orthodox farming techniques, most of it is not, and some is very, very different.
I surmise that your contention is based on the Stanford study? Have you ever actually read the study yourself? Do you realize that its methodology is widely regarded as fundamentally flawed? Start here for a good review:
http://www.tfrec.wsu.edu/pdfs/P2566.pdf
...and of course, the Stanford study is just one. Many other studies, which I and many others assert are of a superior design, have come to the opposite conclusion. This one is particularly compelling (sorry for the wordpress.com link, it's the only full text I can find online):
https://donamarianadoces.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/nutriti...
Even if organic food weren't healthier - and for some foods, it certainly is - there are still other serious matters to consider, such as the sustainability of the farmland and the levels of exposure to farm workers.
I agree about one flaw of "organic": that it is never a good idea to trust a government agency - especially the FDA - with food or drug safety advice without verifying it.
Thus, the best way to ensure that your food meets your standard is to visit a local farm and ask about what fertilizers and pesticides are used.
But that doesn't invalidate the entire 'organic' designation, which is in fact meaningful and significant.
It does have a technical definition, which when applied strictly can have value, but it's also horribly abused as a feel-good term with no semantic content. (Just as 'holistic' is, looking elsewhere on the thread.)
(One of my pet hates is 'organic salt'.)
"Organic salt," although counter-intuitive, has a meaning: that the product does not have additives or anti-caking agents. (In some countries, the harvesting processing must also comport to environmental standards). Although the FDA does not certify salt as "organic," I believe that it still handles reports of salt that does contain additives or anti-caking agents being advertised as "organic."
I'm not sure that it's reasonable to care whether salt is "organic," but it's not a capricious term. It's well-defined and easy to understand.
Some other products, such as butter, are chemically quite distinct from their counterparts which are produced by orthodox techniques and quite worth caring about. It is easy to have these products lab tested to determine whether or not they are organic. If you eat butter, then switching to organic butter will remove a substantial mass of chemical pesticides, including organophosphate, prenatal exposure to which is known to cause some serious problems.
(The last time I was in the US I looked at the ingredients on a packet of sweets and thought, I think all these additives are banned back home...)
Is the word 'organic' actually a controlled term in the US? I know the various certifications are; is the term itself?
(Pay no attention to the potential 5% of non-organic ingredients behind the curtain)
To be fair, this 5% is limited to the specific ingredients listed in subpart G, which is pretty restrictive.
There's a great deal of evidence that flashing unnatural light sources have negative effects on animals.
Do you have any evidence that this isn't stressful to animals?
I had an idea to create a similar model for open source. I want to call it MEOW (Making Enterprise on the Open Web).
Entertainment.
I know I am going to be downvoted for this, but I don't understand this at all.
The fact that they're interacting with it all seems to indicate they're getting some kind of value out of the game.
Is there a choice? They are stuck in a cage bored out of their minds. It is not like they were roaming free in the wild and found the giant screen and started playing with it. I've no interest in video games - but if I am stuck in a cage and the only option is to play video games, what am I going to do? Sooner or later I'll check it out, no?
Likewise, the pigs have the same choice. If they don't like the game, they can, e.g. face in the other direction so they don't have to see it (like I do in pubs that play sport on TV). (In fact, I'd be interested to see if any pigs do this.)
Besides, pigs are social animals, and there's plenty to do in that cage --- there are other pigs to interact with.
He's saying he'd do it if it's the only thing available
Some don't want to be in a pub at all.
Why would a pig not enjoy a game just because it's not 'natural surroundings'? If it's enough to entertain a person, why would a pig not be entertained?
I'm not saying that pig and human ideas of enjoyment match up, but if they are not being punished for not doing it, I don't really see why it'd be harmful to them. If anything, it's stimulus and entertainment they'd otherwise not have - isn't that a good thing?
The difference is that the human has the option of choosing to play the game or walk away. The only option available for pigs are roam around the small cage bored out of their minds or check this game out. If they don't like the game, good luck.
Also, imagine how you would feel if there is a giant screen 3 feet from you flashing lights - and you don't want the screen to be there because those flashy lights are annoying to you. But you have no say in it.
Many places have the first option only.
Why do you think the pigs want to be constantly exposed to a flashing digital screen?
>If it's enough to entertain a person, why would a pig not be entertained?
Probably for the same reasons you don't find pigs watching television or reading books. Human entertainment was designed for humans. Do you really think that pigs are going to find this enjoyable compared to just living on a farm?