As I'm sure all of my readers know, events in Israel have rapidly been escalating from a constant, low-intensity conflict to all out war. Israeli troops and armor are rolling into Gaza in force, and it looks like Operation Summer Rains will be a lengthy and bloody process.
This sudden deterioration has been triggered by two things. First, the Hamas government's inaction in the face of Israeli demands to halt daily Qassam fire on Israeli towns, and secondly (and most proximally), the attack on an IDF post in Green Line Israel, and the subsequent kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit. The kidnapping was carried out by the PRC (and umbrella terror group) and the Hamas military wing, and has been the first successful kidnapping of a soldier since 1994 (though the lynching back in the beginning of the intafada sort of counts, I guess).
Since the kidnapping of Shalit, two other Israelis have been kidnapped: one, a 18-year old student who tried hitchhiking his way home in the West Bank, and (probably) an ill 62-year old man from Rishon Letzion. Though this all comes at once, the threat of kidnapping has been a serious one for some time now. For months, IDF intelligence and the Shin Bet have been warning that the Palestinian terror groups were trying very assiduously to kidnap Israelis as a way of leverage over the government, and to enable the release of important security prisoners (ie terrorists).
Why this sudden focus on kidnapping? It's been tried before by the Palestinians, but it has rarely been pursued so assiduously. First of all, Israel set a dangerous precedent a few years back in the Tenenbaum case, where a corrupt Israeli businessman and three dead soldiers who had been held in Lebanon were exchanged for the release of hundreds of detainees in Israeli prisons. More importantly, I think, is the rise of hostage-taking as the method of choice among Iraqi insurgents to bring the West to its knees. (Though it is not reported on too much in the Western media any more, abductions of Westerners and Iraqi government employees has become a matter of course in Iraq.)
Given the ultimate premium Israel places on the lives and bodies of its citizens, the Palestinians wisely thought that adapting Iraqi tactics would give them unprecedented leverage against the 'occupiers'. After all, the West Bank PRC has already threatened to 'butcher' the 18-year old student (Eliyahu Asheri) if Israel does not immediately withdraw from its military offensive in the Gaza Strip... clearly hearkening back to the language and actions of Iraqi hostage-takers.
Now here's the million dollar question: will this tactic work? I would like to suggest that it will be a complete and utter failure, and may have been one of the most foolish mistakes the Palestinian terror groups (particularly Hamas) have ever made.
Israel has adequate countermeasures, whereas the Iraqi situation is much tougher to regulate
Israel is already working on completing plans to 'seal off' most of the Palestinian population from access to the Israeli population. It's a simple matter, then, to revoke all of the remaining work permits, close the border, and sit tight. Of course, the WB security fence will need to be completed first, but that's in the process. I doubt that the latter two kidnappings could have occurred if the WB barrier was complete.
Of course, this does not address attacks like the one that captured Corporal Shalit. The tunnelling problem is one the IDF is still addressing, but I'm confident they will be able to develop adequate countermeasures to this sort of attack in the future.
More importantly, the entire milieu of Iraq is different than in the Israeli territories. In Iraq, the US is dealing with a mostly hostile population, is seriously undermanned, and must always be on guard. In contrast, most of Israel safe from such kidnapping tactics and the military enjoys short supply lines, an abundance of manpower, a comfortable superiority of forces, and enormous support from most of the public. Put succinctly, the potential hostages far outnumber hostiles in areas of Israel behind the security fences, and can be well protected and kept track of.
The Israeli public is much more used to coping with these situations than other Western populations
Granted, Israel also tends to put a higher value on each individual life and body, but the public is no longer shocked by such acts, just angered. I have only sympathy for the Shalit and Asheri families, and the Israeli public has shown signs of wanting all of this incessant death to end... but in the end, Israelis are awfully strong at dealing with this kind of trauma. I think the public would put trust in a military solution (as they did back in '94 with Nachshon Waxman)... and if it fails, they will coldly agree to a significant military intervention to seriously damage the terrorists' ability to carry out further attacks.
This is a public that supported 18 years of fighting in Lebanon to eliminate Katyusha attacks on Kiryat Shmonah. True, they got sick of the hemhorraging of soldiers' lives by the end, but they had a remarkable tolerance for trusting in military solutions rather than appeasement in response to attacks. Since Lebanon, the IDF has learned; now, they have limited objectives that can be carried out in weeks to months in Gaza (as they did back in 2002 in the WB), and seriously damage the terrorist base of operations.
Essentially, the Palestinians are likely to get absolutely nothing for their efforts... except overwhelming Israeli public support for military intervention (which the IDF did not have prior to these attacks).
The Palestinians are about to learn just how stupid their move was
Israel is working with tactics that steadily increase the pressure on Hamas and the PA to shape up, or be destroyed. For the first time, Israel has been talking seriously about wholesale assassination of most of the PA/PLC leadership. They've begun a slow escalation of the invasion in Gaza - a invasion that we all know will go very poorly for the oh-so-brave Palestinian fighters in the streets. Hamas political leaders are being arrested, weapons shops and training camps have come under fire, etc. This is a game of chicken, and Israel is not planning on losing. In an all-out military engagement, there is no question about who will be the victors. It may be a costly victory for Israel, but they will win if they decide on a course of military action.
They're more than happy to use this as a pretext to utterly destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, while toppling the Hamas government... and the panicky sounds we're hearing from the PA suggests they're beginning to believe Israel.
Put simply, the Iraqi paradigm of kidnapping doesn't pay... at least not in Israel, it doesn't.
28.6.06
21.6.06
The king of military... fantasy?
Any of you who are well-acquainted with the fantasy world are well aware of the buzz surrouding the (relatively) new Canadian author Steven Erikson and his Malazan Book of the Fallen series. He's a much-touted author who first became popular in the rest of the English-speaking world until his publishers consented to publish his books in the US in 2004 (since then, three of his six books in the Malazan series have been published, and the fourth is due out in August).
I recently finished the third of his books, titled Memories of Ice, and feel I have an adequate sampling to weigh in with a short review. I must say... the buzz is right. The man is brilliant.
To briefly sketch the books without major spoilage, Erikson is telling the story of an empire through its military campaigns. The Malazan Empire is a new, aggressive, highly structured empire that is using new military tactics and clever strategy to take a second continent of the world (the first having fallen and been consolidated prior to the series' beginning). Although ruthless in dealing with its enemies and internal corruption, the empire is mostly a benign dictatorship, relying on economics and a fair degree of freedom to conquered peoples (combined with a mailed fist of retribution to any rebellions), and has prospered. This expansion is taking place against a backdrop of upheaval in the pantheon of gods, where new (and forgotten) 'ascendants' are becoming prominent, more established gods are under assault, and the very essence of magic is being corrupted. Add in more than a pinch of politics, some philosophy and mysticism, and you've got the Malazan world.
The books (so far) follow a complex, multilayered plot following a whole host of carefully constructed characters through these tumultuous events... those events being the military campaigns of the Malazan Empire (mostly revolving around a single veteran army). These campaigns are rarely composed purely of engagements with the enemy, but are fit deftly into the growing complexity of the world and its problems.
Malazan's writing has a number of brilliant parts to it, from his interleaved plotlines to his fleshed-out characters, but what really sets his books apart is their focus and realism.
Most 'epic' fantasy series I've read have an entirely different approach. They are set against the backdrop of a fight of the protagonists against some vast evil endangering the cosmos, oftentimes with some individual character (or small group of characters) being the 'savior' of humanity. They may touch on military campaigns and engagements, but the focus is elsewhere.
In contrast, I feel that Erikson is telling a story about an army, and how it interacts with a complex world. He's writing almost akin to the style of some of the masters of military SF, where the story being told is about the military, not about some cosmic war.
And he does it amazingly well.
I love these books. They're brilliant, witty, thought-provoking, fresh, etc. I'd recommend them to anyone with the slightest interest in fantasy. The series has taken residence in my favorite four fantasy series/authors (along with Tolkein, Robin Hobb, and Steven Brust). Trust me, I have good taste, so that actually means something.
A few downsides, though. Erikson doesn't evade all of the fantasy cliches. He has a tendency to finish off each novel with a deus ex machina of one sort or another. At times, he can be a bit long-winded (though it rarely seems that way, with his rapidly shifting viewpoints and swiftly advancing plots). Also, sometimes things are a little bit too much 'just so' to work out convincingly. At least Erikson has no qualms about killing off important characters...
Well, there you have it. 'A love song for Steven Erikson.' My beautiful masterpiece, eh?
I recently finished the third of his books, titled Memories of Ice, and feel I have an adequate sampling to weigh in with a short review. I must say... the buzz is right. The man is brilliant.
To briefly sketch the books without major spoilage, Erikson is telling the story of an empire through its military campaigns. The Malazan Empire is a new, aggressive, highly structured empire that is using new military tactics and clever strategy to take a second continent of the world (the first having fallen and been consolidated prior to the series' beginning). Although ruthless in dealing with its enemies and internal corruption, the empire is mostly a benign dictatorship, relying on economics and a fair degree of freedom to conquered peoples (combined with a mailed fist of retribution to any rebellions), and has prospered. This expansion is taking place against a backdrop of upheaval in the pantheon of gods, where new (and forgotten) 'ascendants' are becoming prominent, more established gods are under assault, and the very essence of magic is being corrupted. Add in more than a pinch of politics, some philosophy and mysticism, and you've got the Malazan world.
The books (so far) follow a complex, multilayered plot following a whole host of carefully constructed characters through these tumultuous events... those events being the military campaigns of the Malazan Empire (mostly revolving around a single veteran army). These campaigns are rarely composed purely of engagements with the enemy, but are fit deftly into the growing complexity of the world and its problems.
Malazan's writing has a number of brilliant parts to it, from his interleaved plotlines to his fleshed-out characters, but what really sets his books apart is their focus and realism.
Most 'epic' fantasy series I've read have an entirely different approach. They are set against the backdrop of a fight of the protagonists against some vast evil endangering the cosmos, oftentimes with some individual character (or small group of characters) being the 'savior' of humanity. They may touch on military campaigns and engagements, but the focus is elsewhere.
In contrast, I feel that Erikson is telling a story about an army, and how it interacts with a complex world. He's writing almost akin to the style of some of the masters of military SF, where the story being told is about the military, not about some cosmic war.
And he does it amazingly well.
I love these books. They're brilliant, witty, thought-provoking, fresh, etc. I'd recommend them to anyone with the slightest interest in fantasy. The series has taken residence in my favorite four fantasy series/authors (along with Tolkein, Robin Hobb, and Steven Brust). Trust me, I have good taste, so that actually means something.
A few downsides, though. Erikson doesn't evade all of the fantasy cliches. He has a tendency to finish off each novel with a deus ex machina of one sort or another. At times, he can be a bit long-winded (though it rarely seems that way, with his rapidly shifting viewpoints and swiftly advancing plots). Also, sometimes things are a little bit too much 'just so' to work out convincingly. At least Erikson has no qualms about killing off important characters...
Well, there you have it. 'A love song for Steven Erikson.' My beautiful masterpiece, eh?
19.6.06
Well I'll be damned
I guess HRW isn't too bad, after all.
Now I wonder if the Guardian will bother reporting on this turn of events. Heh. Not bloody likely.
I'm sure other people have summarized my feelings on this fiasco much better, but all I can say is this: the reactions of the IDF/Defense Minister/Foreign Ministry can only be considered 'not a total fuckup' when compared to how the media covered the story.
HRW: We can't contradict IDF findings
By YAAKOV KATZ
While sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, the Human Rights Watch conceded Monday night for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings.
On Monday, Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast - met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had last week claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team.
"We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast] was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post following the meeting. While Klifi's team did a "competent job" to rule out the possibility that the blast was caused by artillery fire, there were still, Garlasco said, a number of pieces of evidence that the IDF commission did not take into consideration.
The main argument between Klifi and HRW surrounded the timeline of the blast, which the IDF said took between 16:57 and 15:10, at least 10 minutes after artillery fire in the area had stopped. HRW however disputes this claim and basing itself on Palestinian hospital documentation, claims that the explosion actually took place right around the time of the IDF artillery fire.
Meanwhile Monday, The Post learned that the IDF was currently inspecting a second piece of shrapnel doctors had retrieved from one of the Palestinians wounded in the blast and currently being treated at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba. A first piece of shrapnel, examined by the IDF as well as by an independent academic institute in Beersheba was found to not have come from a 155 mm shell, the type used in IDF artillery attacks on Kassam launch sites in the Gaza Strip. The second piece of shrapnel, sources said, was currently being examined in an IDF lab.
Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF's system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.
"We do not believe the Israelis were targeting civilians." Garlasco said. "We just want to know if it was an Israeli shell that killed the Palestinians."
Lucy Mair - head of the HRW's Jerusalem office - said Klifi's team had conducted a thorough and professional investigation of the incident and made "a good assessment" when ruling out the possibility that an errant IDF shell had killed the seven Palestinians on the Gaza beach.
'We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources that don't relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of injuries," Mair explained. "While they [the IDF] made a very good presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that have not been examined by Klifi's team…and that is why we believe there should be an independent investigation."
Now I wonder if the Guardian will bother reporting on this turn of events. Heh. Not bloody likely.
I'm sure other people have summarized my feelings on this fiasco much better, but all I can say is this: the reactions of the IDF/Defense Minister/Foreign Ministry can only be considered 'not a total fuckup' when compared to how the media covered the story.
18.6.06
Dr. Shoukas would be proud
Early this afternoon, I went to a neighborhood blood drive and donated some blood. After all, it's a good cause, and I'm healthy, right? Only problem is that my 6'2", 135 pound frame doesn't readily accept the loss of a unit of blood that happily.
Now you're all nodding your heads, assuming that I passed out after the donation. Fear not! I was perfectly fine... at least immediately thereafter.
But clearly my immediate compensation (increased fluid/solute intake, baroreceptor reflex, etc.) was only temporarily adequate. A few hours after the donation, poor wiggin wasn't feeling so hot, so I spent most of the day reading/drinking in bed.
You're waiting for me to get the point, I know. Anyways, as I went through the whole process - from the preparations to finishing up my initial recovery - I was thinking of the detailed changes occuring in my cardiovascular and endocrine physiology in response to the sudden blood loss. I had it all visualized (well, except for the parts where I got a head rush from standing up; I wasn't visualizing much of anything then), with the correct annotated equations/graphs/everything. Okay, so what's so special about this?
Sadly, this occurred without my conscious effort. Dr. Shoukas (my cardiovascular physiology instructor this year) is probably grinning somewhere.
Now you're all nodding your heads, assuming that I passed out after the donation. Fear not! I was perfectly fine... at least immediately thereafter.
But clearly my immediate compensation (increased fluid/solute intake, baroreceptor reflex, etc.) was only temporarily adequate. A few hours after the donation, poor wiggin wasn't feeling so hot, so I spent most of the day reading/drinking in bed.
You're waiting for me to get the point, I know. Anyways, as I went through the whole process - from the preparations to finishing up my initial recovery - I was thinking of the detailed changes occuring in my cardiovascular and endocrine physiology in response to the sudden blood loss. I had it all visualized (well, except for the parts where I got a head rush from standing up; I wasn't visualizing much of anything then), with the correct annotated equations/graphs/everything. Okay, so what's so special about this?
Sadly, this occurred without my conscious effort. Dr. Shoukas (my cardiovascular physiology instructor this year) is probably grinning somewhere.
8.6.06
I've been thinking some more...
After yet another bout of late-night bleary-eyed thought, I've got some additions to last night's post. Hopefully, I can flesh them out in more detail when I'm not half asleep.
I've thought of at least two more factors that need to be considered. Genomic size may help to compensate for some of the evolutionary losses brought about by focus on individual survival rather than species-level diversity/selection. After all, the sheer number of polymorphisms/combinations is much higher with the larger genomes of more evolved animals. This would mean that each individual is a walking repository of much more genetic diversity than less evolved species... I think. Yet I'm not sure that this matters that much: genome size seems to 'saturate' at some point, and there is not a direct correlation between genomic size and 'individual focus', for lack of a better term.
Another bit deals with levels of genomic regulation. I haven't thought this out carefully yet, but it is clear that higher species have much more complex levels of regulation of gene expression. This allows for a much finer 'tweaking' control of evolutionary factors. Does this matter in the long run, if most humans survive to reproduce? I'm not sure. But something at the back of my head was nagging me about it, so I'm tossing it out there for discussion.
What I would really love is if I could find some hard data on all of these factors to adequately weigh them against each other. I'd like to see studies of genetic diversity of various types of species over time, with and without selective pressures, a look at mechanisms of controlling litter size, etc. Maybe I can try cornering some evolutionary geneticists I know and get some answers.
I've thought of at least two more factors that need to be considered. Genomic size may help to compensate for some of the evolutionary losses brought about by focus on individual survival rather than species-level diversity/selection. After all, the sheer number of polymorphisms/combinations is much higher with the larger genomes of more evolved animals. This would mean that each individual is a walking repository of much more genetic diversity than less evolved species... I think. Yet I'm not sure that this matters that much: genome size seems to 'saturate' at some point, and there is not a direct correlation between genomic size and 'individual focus', for lack of a better term.
Another bit deals with levels of genomic regulation. I haven't thought this out carefully yet, but it is clear that higher species have much more complex levels of regulation of gene expression. This allows for a much finer 'tweaking' control of evolutionary factors. Does this matter in the long run, if most humans survive to reproduce? I'm not sure. But something at the back of my head was nagging me about it, so I'm tossing it out there for discussion.
What I would really love is if I could find some hard data on all of these factors to adequately weigh them against each other. I'd like to see studies of genetic diversity of various types of species over time, with and without selective pressures, a look at mechanisms of controlling litter size, etc. Maybe I can try cornering some evolutionary geneticists I know and get some answers.
7.6.06
*chuckles* I used the word apotheosis!
Just the other day, I was feverishly studying for my last exam of the year at some unfortunately late hour of the night. A thought came to me that wasn't necessarily very original, but it seemed quite clever at the time. I tore off a corner of the page I was writing on, scrawled an illegible and large unintelligible note, and went back to studying.
So now, I present to you the thoughts that occur to me late at night. It's a divergence from the subjects of the last few months... which most of you probably welcome.
I've been thinking about litter size. More specifically, human litter size.
Wait for it... trust me, it's worth it. At least for the laughs.
Why do humans have small litter sizes? Until fertility drugs, women would give at birth to two or three children at once only rarely. Total family size tops out at a dozen or so, right? As I'm sure you're aware, this is exceedingly rare, even for relatively 'advanced' species on the evolutionary tree. Most species have lots of offspring in lots of batches. Only a few of the larger (and more evolved) species have such a small number of offspring.
Well, all of my readers are currently wondering if I ever took a basic biology course. Or even watched 'Wild America' on the television when I was six. Trust me, I did both.
The classical answer is that humans invest a lot more in their offspring than most other animals. We pour huge amounts of work into keeping them alive (and nutrients, and time, etc.), whereas less evolved animals have a thousand offpsring in the hope that a handful get to reproduce themselves, right? Makes sense, at least on a surface level.
But here's the interesting part:
An underappreciated effect of having large litter size is that it provides for a large amount of genetic diversity in offspring, right? Recombine the genes enough way, and you'll get a handful of offspring per generation that are exceptional, and have that tiny bit of selective advantage that moves them toward. This is further enhanced by the general rule that DNA repair/fidelity mechanisms are much better in more highly evolved species... which, while being good for individual survival, is not necessarily very good for species-level genetic diversity.
So what does this mean? It means that as evolution progresses, the shift focuses more and more towards preservation of individuals of the species. This selection works spendidly for producing humans, right?
Yet there are side effects to this. Focusing on individual survival short-circuits evolution. Species-level genetic diversity decreases significantly, as do the number of possible permutations per parent. Heck, we talk about 'overpopulation' of humans at some 7 billion, right? Yet less developed species have orders of magnitude higher numbers, and a consequently higher genetic diversity.
What I think this means is that evolution is self-limiting. It is an asymptotic process; originally, very important as a driving force in creating diversity, but eventually defeating itself when it reaches a certain point. One could even argue that human intelligence (in particular medicine and civil engineering) has removed many of the selective pressures that were still being exerted on us as a species.
Are we nearing our biological apotheosis?
I wonder... has this pattern repeated itself in the past? Has a dominant species that stopped evolving been swept away in a cataclysm to be replaced by nimbler, more 'evolvable' species? I don't know if the dinosaurs (or other similar extinctions) count as this, but it is an interesting thought.
I suppose it almost sounds like hubris, but I think it only makes sense. Maybe it will take another few million years, but I think evolution has stopped at humans for logical reasons, not our self-centeredness.
Now is my readers' chance to explain to me that this thought has been elaborated in depth (even mathematically!) by some renowned evolutionary biologist. But I felt good having an original thought for once, instead of spitting back facts to a soulless exam paper.
I'd also be interested to hear more points supporting my idea, beyond DNA replication fidelity, litter size, and intelligence. I think it all comes down to valuing individual rather than species-level well-being.
So now, I present to you the thoughts that occur to me late at night. It's a divergence from the subjects of the last few months... which most of you probably welcome.
I've been thinking about litter size. More specifically, human litter size.
Wait for it... trust me, it's worth it. At least for the laughs.
Why do humans have small litter sizes? Until fertility drugs, women would give at birth to two or three children at once only rarely. Total family size tops out at a dozen or so, right? As I'm sure you're aware, this is exceedingly rare, even for relatively 'advanced' species on the evolutionary tree. Most species have lots of offspring in lots of batches. Only a few of the larger (and more evolved) species have such a small number of offspring.
Well, all of my readers are currently wondering if I ever took a basic biology course. Or even watched 'Wild America' on the television when I was six. Trust me, I did both.
The classical answer is that humans invest a lot more in their offspring than most other animals. We pour huge amounts of work into keeping them alive (and nutrients, and time, etc.), whereas less evolved animals have a thousand offpsring in the hope that a handful get to reproduce themselves, right? Makes sense, at least on a surface level.
But here's the interesting part:
An underappreciated effect of having large litter size is that it provides for a large amount of genetic diversity in offspring, right? Recombine the genes enough way, and you'll get a handful of offspring per generation that are exceptional, and have that tiny bit of selective advantage that moves them toward. This is further enhanced by the general rule that DNA repair/fidelity mechanisms are much better in more highly evolved species... which, while being good for individual survival, is not necessarily very good for species-level genetic diversity.
So what does this mean? It means that as evolution progresses, the shift focuses more and more towards preservation of individuals of the species. This selection works spendidly for producing humans, right?
Yet there are side effects to this. Focusing on individual survival short-circuits evolution. Species-level genetic diversity decreases significantly, as do the number of possible permutations per parent. Heck, we talk about 'overpopulation' of humans at some 7 billion, right? Yet less developed species have orders of magnitude higher numbers, and a consequently higher genetic diversity.
What I think this means is that evolution is self-limiting. It is an asymptotic process; originally, very important as a driving force in creating diversity, but eventually defeating itself when it reaches a certain point. One could even argue that human intelligence (in particular medicine and civil engineering) has removed many of the selective pressures that were still being exerted on us as a species.
Are we nearing our biological apotheosis?
I wonder... has this pattern repeated itself in the past? Has a dominant species that stopped evolving been swept away in a cataclysm to be replaced by nimbler, more 'evolvable' species? I don't know if the dinosaurs (or other similar extinctions) count as this, but it is an interesting thought.
I suppose it almost sounds like hubris, but I think it only makes sense. Maybe it will take another few million years, but I think evolution has stopped at humans for logical reasons, not our self-centeredness.
Now is my readers' chance to explain to me that this thought has been elaborated in depth (even mathematically!) by some renowned evolutionary biologist. But I felt good having an original thought for once, instead of spitting back facts to a soulless exam paper.
I'd also be interested to hear more points supporting my idea, beyond DNA replication fidelity, litter size, and intelligence. I think it all comes down to valuing individual rather than species-level well-being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
