×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ohio Zoo Attempts To Mate Female Rhino With Her Brother For Species Survival

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the worst-blind-date-ever dept.

Science 272

An anonymous reader writes "Unfortunately for the Sumatran rhino the fate of the species may boil down to a plan by the Cincinnati Zoo to breed their lone female with her little brother. 'We absolutely need more calves for the population as a whole; we have to produce as many as we can as quickly as we can,' said Terri Roth, who heads the zoo's Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife. 'The population is in sharp decline and there's a lot of urgency around getting her pregnant.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

272 comments

Oh so it's ok for animals but not for us? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347661)

I hate humans...

Re:Oh so it's ok for animals but not for us? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347735)

It is worse than that. According to PETA, animals can't speak and give verbal consent so anytime they do have sex it is rape. To make matters worse I understand the the little brother rhino is underage. Therefore the Cincinnati zoo is running a underage incestuous animal brothel. How can we allow this to happen. I demand that the administrators of the zoo be locked up.

Won't someone think of the Rhinos?

Re:Oh so it's ok for animals but not for us? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#44347881)

I'm sure they are filming it all as well. So pedo rape incest porn factory sounds more accurate.

Kinky. (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 months ago | (#44347663)

If it was good enough for the pharaohs, it's good enough for the rhinos.

Re:Kinky. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347821)

If it was good enough for the pharaohs, it's good enough for the rhinos.

Also, Cincinnati is just across the Ohio river from Kentucky, the land of five million people and fifteen last names.

Re:Kinky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347975)

yeah but dude this isn't the south

I mean ohio is but it's a thousand miles or something from the border of the south

but yeah.. bow chicka wow, bow ca bow ca waew

Incest is best.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347669)

Put your sister to the test!

Re:Incest is best.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347995)

If you can't keep it in your pants, at least keep it in the family.

Re:Incest is best.... (3, Funny)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 9 months ago | (#44348151)

The brother was humping his sister, when she said "you fuck much better than dad." He then replied "yeah, mom said the same."

I volunteered (2)

Compact Dick (518888) | about 9 months ago | (#44347675)

but was ignominiously rejected.

Re:I volunteered (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 months ago | (#44347681)

but was ignominiously rejected.

By the zoo, or by the rhino?

Re:I volunteered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347713)

By his sister.

Re:I volunteered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347779)

His username tells you everything you need to know.

Re:I volunteered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348071)

That's racist!

Like in the Bible! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347679)

Just being good Christians.

Re:Like in the Bible! (2, Informative)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347705)

Sorry, no.

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6

I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.

Re:Like in the Bible! (4, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 9 months ago | (#44347745)

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, please to explain how humanity got beyond the second generation without incest.

Re:Like in the Bible! (4, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347769)

They were not the first two humans.

Contrary to what your local pastor may have told you, the bible says no such thing. Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.

Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.

There is much more to be said here, and much more potential insight to be gained, but since I doubt you are interested in more than the immediate question specifically insofar as it helps you reject theism and no farther, I'll leave that for another day.

Re:Like in the Bible! (3, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about 9 months ago | (#44347823)

HERECY! GOD DID NOT CREATE ANY OTHER FIRST HUMANS BESIDE ADAM AND EVE.

on a side note, the imagination of religious nutjobs in order to avoid embarrassment, always amazes me.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347831)

And your qualifications to pronounce "HERECY" would be...?

Re:Like in the Bible! (5, Funny)

etash (1907284) | about 9 months ago | (#44347895)

A University Of Sarcasm Diploma.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347907)

The Spelling Diploma's still in the mail?

Re:Like in the Bible! (3, Funny)

etash (1907284) | about 9 months ago | (#44347949)

exactly. "i got butthurt therefore i pointed out a spelling error". epic fail.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348003)

Don't be ridiculous. Any effect your childish troll might have had wore out over the last hundred people who parroted the exact same thing.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 9 months ago | (#44348021)

You need qualifications to pronounce herecy?
I though all you had to do was believe in the power of imagination.

Re:Like in the Bible! (3, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44347929)

Dude, give it up: Genesis 1 and 2 are already blatantly contradictory. You can insert unspoken context to change any fairytale into something vaguely consistent if you want, and tell me that God's just testing me because I refuse to re-interpret so it makes sense, but the fact is that it's just a playful fantasy written by someone was probably too high to review their notes.

Re:Like in the Bible! (2)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347983)

Well, the context isn't "unspoken", it's directly written, and it in no way is a fairytale, but rather allegory, but...

Just one word of advice, don't read George Orwell's Animal Farm.

You won't be able to hear people explaining it was political insights you were supposed to be taking away from it, over the sound of your head exploding about the symbolism.

Well, yeah, I understand you won't start lying about being unable to understand it isn't about talking pigs, unless Orwell started impeding your personal behavioral whims in some way, but still...

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348037)

1) Instead of telling me that it's "directly written", give me evidence. Where in Genesis Chapter 2 does it say, "And this time, when it says that God created man and woman and every beast for the second time, and those plants which hadn't yet sprouted but which were mentioned just a few lines ago, it's just talking about those in a particular place"? 2) Fairytales can be allegorical, ya filthy strawmanner. 3) But Genesis doesn't really symbolise anything, so it'd be a stretch to call it allegorical anyway. It's just a nice story made by old dudes who didn't really know what was going on - which is fair enough, as you have to start with a guess. 4) Your tone isn't very Christian, bro.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348113)

Genesis 5:3
He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created.

Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Humanity per se created, and given rather Darwinian directives incompatible with staying in a garden.

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

Sixth "day" ends.

Genesis 2:5
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

As noted in the footnote [biblegateway.com] , "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here. My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.

Genesis 6:21
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

And with this act suggestive of genetic engineering from a DNA source, which you will mock as written here and would immediately assent to if you read this exact same thing as a broad description of a modern-day cloning procedure, let your futile mockery resume.

On your other points:
2) Learn how sets work.
3) It unquestionably symbolizes a great many things. Your incredulity on the matter doesn't override actual scholarship and the text itself.
4) Yes, it is.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348137)

The basic issue here is that you would need at some point to be able to differentiate man(1) from man(2).

You will almost certainly make no effort to do so before you get Naturally Deselected, though.

For reasons that will be obscure to you specifically because you can't differentiate man(1) from man(2), I have absolutely no problem with this sequence of events.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348215)

The basic issues here are that you want to 1) re-order paragraphs; 2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created; 3) ignore the different roles assigned for the genders in the two accounts; 4) disregard the supporting mound of literature which establishes the existence of multiple creation stories in light of 1-3, likely written hundreds of years apart.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348251)

2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created

Trust me, there is nothing I ignore about this.

Thanks for playing, but you're like somebody arguing arithmetic, without having a clue about what Godel knows about the subject, with someone who does know. It's amusing briefly, but little more. See you (or a proxy) later.

Re:Like in the Bible! (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348187)

As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here.

The discussion of the garden begins in verse 8. You're still on verse 5, dude. Read through the whole of Genesis 2. It's repeating several events which have already occurred in Genesis 1. Likely two different adaptations of the same fairytale. Perhaps the authors had a disagreement?

My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.

And better students of the book than you have decided time and time again that Genesis contains multiple creation stories. Most likely, then, is that the Bible is an often vague set of fairytales ("allegories") with no real concern for consistency or clarity - clarity's a dangerous thing in religion. Least likely is that the Bible is a perfect, divine word which happens to require contorted interpretations in order to make perfectly connected sense.

2) Bringing up sets isn't going to convince anyone.

3) OK, what do Genesis 1&2 symbolise, please?

4) Having reviewed your language a second time, and compared it with the advice given in your special book, I'm pretty sure you're going to Hell.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348197)

Discussion with you is clearly pointless. My points are made, and they are valid interpretation as given. I'll let time handle you from here.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348271)

No, you're re-ordering paragraphs, ignoring the re-creation of all beasts, ignoring the different presentations of the two genders, ignoring the entirely different styles between the two Chapters (switching at 2:4) in the original text which suggests that they're written hundreds of years apart, ignoring the fact that the original text differentiates man's "creation" in Genesis 1 vs "formation" in Genesis 2, &c. &c.

As far as I can see, you think you've uniquely and cleverly found some way of unifying the accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis, even though this has been attempted and refuted dozens of times over the last few hundred years. Telling me to trust you, or that your arguments are "valid" merely because you have asserted them, gets you nowhere. I don't know whether you're a True Believer or are trying to demonstrate your debate prowess to... yourself? but it's kinda weird.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 9 months ago | (#44348335)

Alternate Theory: It could be valid to assume that the two stories overlap in time period (many histories do this and some of the latter books of the bible as well) if that was the case (as is as likely as your proposal) then the animals, etc are not being 'recreated' only the story is recapped. (remember the early parts of the bible were retold orally and so there would have been overlap in the stories as they would not have necessarily been told chronologically).
It doesn't resolve the original issue relating to incest, but you should bear in mind again these stories were told orally, and having many characters is hard to remember, you only need to look at most modern short stories to see this. Genesis 1 could also be symbolic of man* in general as supposed to a single subset of humanity. (* I use man here to mean humanity as is its traditional usage)

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#44348001)

Day 3- vegetation
Day 4- stars
Day 5- sea creatures, birds
Day 6- beasts, mankind - "male and female"

2:5-7 God created "a man" before plants, so on either day 1, 2, or 3.

2:19, God made beasts (thus mankind, male and female), before Eve. So how could Eve be the first woman if she was made after the beasts and mankind - "male and female"?

Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.

It seems quite clear in 2:5-7 that plants didn't exist before Adam, and mankind, male and female, were created with the beasts, days later. So I'm not sure how that's consistent, with science or itself. Though you have the "correct" reading of what it "actually" says, so I'm sure you'll take the standard way out. "you are reading it wrong" "your translation is bad" or something like that.

Re:Like in the Bible! (2)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348041)

You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation. You are in so doing off the topic of my point.

My stance is that humans existed before Adam and Eve. I have provided scientific and scriptural reasons for this stance.

You are then asserting other things about my supposed stance I never said. Quite seriously, what is your objective here?

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348117)

You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.

Correct. The main problem is that a lot of people don't see it as an allegorical presentation, but rather a statement of fact.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348125)

You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.

Ahahaha, worthy of a politician who's just been caught lying.

There is no "scientific reason" to explain a falsehood. Adam and Eve didn't exist, therefore any stance you have about their chronology is whimsical, not scientific. I don't use science to contort Harry Potter - why are you using it to justify your interpretation of Genesis?

And the only "scriptural reason" you've supplied is that you have to twist the interpretation so it isn't inconsistent, an indication that it is written by fallible men rather than a mythical god.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348165)

Interesting. There is literally not a single logically-valid argument here.

"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable. I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way". Nothing valid in any way in your thinking here.

"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.

There is nothing "twisting" about my interpretation. You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 9 months ago | (#44348317)

"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable.

"Worthy of". dignus -a -um. You have particularly poor reading comprehension.

I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way".

Logic is applicable everywhere.

"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.

Flying teapot fallacy. Pretty embarrassing to get involved in a discussion about credibility of the creation stories with an a priori assumption that A&E exist, isn't it?

You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.

You're still trying to re-order paragraphs. The reason they do not flow is because they are distinct accounts which happen to have been pasted one after the other. There's enough evidence of this from literary-critical analysis. You are presenting an occasionally still heard and refuted theory about the two creation stories.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#44348167)

It's either all literal or all allegorical. The game of "it's factual or not, based on my opinion of what fits my beliefs best" is a game that I don't subscribe to. It's very well defined in how it presents it. There are days listed, and a very explicit "Adam was created before the plants" and "Eve was created after all the beasts". And mankind was created along with the beasts. So Eve must *not* be the first woman. Even allegories are logically consistent (for the modern ones that have literate editors. God's editors must have sucked really badly for The Book to be as inconsistent and contradictory as it is. We made it to the second chapter before the first inconsistency was found. You assert Adam was *not* the first man, but the second chapter makes it clear that he pre-dated plants.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348177)

It's either all literal or all allegorical.

No, this is never true about anything. Not true about any written work, of any type. One can intermix factual and metaphorical statements at will, in any book. It is impossible that you didn't know this as you were claiming otherwise. Why'd you claim it anyway?

And no, the second chapter in no way says Adam predated plants. It says he predated the plants in his garden. See the other post, or ask anyone with a modicum of analytical capability or common-sense.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 9 months ago | (#44348207)

" Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,"

Sounds like more than a "no garden" quote.

No, this is never true about anything. Not true about any written work, of any type. One can intermix factual and metaphorical statements at will, in any book. It is impossible that you didn't know this as you were claiming otherwise. Why'd you claim it anyway?

To see how you'd identify one from the other. "my personal opinion" is not sufficient to lecture others. I'm not sure what a bible-thumping zealot is doing on a site like this, lecturing others the way you are. Why'd you do it?

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 9 months ago | (#44348245)

Good question, it is beyond stupid.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348265)

Now if only you could believe that as you're saying it.

Point of fact, though, I've actually been "on a site like this", that is, this one, longer than he has.

And I'll be the only one of us leaving with a meaningful take-away from the time.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348011)

So God made Adam in His own image, even though there were a bunch of other people around? So why the fuck were they made in God's image?

You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44348033)

Or, alternately, you have a remarkably limited understanding of what "image" can imply.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 9 months ago | (#44348289)

I have read that section of the bible, and that was not the impression that I got... you've got to remember the target audience and transmission of style of the early parts of the bible though, the stories had to cover the history whilst still being able to be learnt orally with ease and the more characters you add to something the harder it is to do that.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348311)

modded funny

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347801)

I propose bestiality.*
If Adam and Eve were made as two perfect people, and humanity as it is is clearly imperfect, there surely introduction of genetic material from an outside source is the only logical conclusion.

* I never thought I'd ever start a sentence like that, but now that I have I'm rather happy with it.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347817)

Well, as it's said...

Evil lies even when it tells the truth.

If you contemplated this question with more productive intentions, though, you might find some surprising insights not far afield.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347819)

My understanding is that there were other people, but they were not God's people. Adam and Eve were the first humans created with the divine spark of god. Since these others were not blessed by God it is perfectly acceptable to kill them and take their land. e.g. Caananites.

My guess is that some of Adam's and Eve's children bred with these lesser peoples. Some of those pairings were blessed by God (perhaps becoming the Israelite), others were evil in God's Eyeballs and therefore seen as chaff fit to be consumed in the flames of hell.

It sucks that I am probably not one of God's people, and therefore will spend eternity in hell, but fuck it what can you do??

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347889)

A couple things here.

Going retroactively in time, at some point in history, even per mainline evolution, you must have a line of demarcation where "before that", the hominids were "not human". Correct? Do you then ascribe to that state before that as having the full complement of "human rights"?

Secondly: I understand you actually have no scientific reason to differentiate yourself from the biological continuum -even now-, and have no argument supporting that you have any "rights" -now-, other than by using theistic arguments. Does this concern you?

What you can do is, to borrow an equivalent term from a rather-knowledgable Jewish person, "become grafted onto the tree of life". A person knowledgable enough to tell you how to do that should be well within reach.

Re:Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347749)

Sorry, no.

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

--Leviticus 18:6

I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.

Sooo... we are being like the US Government?

At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?

Bible meet US Government, US Government meet the Bible!

Least we forget, you meet the FIRST part of the Bible!

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Empiric (675968) | about 9 months ago | (#44347797)

At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?

You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time.

If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.

As a general statement, though, provide what you are talking about that has moral absolutes applying to all time that you are attempting to compare the bible negatively relative to. What is this forever-unchanging-regardless-of-context moral system of which you speak?

Re: Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348089)

Lots daughters. While it might have been socially a problem for them, hence the need to seduce their father, there was biblical prohibition at the time and no punishment for sin as would be needed by sin.

Re: Like in the Bible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348093)

I meant NO biblical prohibition at the time of Lots daughters incest, hence the lack of holy punishment.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 9 months ago | (#44348155)

You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time. If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.

Your previous post doesn't help. You selectively choose what made up bits fit your desired understanding, but provide no good reason to accept those additions in the first place.

If there were pre-Adamics, then it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve's descendants all died off while we are descendant from the supposed pre-Adamics, and thus we do not magically inherit "original sin".

Or you could recognize the adhoc made up bollocks and realize it's not true.

Re:Like in the Bible! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 months ago | (#44347863)

Agreed. It's only acceptable for the first two male children of Adam and Eve. None of this hereosexual incest stuff!

Not exactly tech news... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347685)

Roth, who began working on the rhino project in 1996, said it took years just to understand their eating habits and needs and decades more to understand their mating patterns. The animals tend not to be interested in companionship, let alone romance.

Oh. I think I see the connection to Slashdot now.

CREW (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347751)

I have a biology degree from one of the area's universities. Over the course of my *ahem* 5 years there I attended several talks given by people associated with the CREW (Conservation and Research of Endangered Wildlife) Program at the Cincinnati Zoo. In most talks the anecdote used as an icebreaker was the story of "manual manipulation of the bull black rhinoceros to collect semen." Apparently, the best way to distract him during the whole embarrassing affair was to present him with a rather large basket of produce. Yes, CREW biologists jerked off the rhino while he gorged himself. Pretty much any man's dream, right?

Re:CREW (5, Funny)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about 9 months ago | (#44347811)

CREW biologists jerked off the rhino while he gorged himself. Pretty much any man's dream, right?

I'm just spitballing here, but you wouldn't happen to be a woman would you?

Re:CREW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347963)

I'm 100% dude. I just wish I could concentrate on both things at once.

IVF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347759)

Why can't they just trade rhino sperm with another zoo? Cows, horses, chickens, etc are fertilized with sperm, why not rhinos?

Name the baby rhino Joffrey... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347771)

or Myrcella if it's a girl.

In biology and ecology, extinction is the end.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347825)

In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or of a group of organisms (taxon), normally a species.
Just give her alcohol, seems to work for us.

There are things that need to be done.. maybe (1)

shtolcers (2826071) | about 9 months ago | (#44347835)

That's the nature of man - mess up everything and then at the last possible moment do unnatural things to try making situation better. Ehh, I'm having dual feelings about this.. First impression after reading this - "ew, gross", but still, not saying it shouldn't be done.

welp. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347837)

Sounds like Cincinnati to me.

news for nerds, stuff that matters (0)

JavaTHut (9877) | about 9 months ago | (#44347861)

"news for nerds" [x] Check.
"stuff that matters" [ ] Not so much.

Re:news for nerds, stuff that matters (1, Insightful)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about 9 months ago | (#44348031)

"news for nerds" [x] Check.

UnCheck, massive disparition of species is not something that should be "nerd" specific.

"stuff that matters" [ ] Not so much.

DoCheck, it matters way more than the launch of the latest iSomething whose only "interesting" feature is the way it perfects a little bit more the trapping of the sheeps.
If we do not succeed in limitting the loss of biodiversity, at some not too far point the "quick fix" will be to get rid of us.

Re:news for nerds, stuff that matters (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#44348133)

UnCheck, massive disparition of species is not something that should be "nerd" specific.

Just because it's general news, does not mean it is not also news for nerds. The root DNS going offline would now be news for a good fraction of the world population, but it's certainly news for nerds.

Eliphinos (3, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 9 months ago | (#44347945)

Can be the backup plan if incest doesn't work. The only disadvantage would be that a viable eliphino would make the joke less funny.

careful there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44347947)

Don't complain to me when it has one tooth, misshapen eyes, plays the banjo, and loves bad moonshine.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about 9 months ago | (#44347993)

I ask as a person who cares about the environment. I strongly feel humans should have a smaller footprint and stop damaging the environment.

However, we seem to be spending a small fortune on the last few members of a species. Whatever ecological roles the rhinos might have played would have been filled (or the entire ecosystem would have changed faster than usual, possibly not-in-a-good-way).

Shouldn't we be spending that money for conservation where the damage isn't this extensive? In a while, maybe by cloning or using frozen sperms/eggs, we might be able to revive the species.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348195)

Ecological survival (and possible re-flourishing) of a species is a good goal in-and-of-itself because of the precedence of the matter, Unfortunately... if you decide that 'these' few animals aren't worth the time & money, people who care less about the environment are going to use that as an excuse to cut the funding in future cases.... "We didn't save the ______ animals, so why should we bother with the __________ (animals | plants | aliens | slashdotters)"

Its shitty... but that is how most of our policies are based around... Democrats in the US want to change things in Education, but they are afraid of the cuts the republicans would do them as a whole, so Democrats tend to leave it alone (thinking that they are reducing the harm that the republicans can do the education system , and that unfortunately that is the best they can do.... yes... very over simplified, but I think its still accurate) The same thing can be said about LOTS of policies, same with "women's right to choose" or "baby murder" depending on how you view it... Democrats are again afraid to even talk about any changes because Republicans will try to push it further and further and further to the point of banning 'safe' abortions, and leading to back alley abortions like we had in the US before Roe V. Wade. and Republicans are afraid to allow changes to immigration because they feel like "they are holding the line" against the 'other side' ......

Re:Why? (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 9 months ago | (#44348257)

As for 'why', that is simple, we don't like endings. We want the story to continue. You might as well ask why people pay for expensive veterinary treaments when they could simply have their pets euthanized. People go to the zoo and they don't just remark on what an economical conversion the rhinos are of hay into edible meat, they marvel and awe and say what a beautiful creature it is.

I am often the one on the practical side of things, and I think the occasional rainforest has to go so humans can prosper. Certainly, too, die off is a natural aspect of speciation, and if we are going to let earth continue developing we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to losing many millions of species.

But if we were 100% practical there would be no point to anything. And for every person who irrationally promotes one species over another, there is someone who is equally irrational about preferring unchecked deforestation so he can enjoy cheap toothpicks. If you want money to be spent in preserving the environment, you should get behind absolutely anything which inspires people. Because for 90% of persons you will encounter, the alternative to wanting to keep beautiful rhinos around is not to promote a perfect cost-benefit use of the environment, it is for them to simply stop caring about the environment at all.

Can they not inseminate them? (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 9 months ago | (#44348027)

are there literally no other rhino's left?
with most livestock artificial insemination is fairly trivial and the 'product' can be shipped frozen great distances..

The procedure can't be that different from cows or horses you just need a bigger sturdier dummy, clear

Re:Can they not inseminate them? (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 9 months ago | (#44348059)

*clearly* I must be missing something but it doesnt seem like thats the best choice (i fail posted my half sentance)

Any serious people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348047)

Not one comment that wasn't a joke. Not that they weren't funny, but...

I'd just like to know... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348049)

Forgive me, but I'd like to ask a reasonable, well thought-out question. From looking at the other threads, I feel it may be out of place here. Anyway...

Do rhinos breed with siblings in the wild? I know some mammals do, and some don't.

If rhinos do, then I don't see any problem with doing the same in captivity. They would be evolved to better handle the results of inbreeding.

If they don't, then it seems not only unlikely to work (unless done artificially), but also unlikely to be a viable way to propagate the species.

Re:I'd just like to know... (1)

ShoulderOfOrion (646118) | about 9 months ago | (#44348233)

Yes, your thoughtful post does seem out of place. I was wondering the same thing though. Once a population falls to a point where there's no solution but inbreeding, hasn't it already fallen beyond the point of no return? What's the point of having a bunch of sickly, genetically damaged animals, particularly if there's no longer any workable habitat/range available where the species can re-acquire over time a healthy genetic variability?

So what? (1)

theKonq (1053622) | about 9 months ago | (#44348139)

Lannisters have been doing this for ages!

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44348261)

Lannisters have been doing this for ages!

Actually, the Targaryens have been doing it for ages.

Outside consultants (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 9 months ago | (#44348141)

Obviously they are going to need help from the outside, I suggest going to nearby West Virginia where there are plenty of people well versed in how to impregnate relatives.

Funny (5, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 9 months ago | (#44348279)

How people who are so thrilled with the idea of Darwinian survival are so concerned about extinction.

The two are inextricably linked.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...