Playing with Pigs
playingwithpigs.nl
playingwithpigs.nl
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.
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.
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).
I'm not a vegetarian, but you do start to respect them as animals in their own right, rather then just meat products.
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
(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.
(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.