- Email: [email protected]
Saucy dogs
The last word– CRUEL WORLD Scientists have worked out an evolutionary basis for many behaviours, such as altruism and jealousy. Over the millennia, however, people have been unbelievably and gratuitously cruel to each other. The evolutionary advantage of cruelty is not obvious. What is its biological basis in humans?
There may not be an evolutionary advantage, at least not any longer. It is more likely a throwback from the past. Not so very long ago in evolutionary terms, humans lived as huntergatherers in small groups. Indeed, many such groups still remain, in the remnants of tropical rainforests, for example. There is safety in numbers and individuals can specialise in what they are good at, knowing that other essential tasks will be taken care of by their companions. However, although in-group individuals may be loving and caring towards each other, there is open hostility towards any outgroup that competes for territory and food resources. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were one group that lost out to humans (Homo sapiens) in such past conflicts. However, to speak of cruelty in an evolutionary context seems inappropriately anthropomorphic, despite the fact that we are discussing human beings.
“Very few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero – or Saddam Hussein” Questions and answers should be kept as concise as possible. We reserve the right to edit items for clarity and style. Please include a daytime telephone number and email address if you have one. Questions should be restricted to scientific enquiries about everyday phenomena. The writers of all published answers will receive a cheque for £25 (or the US$ equivalent). Reed Business Information Ltd reserves all rights to reuse question and answer material submitted by
Homo sapiens evolved in parallel with the other great apes, in which we can see similar “cruel” behaviours. Even within their own groups, great apes are not necessarily loving and caring. They nevertheless gain advantage from living in a group, through increased security and the sharing of tasks. Such huntergatherers have to carve out and defend a territory for themselves in order to survive. In consequence, outside groups are a threat to their existence. A group of apes has its hierarchy, and a conflict between two groups is a threat not only to survival, but to the dominance of the males in a particular group. The conflict is resolved by either driving off the rival group or by killing all the rival males in the group and assimilating the females and young. Whichever group wins the conflict is obviously the fittest in terms of survival. That’s what it’s all about in the end, cruel or not. Modern humans behave in a similar fashion. It is quite clear even today that humans belonging to one group can easily be influenced to see humans of another group as being subhuman and inferior, enabling their extermination without mercy (see “They made me do it”, New Scientist, 14 April, p 42). This is true even when the differences are over beliefs, rather than over limited resources. The Americas were recently colonised by Europeans, who pushed the Native Americans aside, and killed any that resisted. Hitler’s motivation was just the same in the second world war. He envisaged a greater German territory, stretching to the Urals, into which the “superior” Aryan race could readers in any medium or format. Send questions and answers to The Last Word, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, UK (fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280), by email to [email protected] or visit www. newscientist.com/lastword.ns (please include a postal address in order to receive payment for answers). If you would like a list of all unanswered questions please send an SAE to LWQlist at the above address.
Memorable answer? The Last Word and New Scientist have teamed up with Crucial Technology (www.crucial.com/uk) and will be awarding each successful author a 512MB Gizmo! overdrive.
Last Words past and present, plus a full list of unanswered questions, are available on New Scientist’s website at www.newscientist.com/lastword.ns
grow. The process repeats itself regularly, most recently in the Balkans and Darfur. Terence Hollingworth Blagnac, France Only one word is needed to answer this question – power. Let’s leave women out of it. Very few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero or Caligula – or Saddam Hussein for that matter. The would-be alpha male must trample over all opposition, must create fear to keep himself in power and must keep enough of his cronies loyal. He thus obtains access to a great number of women, the best in material goods and food, and assures himself of the largest possible number of healthy descendants. Other methods of the cruel alpha male may include reducing the number of offspring of rivals, who might compete with his own children. Valerie Moyses Bloxham, Oxfordshire, UK
SAUCY DOGS I have two female dogs whose urine was killing patches of grass all over my lawn. On my mother’s advice I started feeding them tomato ketchup and, sure enough, the dead patches stopped appearing. Why does this work, and is it harming my dogs?
The urine acts as a liquid fertiliser, but can produce nitrogen overload where the puddle of urine is deepest. This “burns” the grass, creating a brown patch in the lawn. Towards the outside of the puddle,
where less nitrogen has been applied, there can be a fertilising effect leading to a ring of luxuriant, greener grass. The urine of dogs and bitches does not differ much but, while dogs tend to deliver small samples of urine to mark their territory, bitches tend to empty their bladders entirely, causing more harm. Urine is slightly acidic, but so is tomato ketchup, so it does not neutralise the urine as some people believe. Instead, the salt content of tomato ketchup, juice or sauce makes dogs drink more, diluting the nitrogen in their urine. Be aware that increased salt intake can cause problems with existing kidney or heart conditions, so if you must tinker with your dogs’ diet, consider reducing the protein content instead. This will also reduce the nitrogen content of their urine, and should be fine for all but the most active of dogs. Better still would be to train your dogs to urinate in a designated place or follow them out of the house with a hose pipe or watering can to dilute their urine. Mike Follows Willenhall, West Midlands, UK
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION Cheap specs I am short-sighted. However, if I remove my glasses and peer through a tiny hole made between my fingers, or a pinhole in a piece of card, I can read signs from an even greater distance than with my glasses on. Why is that? Rodney McManaman Whitehaven, Cumbria, UK
WHY DON’T PENGUINS’ FEET FREEZE? The latest collection from The Last Word, answering some of the world’s most baffling questions Available in bookstores and online at www.newscientist.com/lastword3.ns
There may not be an evolutionary advantage, at least not any longer. It is more likely a throwback from the past. Not so very long ago in evolutionary terms, humans lived as huntergatherers in small groups. Indeed, many such groups still remain, in the remnants of tropical rainforests, for example. There is safety in numbers and individuals can specialise in what they are good at, knowing that other essential tasks will be taken care of by their companions. However, although in-group individuals may be loving and caring towards each other, there is open hostility towards any outgroup that competes for territory and food resources. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were one group that lost out to humans (Homo sapiens) in such past conflicts. However, to speak of cruelty in an evolutionary context seems inappropriately anthropomorphic, despite the fact that we are discussing human beings.
“Very few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero – or Saddam Hussein” Questions and answers should be kept as concise as possible. We reserve the right to edit items for clarity and style. Please include a daytime telephone number and email address if you have one. Questions should be restricted to scientific enquiries about everyday phenomena. The writers of all published answers will receive a cheque for £25 (or the US$ equivalent). Reed Business Information Ltd reserves all rights to reuse question and answer material submitted by
Homo sapiens evolved in parallel with the other great apes, in which we can see similar “cruel” behaviours. Even within their own groups, great apes are not necessarily loving and caring. They nevertheless gain advantage from living in a group, through increased security and the sharing of tasks. Such huntergatherers have to carve out and defend a territory for themselves in order to survive. In consequence, outside groups are a threat to their existence. A group of apes has its hierarchy, and a conflict between two groups is a threat not only to survival, but to the dominance of the males in a particular group. The conflict is resolved by either driving off the rival group or by killing all the rival males in the group and assimilating the females and young. Whichever group wins the conflict is obviously the fittest in terms of survival. That’s what it’s all about in the end, cruel or not. Modern humans behave in a similar fashion. It is quite clear even today that humans belonging to one group can easily be influenced to see humans of another group as being subhuman and inferior, enabling their extermination without mercy (see “They made me do it”, New Scientist, 14 April, p 42). This is true even when the differences are over beliefs, rather than over limited resources. The Americas were recently colonised by Europeans, who pushed the Native Americans aside, and killed any that resisted. Hitler’s motivation was just the same in the second world war. He envisaged a greater German territory, stretching to the Urals, into which the “superior” Aryan race could readers in any medium or format. Send questions and answers to The Last Word, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, UK (fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280), by email to [email protected] or visit www. newscientist.com/lastword.ns (please include a postal address in order to receive payment for answers). If you would like a list of all unanswered questions please send an SAE to LWQlist at the above address.
Memorable answer? The Last Word and New Scientist have teamed up with Crucial Technology (www.crucial.com/uk) and will be awarding each successful author a 512MB Gizmo! overdrive.
Last Words past and present, plus a full list of unanswered questions, are available on New Scientist’s website at www.newscientist.com/lastword.ns
grow. The process repeats itself regularly, most recently in the Balkans and Darfur. Terence Hollingworth Blagnac, France Only one word is needed to answer this question – power. Let’s leave women out of it. Very few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero or Caligula – or Saddam Hussein for that matter. The would-be alpha male must trample over all opposition, must create fear to keep himself in power and must keep enough of his cronies loyal. He thus obtains access to a great number of women, the best in material goods and food, and assures himself of the largest possible number of healthy descendants. Other methods of the cruel alpha male may include reducing the number of offspring of rivals, who might compete with his own children. Valerie Moyses Bloxham, Oxfordshire, UK
SAUCY DOGS I have two female dogs whose urine was killing patches of grass all over my lawn. On my mother’s advice I started feeding them tomato ketchup and, sure enough, the dead patches stopped appearing. Why does this work, and is it harming my dogs?
The urine acts as a liquid fertiliser, but can produce nitrogen overload where the puddle of urine is deepest. This “burns” the grass, creating a brown patch in the lawn. Towards the outside of the puddle,
where less nitrogen has been applied, there can be a fertilising effect leading to a ring of luxuriant, greener grass. The urine of dogs and bitches does not differ much but, while dogs tend to deliver small samples of urine to mark their territory, bitches tend to empty their bladders entirely, causing more harm. Urine is slightly acidic, but so is tomato ketchup, so it does not neutralise the urine as some people believe. Instead, the salt content of tomato ketchup, juice or sauce makes dogs drink more, diluting the nitrogen in their urine. Be aware that increased salt intake can cause problems with existing kidney or heart conditions, so if you must tinker with your dogs’ diet, consider reducing the protein content instead. This will also reduce the nitrogen content of their urine, and should be fine for all but the most active of dogs. Better still would be to train your dogs to urinate in a designated place or follow them out of the house with a hose pipe or watering can to dilute their urine. Mike Follows Willenhall, West Midlands, UK
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION Cheap specs I am short-sighted. However, if I remove my glasses and peer through a tiny hole made between my fingers, or a pinhole in a piece of card, I can read signs from an even greater distance than with my glasses on. Why is that? Rodney McManaman Whitehaven, Cumbria, UK
WHY DON’T PENGUINS’ FEET FREEZE? The latest collection from The Last Word, answering some of the world’s most baffling questions Available in bookstores and online at www.newscientist.com/lastword3.ns