The best
Mammal Zoology books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Mammal Zoology books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Mammal Zoology books:
I would highly recommend this book to you!
Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345803116/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Vn.lCbBR3VY85
Pitbulls (kinda silly name since includes a bunch of completely different breeds that all originated for different reasons) used to be viewed as America's most beloved dogs! They were WW1 heroes, beloved family pets, and even the most common dogs used in advertising in the beginning of the 20th century. They were the every man's dog! But eventually towards the 70s, there grew to be a massive media push to label these dogs as innately aggressive murderers. Why the change? Well, lots of reasons, but it's not actually because they are all killers or evil dogs! In fact, almost all veterinarians and the CDC agree that banning pitbulls doesnt even reduce incidence of dog bites at all! Fascinating stuff!
I don't have the time to rewrite their entire history, but I do hope this was enough to pique your interest and maybe you'll give a few chapters of the book a chance! Even if you still hate pitbulls, it's a very interesting and compelling read on their history, and breaks down all the reasons why they fell out of favor in the public eye. I love dogs and thought I knew a lot about them and I was truly surprised by all the info!
The most succinct description of the DNC strategy I've ever heard.
And for those who think I should have have put the word "strategy" in quotation marks -- ie that the Democratic establishment is "incompetent" -- no. That's the favored excuse of the liberal class, but no.
We have to remember that the ostensible strategy of the DNC is not the same thing as the actual strategy. The goal is not to "win" -- the goal is to maintain the gravy train. Once we understand that, everything else becomes clear. Why is the DNC trying its damndest to lose rather than picking the easy winner Bernie Sanders?
It all comes down to class. As Gore Vidal put it, "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat." When the rubber hits the road the Democrats will always choose losing with a "centrist" rather than winning with a socialist.
The same is true of every capitalist country. Even social democratic parties are ultimately designed to prevent rather than ensure equality. Granted they are far, far better than right wing parties, but their purpose is essentially the same: keep people from demanding their birthright.
We have lived in egalitarian societies for 97 percent of our history. All hierarchical systems are perverse and doomed to failure. And we will continue to fail, probably unto extinction, unless people figure this out.
Highly recommend reading Cat Warren's book What The Dog Knows. It's about her training her first cadaver dog, and she does a great job weaving in some history and general info.
I finished it two months ago and immediately got my dogs enrolled in scent work classes lol.
Yeah, because otherwise more people would find eating them awkward.
The Age of Empathy by Frans DeWaal is kind of amazing if you're interested in learning more about animals' emotions. https://www.amazon.com/Age-Empathy-Natures-Lessons-Society/dp/0307407772
This book: [Dogs that Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home] talks about psychic dogs. (https://www.amazon.com/Dogs-That-Their-Owners-Coming/dp/0307885968). Also this death-sensing cat.
Re nose-work + GSDs, I highly recommend Cat Warren's What the Dog Knows: Scent, Science, and the Amazing Ways Dogs Perceive the World. Its fascinating & reads quickly.
No because ascientific drivel. Here catch up with the 2 decade old literature. If you're looking for modern examples of tribal egalitarianism I'd recommend the Aka tribe.
I've got the book that does what you're asking but I'll doubt you'll read it. You're so prepared to never be convinced daddy JP could possibly be wrong that nothing really matters.
The argument that they are trying to make, but seldom have the brainpower to describe in words, is:
1.) Pitbulls are disproportionately owned by by black people and maybe by hispanic people.
2.) White people can’t ban black people or hispanic people from your neighborhood
3.). If you ban the black person or hispanic person’s dog, you can keep them out of the neighborhood.
Most pit nuts don’t understand their own argument because they are just selfish and want to own killing machines, so they argue poorly. They repeat the accusation (racism) but don’t understand how it is supposed to be racist.
Additionally, pit nuts waffle between calling it a minority-owned breed and “America’s dog” or “An American Icon”. So what is it? The dog of repressed minorities? The all American dog? I don’t see how it can be both, but again, pitheads only care about endangering everyone else, the argument are just window dressing for their goal of owning a scary dog. Kinda how their dogs are harmless and wouldn’t hurt a fly, but also “protect” their owners and “make them feel safe”. Which one is it? Protector or incapable of doing harm?
Yes. The only thing that really "domesticates" cats personalitywise is their exposure to people in kittenhood. It's why it's very hard to domesticate an adult feral cat but relatively easy to take feral kittens and raise them to be perfectly great pets.
This book goes into it more: https://smile.amazon.com/Cat-Sense-Feline-Science-Better-ebook/dp/B00BKRW528/
I have provided evidence. Here, I'm guessing you missed it. Chimps, also, are not human. Good for clues, bad for conclusions.
This is incorrect. Humans in nature are egalitarian and anti-hierarchical. The idea that dominance hierarchies are biological rather than social just isn't backed by any evidence.
Equally these ideas of women as choosers or men dominating other men are insubstantiated. Human beings are individuals and approach social situations in unique ways. There is no standard template such as this.
> There is no solution to the tendency of all societies to form hierarchies, nor should there be.
I don't think that's accurate. None of the cat behavior books I've read reflect that; Cat Sense was a good one. Neither is that the attitude of the man who has raised the two known oldest cats in the world, Jake Perry, who gave his cats lots of mental stimulation and new experiences - from eyedroppers of red wine to movie nights in a custom built theatre. People think that about cats because they're bad at reading cat signals.
>no actual response to JBP or any specific JBP claim, claims of straw man attack by JBP without proof, and whataboutism.
I feel you weren't paying attention. This was a response to the general claims that JBP makes about marxism and the understanding that those claims are strawmen. It was an invitation to debate proper with an introduction to those general claims and the problems with them. It's very clearly not intended to be a comprehensive deconstruction of everything JBP has said about marxism in a 5 minute video.
>Inequality and hierarchy are desirable outcomes in a Capitalist system because they are natural to the human condition.
This is untrue. Human beings are naturally anti-hierarchical.
Equally even if it was true it'd just be the appeal to nature fallacy.
>Thus far, the economic system that reduces economic inequality the most is unfettered free-market Capitalism because it allows for a bell curve of wealth ownership with the majority of wealth spread across the largest number of middle-class people (example: the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s before the rise of the administrative state).
This is a mischaracterisation of Chinese economics. They run a mixed economy with a heavy focus on state spending and re-investment into building infrastructure.
>I see no value in watching this video except perhaps to expose whoever this Richard Wolff person is as a liar and/or fool.
I would say the opposite. I think the fact that it left you frothing at the mouth spouting the ideological rhetoric you were trained to repeat whenever anyone dares to defend marxism is evidence enough that Wolff has said something you find to be of threat to JPs ideas.
This is simply untrue. Look at tribal life, outside of the corrupting influence of capitalism. This is reflected in the fact that pre-agricultural human beings were egalitarian and anti-hierarchical. The evidence points to us not being corrupt and selfish, quite the opposite in fact. But a capitalist system that pushes consumerism and materialism fosters this attitude. Despite even that, I would contest that you vastly under-estimate how selfless people are even under these influences.
Even if we ignore all of that. Saying "this is a human flaw" does not excuse. We would still be best off working against it. Factionalism is clearly bad for the human race.
That's historically untrue. The big guys got bullied by everyone else. We ran on a reverse dominance hierachy. Anyone attempting to dominate others were placed at the bottom of society.
I recommend this book on the matter. Here's a review:
>The author, an anthropologist at the University of Southern California, presents a fascinating explanation of hierarchy, egalitarianism, and altruism among humans. By examining human, chimpanzee, bonobo, and gorilla behavior (and, particularly, human and chimpanzee behavior), the author concludes that all four species are hierarchical, with inherent dispositions to dominance and submission. In addition, these species are capable of forming alliances and, importantly, resisting and overthrowing an abusive alpha male.
>The development of tool use and language enabled humans (or their ancestors) to more effectively form coalitions, overthrow abusive alphas, and establish and maintain a "reverse hierarchy" whereby the weak many ruled over the strong few. The author argues that once a few early human bands established this reverse hierarchy, this example spread through other human bands until, by no later than 100,000 BCE, all human bands were living in reverse hierarchy.
>Further, this reverse hierarchy leveled, to some extent, reproductive success/failure within the group, thereby reducing within-group selection and increasing between-group selection. Between-group selection would reward altruistic behavior, as altruistic bands would be more cohesive fighting forces and the individuals would suffer less variation in protein intake.
>Interestingly, the author shows that reverse hierarchy is universal among nomadic foragers and common among pre-literate agriculturalists and pastoralists. This suggests that humans maintained egalitarian status in the early years of the Neolithic Revolution.
Violence and war between tribes not within them. I am talking mostly about the distribution of wealth, power and status here. I highly highly recommend this book. It goes in depth into how all the evidence shows that pre-agriculture we were an anti-hierachical egalitarian society. No individual ruled and all resources were shared according to need.
Pre-agricultural human beings were ahierachical. I recommend this book. Equally pre-agricultural societies are widely believed to be matrilineal rather than patriachal.
Tribalism is different to racism. I make no claims that we were (are) not tribalistic. Racism utilises our tribalistic tendancies, but it is very much an artificial construction manipulating them, rather than a natural outgrowth of them. There was no violence based on skin colour alone. There would have been violence based on them being part of the outgroup. Skin colour can act as an indicator to that, sure. Much the same as hair colour or language might. But make no mistake, it would not have been the root of any violent actions.
>It turns human nature on its head and asks people to frustrate their own profit motive for the promise of gratification and satisfaction through the goodwill of the collective. Another untenable solution. Rather than allow people to be honest about their selfish motives, you create a moral perversion where the dishonest man profits and the honest man suffers, because he is honest.
What solidified me into believing broadly in socialism is finding out that human beings are naturally collectivistic, egalitarian and anti-hierachical. Collectivisation is core to a healthy human society. Without it we will never be free of problems caused by tensions of a systems dissonance with our natural tendancies IMO.
They aren't inherently. I recommend this book. It basically outlines our egalitarian roots in early society. Once we evolved to be intelligent enough to co-ordinate, our inherent dislike of being "ruled over" by any sort of "alpha" entity made it basically impossible for anyone to hold that top spot. We as a society consistently banded together to bring them down a peg. We are, by nature, a collectivist species. What ultimately warped that was the ability of individuals to accumulate enough resources to overcome the power of collective action. Those people in power are the outliers, not the standard.
This is, ultimately, what socialism is all about. Egalitarianism and flattening hierachies. This is why socialism is so anti-capitalist. Capitalism is inherently hierachical and enables a structure of society that goes against our better nature.
We can choose to do better. But in order to do so, we must choose to remove the system that impedes our ability to truly choose. This is also why democracy is fundamental to socialism. It's about the collective will of the people, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
> But we've already evolved OUT of anarchism. If anarchism is the "default state", we're many many iterations beyond the default. At this point, we wouldn't be evolving into anarchy, we'd be DEVOLVING back to anarchy.
I would argue we devolved away from anarchy.
I would also recommend this book. Long story short, egalitarianism is in our nature. Not just a consequence of our circumstances. Not just that but rebellion and dethroning the top dog seems to be in our nature.
I understand what you're getting at - without some sort of societal structure such as capitalism all that we achieved wouldn't have been possible. I tend to agree. However my view on this is aligned with Marx - capitalism is a necessary step. With capital being so effective these days (automation, AI, the internet), large organised communities are becoming less and less necessary to achieve and maintain progress. That is to say, I would believe in anarchism as a viable path much less 100 years ago than I do today.
We would evolve into socialism/anarchism because, to be frank, it's very clearly the next necessary step. It's never been more clear. Sure we could stagnate - but that's not progress in a different direction, it's delaying the inevitable imo.
Yes well in the short term I'm sure I look very similar to a social democrat. What I believe seperates me from them is the fact that I would not want to stop at the halfway point. I would not look at social democracy and think our work is finished, I would continue to try and tackle problems with a socialist mindset. This would, in theory, bring us out of social democracy and deeper into socialism.
A good book I can recommend for you is Zoobiquity
My perspective is that this world is difficult and we each get comfort and solace in our own ways. As long as your philosophy is not actually hurting people, I just do not care.
I just want to say that your understanding of human nature and animal behavior could use some help. Zoobiquity is a simple and enlightening read.
Lots of things feed into this. In addition to what's been said--association with poor people, racism (Brownwyn Dickey's well-received book [https://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Battle-over-American/dp/0345803116] makes the racism argument explicitly), dogsbite, and Merrit Clifton, there are other issues.
No police officer ever got accolades for being bitten by a miniature poodle, lab, pug, or Jack Russell. But if he tells the guys back at the station a PIT BULL attacked him, he's a goddamned American hero. Similarly, news articles about lab or golden attacks often contain remarks like "police do not blame the dog and he has been released to his family," and often don't even mention breed, whereas a headline that says PIT BULL sells papers like WAR IN UKRAINE.
Also, in general, and especially online, there's a weird obsession with which animal could beat which in combat. Could a T-Rex beat Spinosaurus? Could a bear beat a lion? How many 5-year-olds could you beat up? In this comparison-obsessed environment, the basement-dwellers want to believe there is an unbeatable animal of every type, and so they talk up the fearsomeness of their favorite shark, spider, MMA fighter, and dog breed. And thus the rhetoric regarding pit bulls gets exaggerated from yet another source.
I highly recommend this book for a "centrist" look onto pit bulls. It's so hard to find good information out there about pit bulls; seems like everyone thinks they are either sweet angel babies or vicious killers, and there's nowhere in between. This book does a good job of looking at the truth in between the two extremes.
>and people are too stupid to see the difference between a pitbull and a husky or Dobermann.
It's not stupidity, it's bias. People are biased against pitbulls. It predisposes them towards thinking any dog that's aggressive towards people is a pitbull.
Most dogs in existence aren't purebred. Once a dog is two generations removed from purebred, it's impossible to tell what it's mixed with, even with DNA testing.
>Can you show me a case where a dog that isn't even part pitbull was labelled as such?
Yes, check out this excellent book about the history of the breed: Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345803116/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_K3A7RKJVTEAYGJPXX9TF
It's written by a journalist. It was fact checked and had sources listed. The author gives examples of this. As well as the science behind why it's impossible to tell what mixed dog's breeds are by looking at them.
Jeez you're dense. Herding dogs bite constantly if it's not trained out, why aren't they used as fighting dogs if that's a sign of aggression. Yet we don't see herding dogs as being inherently dangerous, its all propaganda. Just like how dobermans used to get the exact same treatment until that was shifted towards pits because people realized it's bullshit. Here's a great book on the subject if you care to enlighten yourself that is.
>With a scientist's mind and an animal lover's compassion, world-renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents a groundbreaking exploration of animal behavior that will profoundly change the way we think about animals--and ourselves.
>How do cats know when it's time to go to the vet, even before the cat carrier comes out? How do dogs know when their owners are returning home at unexpected times? How can horses find their way back to the stable over completely unfamiliar terrain?
>After five years of extensive research involving thousands of people who have pets and work with animals, Dr. Sheldrake proves conclusively what many pet owners already know: there is a strong connection between humans and animals that defies present-day scientific understanding. Sheldrake compellingly demonstrates that we and our pets are social animals linked together by invisible bonds connecting animals to each other, to their owners, and to their homes in powerful ways. His provocative ideas about these social, or morphic, fields explain the uncanny behavior often observed in pets and help provide an explanation for amazing animal behavior in the wild, such as migration and homing.
>Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home not only provides fascinating insight into animal, and human, behavior, but also teaches us to question the boundaries of conventional scientific thought, and shows that the very animals who are closest to us have much to teach us about biology, nature, and consciousness.
This book does a pretty good job arguing that:
-discerning what is and is not a pitbull from site alone is pretty foolhardy
-pitbulls are statistically significantly dangerous because they are popular. If some other breed was used as protection by the same people who should not own pit bulls, that breed would likely be responsible for the same amount of harm.
-pit Bull bans are effectively a racist tool used to fuck with people deemed undesirable to law enforcement. Like the war on drugs or 20 other policies from bygone eras. No people in gated communities are getting their ALC registered pits taken and put down.
https://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Battle-over-American/dp/0345803116
> > But the one thing you can't change is that people need to be physically around other people to function properly, and to be... well, mammals. And primates.
> i have social outlets for that
I see you missed the paragraph immediately below where I explained that people start shitting on each other as the enemy/other if they don't get face to face interaction regularly. Even introverts. External Social outlets won't help your situation in the workplace where you have to work with coworkers, and perform minimal social grooming to not get eviscerated.
Go read this: https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562
and remember that nearly all of that firmware is still running on us, which is why assholes like Newt Gingrich viewed this book as one of their absolute favorites. It's kind of like a set of cheat codes for humanity.
> > the same people who are saying this now, who five years ago were saying "open plan, hot desking, no offices, everyone needs to live in a city to be happy otherwise you can't hire millenials because they want to be urban" will be saying "everyone needs to work in an office" again.
> and tech workers, if they are still in demand, will simply say no and choose companies that don't demand they work in an open plan office
They didn't vote with their feet last time. What makes you think they'll vote with their feet this time. They can do math, and they make higher margins living in Seattle than they would in Columbus, Ohio.