Why don’t we ride Zebras?

I suppose the simple answer to the question posed above is: Zebras are not domesticated. So why haven’t we domesticated Zebras or all other animals for that matter? The list of domesticated species is actually very short. This is not to say we haven’t tried. It just seems that most species are intractable to domestication. Bugger, there are limitations to our powers, after all.

First it is necessary to distinguish between domestication and taming. A wild animal can be tamed if exposed to extensive human contact when young or hand reared. This is an acquired trait although some individuals of a species may be genetically disposed toward taming more than other members of the same species. Fundamentally, however, they remain a wild animal. Domestication involves selective breeding, generally over many thousands of  generations, to select desired genetic traits. Once this is achieved the domestic animal becomes dependent upon their human masters to the extent that most individuals would not survive if returned to the wild- although there are exceptions.      

This has got me thinking. If we can’t domesticate most animals then there must be underlying limitations. Humans have proved very resourceful when it comes to manipulating the environment and all therein. So what are the limitations to domestication? Here is Flaxen Saxon’s take on the problem, in no particular order.

1.   Not picky eaters. You have to select a species that you can feed easily. Pandas are a no show because they only eat bamboo shoots. Can’t find bamboo shoots in Tipton, unless you go to the Asian store.

2.    They must be able to breed in captivity. No good having precious species that can’t mate once caught. I suppose you could give the said species a ‘helping hand’. Not necessarily sustainable unless it is a particularly rare species that needs a coddling, like a Panda.

3.   Species adopted by man are generally social animals with a hierarchy. Thus, they fit well into our society and recognise us as pack leader.

4.   A pleasant disposition: Not all animals are so disposed- some are just ornery. Zebras are particularly nasty and have been known to kick lions to death. They have to be this way to survive on the Savannah- the world is a tough place.

5.   They have to grow quickly. Most domestic species are bred because they are good to eat; sad but true. Have you eaten dog? Nice if you get it young enough. If not part of the menu, the animal fulfils a useful work role. Dogs were not always cute lap dogs suckling at our expansive and opulent teats; they helped with the hunt. Some dogs remain working hounds to this day. I have three lap dogs, but I also have three nipples, so it works.                      

6.    The animal must be of a calm disposition. Nervous and skittish creatures are difficult to tame. Apparently, this is why the fox has never been tamed as it is endowed with a brittle temperament.

There are always exceptions. The so-called 'domestic' cat takes little heed of the above list. Aloof and barely sociable, the feline conspicuously ignores any notion of hierarchy concerning its 'owner'. The cat is happy eating the finest viands his master or mistress can provide before slinking off to devour a sewer rat, whole. Neither do they taste good or can be trained to undertake the slightest useful task. Cats are capricious, unpredictable and subject to whim. Nevertheless, they compel us to feed, comfort and shelter them. In fact, they remain the ultimate predator and parasite. Cats are essentially feral with a faint varnish of domestication, lightly burnished. And unlike 'Mitzy' the miniature Dachshund, they can fend for themselves in the wild and thrive. 

It has just occurred to me- Zebras have weak backs.   

That's my thesis down the crapper...

Flaxen talking bollocks, once again......

Nihilism: a belief in the pointless of existence; the absence of truth; the absence of reason.

Mayhap, tis the handmaiden of decadence and the Herald of societal catastrophe. Nihilism lends a helping hand or at least, places the hammer in our hands; I do not subscribe to this view.

Nihilism is often envisaged as a modern preoccupation, but this is not the case. As a notion, nihilism has an ancient pedigree although the word only became 'current' during the 19th century. The concept of nihilism was known to the ancient Greeks and peculiarly to the 'Sceptics', an influential school in ancient Greek philosophy. At its extreme, scepticism denies the possibility of the acquisition of knowledge or truth and thus hints at the modern concept of epistemological nihilism. At its worst, it invites solipsism.

Shakespeare had an opinion on everything. The Bard had a knack of posing society's conundrums in a pleasing manner. His approach is often askew but his insight is penetrating, nonetheless. Here is his take on nihilism, although he would not have considered it as such, in wondrous and lyrical form.

Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more; it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

Macbeth

Of the modern philosophers, nihilism is more often associated with Friederich Nietzsche. He departs from a cold rational appreciation of the concept and characteristically injects an emotionally charged corrosive. Indeed, if men stop believing in god, in society, in morality and finally themselves, the cohesive forces binding society become fractured as men longer care. Not only is the world a cruel illusion and intrinsically meaningless, but it is a 'world' that demands to be set afire. Once man has killed ‘God’ he goes on to kill himself, with baleful satisfaction. For Nietzsche, nihilism is the introduction of a societal abrasive and is viewed, ultimately, as a cleansing force in Western society. Various sages of the early 20th century conjured and concurred with this appreciation and added their own twist, at will.  

Perhaps we should not worry, too much. I am of the belief that nihilism is the preoccupation of the comfortable, Western intellectual. If we believe that civilisations evolve, then nihilism is a natural consequence amongst the 'thinking classes'. To my mind, nihilism is always going to raise its nobbly head in any society which rises above the savage. This is why the Mohammedan has no concept of nihilism except in deed. When a certain class of society acquires wealth and education they ponder upon the known and more importantly, the unknown, more than is good for them. The man tilling the field or sweating on the production line contemplates nihilism, not at all; well not in any coherent way, at least. Nihilism is a concept of the intelligentsia and mostly of the literary intelligentsia, at that. The liberal intellectual minority rarely influences society. When do clever men make effective politicians except when they are autocratic tyrants- Caesar, anyone? The clear answer is that, generally, they don't. Stupid men, with an ideology and a gun, do better. Have you ever read Plato's, 'Republic' and understood it? Plato would make fascists of us all.

Reflection on society is a diversion for the intellectual elite as they sip latte's in trendy neighbourhoods. Nihilism, as a concept and a diversion, is a beautiful fiction, a mere symptom of intellectual malaise. Long may it reign and not impose on us simple folk. Let us not be led astray by the abstract. If we want to consider the factors leading to the ultimate collapse of Western Civilisation, and by this I mean European Civilisation, we should be looking toward practical economics and politics. All else is mere commentary and sophistry.

Having said that, quixotically, I confess as a natural inclination, I'm drawn to nihilism. This goes against the intellectual grain according to my very extensive and rational scientific education. I suspect I'm not a typical scientist and I'm happy to embrace irrational concepts as long as I recognise them as such. This is not the thought of a clear head but of a racing heart. In my quieter moments, I have known darkness and despair. Tis my own, 'Black Dog'....... 

    

The Ugly Duchess

Mrs Mugumbo contemplating celibacy and Paget's disease

A recent article in a West Midland paper, 'The Tipton Bugle', reported that a woman,

Mrs Mugumbo, had sued a Tipton Hospital because her husband had lost all interest in sex after his surgery.

The hospital spokesman replied: "Mr. Mugumbo was admitted for cataract surgery.

All we did was correct his eyesight."

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.......  

The quintessence and spirit of the 'Romany way'

Gypo encampment akimbo

A travelling band of wandering 'gypsies' have set up camp on the outskirts of Tipton in a rural area of outstanding natural beauty. A local social worker, Miz Leftwing Mugumbo has welcomed the influx of itinerant folk and revels in the quaint diversity brought forth by 'a people' dripping in cultural vibrancy.

Beloved, nomadic, romantic, law abiding and revenue eschewing peregrinators of quaint deportment and mien.

During their sojourn in Tipton, 'The Travellers' are expected to add a touch of colour and human waste to the picturesque countryside. The loss of personal items from clothes lines, from gardens, from garden sheds should in no way be attributed to the law-abiding folk of no fixed abode. Similarly the expected spike in violent incidences in the local hostelry, ‘The Felching Ferret’ will not be ascribed to this most pacific and sober of people.    

Once their feet become itchy (tinea pedum) they will vanish into the night leaving behind an indelible imprint of their passing, on the land, and on the hearts and minds of the locals.

They will be sadly missed by the good burghers of Tipton as they cuntemplate the extensive/expensive clean-up operation. 

No, I don't want to buy a fucking peg/pig

Flaxen is bored, again

Another lazy Sunday afternoon. I know I should be tending the garden or putting up shelves, but instead I'm sequestered in my study keeping my head below the parapet trying to avoid my wife who thinks I should be tending the garden and putting up shelves.......

Frankly, I can't be arsed. I work hard all week and don't need to be rushing about like a 'rushy about thing' on my two days orf. Arse.

So for your entertainment, and mine, I have been trawling the net and have caught a crop of 'bottom feeders' for your delectation and amusement. I thank you. I know you shouldn't mock the afflicted, but I'm not a nice man and I'm possessed of a cruel sense of humour (bugger nuts) .......

Yep, this man surely loves his doll. Mustn't judge too harshly. Everyone is deserved of love, affection and a sexual outlet and not everyone can be as attractive as your gracious host. Shouldn't have scrimped, though. These days you can buy dolls with realistic features and vibratory bits. All parts are interchangeable and cum in washable warm latex, apparently.  

Ouch. This man suffers from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, an autosomal dominant  genetic condition. Clinically and genetically this is a heterogeneous group of disorders linked by a defect in collagen production. Nuff said.   

No artificial rocket propulsion necessary. All this achieved with a healthy nutritious diet of sprouts and pulse. Bugger the ozone layer! Arse, big flatus arse.

 This obviously works for him. The goldfish are an ostentatious extra. Personally I'd like to add a few piranhas and watch him dance. "Dance for me, you fucking weirdo".

   

 

 Is it a quiff? Is it a mullet? Is it an aeroplane? I have no fucking idea and neither does he.

The Mugumbo family foraging in their natural habitat. Notice as the matriarch of the family checks that there are no following hyenas/security staff. The male members of the Mugumbo clan sit idly contemplating the arrival of their next welfare cheque.   

"Elvis has left the court room". Fuck me Elvis, working all those years in the local fish 'n' chip shop have not been kind to your demeanour and general habitus. Get ye to 'Poundland'. I thank you very much.  

That's all folks, I've ferrets to attend to........ 

The Problem of Evil

It is interesting to note that in a recent interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, stated that following the aftermath of the Paris bombings he doubted the existence of god. What intrigued me was why this particular act should jolt the good Bish to question god's existence? History is resplendent with horror and atrocities, some of which were perpetrated by the Christian church. Now the Archbishop is an educated and supposedly intelligent man. If he is saying this sort of thing in public then his private thoughts must be a lot more settled. He seems to forget that he is the spiritual leader of the Anglican church and circumspection in speech and deed is probably prudent; he would not make a good politician. However, in secular Britain the Archbishop's comments will probably fluff few feathers outside the rarefied world of ecclesiastica although it might unsettle the 'Blue Rinse' brigade.

The problem of evil is a longstanding one and ably expressed by the Ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Therefore, we have to contemplate a deity who is unable to intervene to prevent evil or a deity who, although able to intervene, chooses not to and therefore, remains indifferent to our fate or takes delight in our suffering. Adherents of the Christian religion find this viewpoint highly unsatisfactory and over the centuries very clever minds have exercised their intellectual muscle to find a solution to this very real dilemma. In fact, this train of thought has spawned a whole branch of theology, called Theodicy. This is an essential extension of Christian thought especially as god is endowed with the quality of 'being all good', or omnibenevolence. The concept of god's 'all goodness' has been a notoriously difficult concept for Christians to defend especially in light of the portrayal of god in the 'Old Testament'. This ancient book makes no excuse for a rapacious, vicious and cruel deity: "I am the Lord and there is no other.....I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord, who do all these things". Not much theological wiggle room or ambiguity in this passage. I will not list the atrocities sanctioned in the Bible by the good Lord, for they are legion. It is fascinating to note that these passages are never read out in the pulpit by the Vicar on a quiet Sunday morn- might upset the old dears. And if you think that the god of the 'New Testament' is more enlightened then you have not read the words of the living god, Jesus. There are frequent instances where Jesus threatens the unbeliever with the eternal torment of hell.

Having established that theologians have a case to argue on behalf of their beloved deity, what approaches have they taken to circumvent god's responsibility for evil? One approach is to state that evil is illusory and therefore, evil simply does not exist. This viewpoint is not popular with theologians for the rather obvious reason: “If evil is really nothing then what is all the fuss about sin?” A popular argument is to state that evil is a consequence of man’s ‘free will’. Tis god's gift in order that we can exercise choice in our actions and thus act as free agents and not mindless automatons. If man chooses to exercise this right for evil then the responsibility for evil lies with man, not god. There is a problem with this approach: 'free will' is incompatible with another of god's characteristics, omniscience. God knows all and as a consequence every event, past and present, is known by god and therefore, there can be no such thing as 'free will' as everything is predetermined. This absolves mankind from moral responsibility as we cannot act otherwise- we are robots, after all. As god created man in full knowledge of what would unfold and as evil is part of the performance, god must take full responsibility for his creation. He could have made a 'benign' world where evil was non-existent, but he chose not to.

We all know that killing, robbing and stealing is wrong from a moral perspective. In a civilised society, there is a legal provision to protect the 'weak and innocent' from the evil that men do. However, god appears not to be willing to interact with the world, although capable of doing so, to protect the weak and innocent from the wicked. Some would say that god rectifies all in the 'afterlife'. The 'good' receive their reward and the 'bad' their just deserts. The appeal to justice in an 'afterlife' does not absolve god, morally. An evil act perpetrated in this life, or any other, still remains evil. And if god allows an evil act to occur, given his divine attributes, it follows that god is necessarily evil.    

This is but a simple exposition of some of Theodicy's arguments. The arguments can become philosophically sophisticated and technically convoluted. I will not continue in this vein as refutations should only be as complicated as is absolutely necessary to refute the opponent's stance.

 For all the sophistry and intellectual contortions, we have to ask how effective are the explanations absolving god from responsibility? All the special pleading, is just that, a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable. If prodded sufficiently hard, most religious apologists will fall back to the default position: 'How can the feeble mind of man understand the majesty and workings of a supernatural god'? This is no explanation at all and relies on the concept of an inexplicable deity. Few outside the fusty cloister will find this a satisfactory riposte.

Of course, there is another solution never considered by theologians, except the Archbishop: There are no gods and we are alone and adrift in an indifferent universe. In that case, we would be better applying ourselves to the question- why are we as a species, so cruel? Humankind is responsible for evil in the world, notwithstanding evil due to natural disasters.  If we are to seek answers to human injustice we are well advised to seek them in our psychology and perhaps ultimately in our fundamental biology. It looks like god is off the hook, after all. 

Twat in a hat

Bugger Christmas!

Arse, shit, bugger

Christmas comes but once a year. Sadly it lasts 6 months

I hate bloody Christmas. Goodwill to all men? They can bugger orf. Most folk are irksome and  don’t magically become less so because of some pagan Yuletide festival. Let me be to contemplate the injustice of an insensate uncaring universe in the comfort of my book bestrewn study. In quiet moments of despair, I can sit in a darkened corner, coiled in the foetal position, gently rocking.

Bah humbug

There is a special place in hell reserved for those who erect the Christmas tree and bedeck their hovels with decorations in November. My place of work placed a large tree in the foyer two weeks ago. Last year it got nicked. I'm hoping for a repeat performance.  

Yo, blood ho............

Did I ever tell you I'm a miserable old curmudgeon bastard?