Showing posts sorted by date for query octopus. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query octopus. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, November 15, 2024

Survey gives snapshot of scientific thought on emotions in animals


Assessing evolving views of the interior lives of other species


Emory University




The journal Royal Society Open Science published a survey of 100 researchers of animal behavior, providing a unique view of current scientific thought on animal emotions and consciousness.

“As far as we know, this is the first assessment of how animal behavior researchers across a range of disciplines think about emotions and consciousness in non-human animals,” says Marcela Benítez, assistant professor of anthropology at Emory University and corresponding author of the paper. “It gives us a snapshot in time so that 20 years from now, we can revisit how scientific experts may have changed their views.”

A majority of the survey respondents ascribed emotions to “most” or “all or nearly all” non-human primates (98%), other mammals (89%), birds (78%), octopus, squids and cuttlefish (72%) and fish (53%). And most of the respondents ascribed emotions to at least some members of each taxonomic group of animals considered, including insects (67%) and other invertebrates (71%).

The survey also included questions about the risks in animal behavioral research of anthromorphism (inaccurately projecting human experience onto animals) and anthropodenial (willful blindness to any human characteristics of animals).

“It’s surprising that 89% of the respondents thought that anthropodenial was problematic in animal behavioral research, compared to only 49% who thought anthromorphism poses a risk,” Benítez says. “That seems like a big shift.”

Anthromorphism, she notes, has long been a leading argument against those who attributed feelings to animals.

First author of the current paper is Matthew Zipple, a neurobiologist at Cornell University’s Laboratory for Animal Social Evolution and Recognition. Co-authors include Mackenzie Webster, an Emory postdoctoral fellow studying cognition in nonhuman primates, and Caleb Hazelwood, a philosopher at Duke University.

Since ancient times, philosophers have pondered the seemingly simple question of whether animals experience emotions. Aristotle believed that animals and humans share similar emotions while Descartes argued that animals were more like machines, lacking the capacity for emotions or consciousness.

In the mid-1800s, famed naturalist Charles Darwin wrote that “the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.” By the mid-20th-century, however, leading behavioral theorists denigrated the idea of studying animal emotions since, even if they existed, they were scientifically unmeasurable and unverifiable.  

The late primatologist Frans de Waal, an Emory emeritus professor of psychology, helped change this dynamic through his groundbreaking studies of animal cognition. From de Waal’s 1982 book “Chimpanzee Politics” to 2019’s “Mama’s Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What they Tell Us about Ourselves,” attitudes about whether animals might have thoughts worthy of scientific exploration changed dramatically.

“Frans de Waal definitely helped kick open the door,” Benítez says. “He gave a new generation of scientists permission to ask questions about the inner lives of animals.”

Benítez’ work lies at the intersection of anthropology, psychology and evolutionary biology. She currently studies cooperation and other social behaviors in capuchin monkeys. “A key component of cooperation often involves forming emotional bonds with one another,” she says. “So, I can’t shy away from considering emotions in my research.”

She did a postdoctoral fellowship in the lab of Sarah Brosnan, an Emory PhD graduate and a student of de Waal when he served as director of the Living Links Center for the Advanced Study of Ape and Human Evolution at the Emory National Primate Research Center. Brosnan is now a professor of psychology at Georgia State University where she investigates the evolution of cooperation, decision-making and economic behavior among primates.

Benítez says that the legacy of de Waal was a main reason that drew her to join the faculty at Emory, where she feels that she is walking in his footsteps.

De Waal’s popular, bestselling books also shaped public perception of animal minds.

Several of the Emory graduate students now working in Benítez’ Social Cognition and Primate Behavior Lab read about de Waal’s work when they were younger. “That inspired them to want to study animal cognition,” she says. “His legacy is really widespread.”

As the field has grown, Benítez and colleagues wanted to quantify animal behavior researchers’ perceptions of the taxonomic distribution of animal emotionality. They developed a survey of multiple-choice questions, free-form text fields and rating scales and sent it to leading graduate school programs in animal behavior research across disciplines. They also posted solicitations for the survey on X, aimed at researchers in these fields.

The 100 survey respondents spanned a range of specialties, including behavioral ecologists, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, biological anthropologists, cognitive psychologists and biological psychologists. They comprised graduate students (45), faculty (28), postdoctoral fellows (20), retired faculty (2), other PhD researchers (3) and undergraduate students (2).

The most common taxa of animals studied among respondents were birds (43%), non-human primates (32%) and other mammals, though each of the taxa that the survey asked respondents to assess were studied by at least some members of the sample. 

The survey defined displays of animal consciousness in its most basic form, meaning that they are aware of their own existence. A majority of respondents ascribed consciousness to a broad taxonomic breadth of animals, although at slightly lower majorities as compared to emotions.

Near the end of the survey, respondents were asked to define emotion.

A little more than half of their definitions referred to emotions as a response to either internal or external stimuli. A majority also referred to emotions being subjective experiences or related to consciousness or mindedness. And 40% of the responses identified emotions as functioning to motivate behaviors.

Only 81 out of the 100 survey respondents provided a definition, perhaps due to the challenge of verbalizing a working description.

“I don’t have a clear definition either,” Benítez says. “I see emotions as a sort of internal process in responding to external stimuli that has an impact on how a situation is perceived. I go to the most basic definition because that allows us to explore that capacity in non-human primates.”

Even in human studies, Benítez adds, it is challenging to determine which biological markers to measure and how to adequately describe and quantify something as complex and variable as emotions. They may include everything from instinctual reactions of disgust or fear to deep feelings of affection and empathy for others.

Animal studies are further complicated by the fact that researchers can’t ask an animal how it’s feeling.

And while experiments with animals in labs can be tightly controlled, the results may be skewed since the animal is not interacting within its natural environment. Animal behavior experiments in the wild provide valid social and ecological contexts but they are challenging to design and to control.

“I’m trying to bridge that gap,” Benítez says. Her work is unique in that she studies behavior in both a captive population of tufted capuchins and of wild white-faced capuchins as co-director of the Capuchins de Taboga Costa Rica project in Liberia, Costa Rica.

Benítez and her collaborators at La Universidad Technica Nacional are beginning to deploy AI techniques, facial recognition software and touch screen computers on presentation platforms in the wild. These tools may help them get at many questions surrounding capuchin monkey behavior, including how they decide whether to cooperate or compete with one another while they are interacting in their natural world.

“We’ve only scratched the surface of exploring what animals are capable of experiencing,” Benítez says. “It’s an exciting time as new methods are being developed that may help us better understand how an animal may be feeling and how that links to the decisions that they make.”

“As an anthropologist,” she adds, “a large part of my desire to understand the interior lives of animals is to better understand our own ancestry. In what ways are we a unique species? Understanding the evolution of emotions is integral to that question.”

Monday, November 04, 2024

Billions Pouring into UK Renewables

By Felicity Bradstock - Nov 02, 2024

The UK's new Labour government is aggressively pursuing a green energy agenda, with significant investments in renewable projects and supportive policies.

Innovative initiatives like Octopus Energy's wind-powered bill discounts and community-owned solar projects are gaining traction.

The UK aims to become a global leader in floating offshore wind and other clean technologies, attracting billions in private investment.



The U.S. has become recognised for rolling out the most far-reaching climate policy of any major world power to date. The Biden administration’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) introduced a wide range of financial incentives to support a green transition, which has helped attract billions in private investment in renewable energy and clean technologies. The EU and the U.K., which were expected to lead the green transition, have lagged behind the U.S. on climate policy over the last two years. However, the U.K.’s new Labour government is rapidly developing its green transition strategy, supported by strong climate policies, innovative energy initiatives, and financial incentives that could soon rival U.S. efforts.

The U.K.’s largest electricity supplier, Octopus Energy, has launched a new initiative to offer consumers a discount on their energy bills during times of favourable conditions for renewable energy production. So, when the wind is blowing more, the company offers consumers reduced-price electricity from its wind turbines. The company hopes this will encourage consumers to support wind turbine projects, as well as use energy in a more considered way. This is just one of the schemes being run by utilities and the government to demonstrate that a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives could help slash energy bills and have a better impact on the environment.

One London-based start-up, Ripple Energy, is now inviting people to purchase a piece of a wind turbine in exchange for a discount on their electricity bills. Meanwhile, in Grimsby in the north of England, a local cooperative is investing in small-scale solar projects to help cut energy costs for charities in the area.

The U.K. has set ambitious climate targets but has been greatly criticised for not doing enough to meet these goals. The previous Conservative government pledged that all of the U.K.’s electricity would come from low carbon sources by 2035, as well as announced plans to increase offshore wind capacity five-fold by 2030, increase solar power capacity five-fold by 2035, and expand nuclear power. Yet, in February, U.K. ministers found themselves in court for a second time for failing to align the climate action plan with the government’s climate pledges, as well as filling the plan with ambiguities and loopholes.

However, since the Labour Party was voted into government in July, we have seen a significant shift in the country’s energy sector. In just over three months, Labour has launched a multibillion-dollar effort to reposition the U.K. as a global pacesetter for clean energy. In July, the government established a new publicly owned, clean-energy company –Great British Energy, which will own, manage, and operate clean power projects. In September, the U.K. government agreed to buy the electricity system operator from National Grid for around $816.8 million, further enhancing its role in the energy industry.

In August, the government announced a record-breaking investment of over $1.9 billion in domestic renewable energy projects. Some of the renewable energy and clean tech projects now underway include a new investment support scheme for long-duration electricity storage (LDES) projects, plans for the U.K.’s first large-scale carbon capture and storage sites in Teesside and Merseyside, and the publication of a report from a government-industry taskforce that highlights the U.K.’s potential to become a global leader in floating offshore wind energy. The government has also launched the website Innovating the Energy Transition, which outlines investment opportunities and provides a tailored step-by-step guide to help companies set up their business in the U.K.

The government’s ambitious new energy initiatives are already helping to attract higher levels of funding from the private sector in renewable energy and clean tech. In September, Octopus Energy Generation announced plans to invest almost $2.6 billion in clean energy projects by 2030.

Zoisa North-Bond, the CEO of Octopus Energy, stated, “The U.K. is on the verge of a green energy revolution.” North-Bond added, “This £2 billion investment in homegrown renewables will help boost our energy security and pave the way for a more affordable energy future… Solar and onshore wind are among the cheapest energy sources available. By building closer to demand, we can maximise green electricity when it’s abundant and lower bills for customers nationwide.”

In October, the government announced it had raised nearly $31.1 billion in private investment for pioneering energy projects. This came ahead of the International Investment Summit, which helped garner greater attention for sectoral growth in line with new government energy policies and climate pledges.

Following years of stagnation under the Conservative government, there have been significant strides in energy policy and clean energy incentives in recent months under the new Labour government. This is expected to attract high levels of private investment in the coming years and diversify clean energy investment beyond the U.S. market.


By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Monday, October 21, 2024

Labour’s Leadership Has Sparked Massive Clean Energy Investments in the UK

By Felicity Bradstock - Oct 20, 2024


Private companies have committed over $31 billion to UK renewable energy projects, spurred by Labour’s green-focused policies.

The Labour government’s initiatives include offshore wind expansion, carbon capture, and energy storage, attracting billions more in green investments.

The shift in policy promises to boost job creation and advance the UK’s goal of a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030.



The recent change in leadership in the U.K. and the promise of an accelerated green transition appears to have caught the eyes of private investors, who are now promising to spend heavily on green energy projects. Renewable energy firms have committed over $31 billion in the U.K., and other private companies are investing in renewable energy, clean tech, and decarbonization projects across the country, supported by a favorable shift in national energy policy, as well as several other government initiatives.

Earlier this month, some of the world’s largest green energy companies pledged to invest almost $31.39 billion across the U.K., ahead of a meeting with the recently elected Labour Prime Minister Kier Starmer. The PM stated that the investment promise was “a huge vote of confidence” in the government’s “relentless focus to drive growth across the UK”, which would create thousands of jobs across the U.K. Starmer said, “Whether you’re in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or England – we are creating the conditions for businesses to thrive, and our international investment summit will be a springboard for every part of the U.K. to be an engine of innovation and investment.”

The Labour government has been under pressure to secure funding to support its election campaign pledge to develop a green economy. The party ambitiously committed to establishing a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030.

This Tuesday, the government held the International Investment Summit with the aim of solidifying the U.K.’s leadership across several key industries. At the summit, the government secured $82.43 billion in private investments, expected to support the creation of almost 38,000 new jobs nationwide. The industries receiving the greatest funding were life sciences, technology, energy, and transport.

At the summit, Spain’s Iberdrola and Norway’s Orsted announced investments totaling $31.39 billion and $10.45 billion respectively. Most of these funds will contribute to the expansion of offshore wind warms. More investments were announced in carbon capture and hydrogen. The transport sector also attracted investor interest, with Macquarie announcing plans to invest almost $1.7 billion in green infrastructure and Octopus Energy’s renewable energy projects, which include solar farms and energy storage systems. This will help the U.K. achieve its electric vehicle (EV) adoption targets.

Orsted’s decision to invest heavily in the U.K.’s energy transition reflects the shift in energy policy under the new Labour Party. Mads Nipper, Orsted’s CEO explained, “The reason we are investing in the UK is that alongside the targets for clean energy, we also see the commitment to creating the policy frameworks required to deliver those targets and a government who wants to work with businesses to enable the investments required.” Iberdrola’s Executive Chairman Ignacio Galán echoed this sentiment, stating, “After having invested more than £30 billion in the last 15 years, the clear policy direction, stable regulatory frameworks and overall attractiveness of the U.K. are leading us to double our investments for 2024 to 2028, reaching up to £24 billion.”

The Labour Party’s Manifesto states “The Conservatives’ ban on new onshore wind, failure to build new nuclear power stations, and decision to scrap investment in home insulation landed British families with amongst the highest energy bills in Europe.” Labour outlined plans to “use public investment to crowd in private funding,” as has been seen in the U.S. through the Biden administration’s climate policy the Inflation Reduction Act. It also pledged to roll out its Green Prosperity Plan to “make Britain a clean energy superpower”.

Since winning the election in July, the Labour Party has introduced several new policies and initiatives aimed at accelerating the country’s green transition. The government introduced a bill to create Great British Energy (GBE), a publicly owned green power firm that will develop and invest in renewable energy projects. Labour has also invested in carbon capture and storage projects in Merseyside and Teesside; carried out successful offshore wind auctions, resulting in 10 new projects; created National Energy System Operator (NESO), splitting it from National Grid; approved three large new solar farms and established a Solar Taskforce.

This month, the government launched a scheme to expand the U.K.’s energy storage infrastructure. This is expected to support the development of the first significant long-duration energy storage facilities in almost four decades and help boost energy security. The move is expected to improve investor confidence and unlock billions in funding for vital projects, as well as support job creation.


The U.K. Energy Minister, Michael Shank, stated, “With these projects storing the surplus clean, homegrown energy produced from renewable sources, we can boost our energy security by relying less on fossil fuels, protect household bills, and help deliver our key mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower.”

The dramatic shift in the U.K.’s energy policy under the recently elected Labour government has already helped attract high levels of private funding in the country’s energy transition. Several major companies have pledged billions in investment for a wide range of green energy, clean tech, and decarbonization projects in just the first three months of new leadership. As greater confidence is felt by investors and the government proves its ability to advance the green transition, we can expect to see billions more in investment.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
Greta Thunberg: From a Darling of Liberal Media to Public Enemy No. 1

The 21-year-old climate activist has been mobilizing people against the genocide in Gaza. Now, it’s not just the Far Right attacking her — the liberal establishment has joined in the defamation.

Nathaniel Flakin
October 16, 2024
LEFT VOICE



German politicians have been demanding that Greta Thunberg be expelled from the country. When the 21-year-old Swedish climate activist announced that she would be speaking at a protest camp at a university in the West German city of Dortmund, police banned the entire event. The camp had been going on for four months, but cops said they had to stop it because Thunberg — a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize! — was “potentially violent.”

Within just a few years, Thunberg has gone from being the darling of the liberal establishment to Public Enemy No. 1. Spiegel magazine, for example, went from praising the “Person of the Year” in 2019 to denouncing her as an “antisemite” in a cover story just four years later.

The explanation is depressingly simple: Like many young people around the world, Thunberg has been protesting against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and she has joined demonstrations in Leipzig, Berlin, and other German cities.

Hate campaigns against the climate activist originated with far-right media, but have since been taken up by supposedly liberal publications, which spread bizarre conspiracy theories about Thunberg using stuffed animals to send out coded anti-Jewish messages. (In reality, an octopus toy is fairly common for people with autism.)

Like much of the international climate movement, Thunberg has been pointing out the links between imperialism and the unfolding climate catastrophe. Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon, supported by the U.S. and Germany, is not just murdering tens of thousands of civilians — it is also causing “immense” carbon emissions, endangering the lives of billions more in the not-too-distant future.

As Thunberg rose to global prominence after starting her climate strike on August 20, 2018, she seemed like she would be one of the endless stream of sincere young activists who get sucked into the corrupt bureaucracies of the liberal bourgeoisie. She met with Barack Obama, was interviewed by Trevor Noah, and took up on the offer of some dumb aristocrat to cross the Atlantic by sailboat to attend a UN conference in New York.

Yet as I noted at the time, when Thunberg was invited to Davos — the top gathering of global elites — she displayed an unusual unwillingness to pander to an audience eager to applaud empty phrases by a little girl. Unlike well-paid NGO pseudo-activists, Thunberg was naming names:


Some people say that the climate crisis is something that we will have created, but that is not true, because if everyone is guilty then no one is to blame. And someone is to blame. Some people, some companies, some decision-makers in particular, have known exactly what priceless values they have been sacrificing to continue making unimaginable amounts of money. And I think many of you here today belong to that group of people.

(I suspect her autism might make her a bit more direct than a neurotypical person, but that’s just speculation.)

When she was still a teenager, Thunberg made appeals to politicians, but now she says much more explicitly that capitalism is responsible for climate change. And that’s not all: Last weekend, while in Italy for a climate demonstration, Thunberg visited the occupied GKN factory in Florence. The former auto parts plant has been occupied by its employees for three years. Where they once produced car components, the workers now have a plan to build solar panels and cargo bikes.

In a post, Thunberg correctly emphasized that climate justice and workers’ rights go hand in hand: “The fight to get to the end of the month is the same fight against the end of the world.”

The example of the GKN workers shows the unstoppable power of the working class in the face of the climate crisis. It is poor working-class people in the semi-colonial countries who are already suffering the worst effects of climate change. It is also workers who produce the cars and run the oil refineries that are destroying the planet. This means it is workers who can radically transform production — something that capitalists are completely incapable of doing, since their profits depend on constantly expanding production.

The working class is made up of billions of people around the world. As Thunberg explained in Davos, climate change is being caused by a handful of capitalist parasites who profit off our labor. If we were organized, we could begin an immediate economic transformation before the day is out.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. In these pages, we have interviewed oil refinery workers in Grandpuits in France who fought to save their jobs, but did not want to keep serving fossil capital, and instead called for an environmental transition. We have reported on workers at Zanon, a ceramics factory in Argentina, who took over their factory in 2002 so they could produce to meet people’s needs, instead of generating profits for capitalists. We have told the stories of workers in a big printing plant in Buenos Aires who occupied their workplace so they could begin serving the community. All of these actions were led by revolutionary militants in the workplaces.

As Greta has been approaching revolutionary socialist positions, there is one thing she lacks: organization. In the United States, for example, the Sunrise Movement is just a lobbying arm of the Democratic Party cynically posing as an activist group. The Fridays for Future (FFF) movement that Thunberg inspired includes many committed activists, but also plenty of careerists aiming for cushy jobs in Green Parties or in NGOs. In Germany in particular, FFF firmly rejects Thunberg’s radicalism, and has aligned itself with German imperialism and its solidarity with Israel.

To struggle against capitalism, Thunberg needs an organization committed to her radical ideas: international solidarity, anti-imperialism, and workers’ control of production. That can only be a revolutionary party based on the working class and the youth, with a program to unite all struggles against oppression and exploitation into one coordinated assault against the capitalist system.

Five years ago, when many radicals believed Thunberg would become another boring liberal, I had a gut feeling she would end up moving toward socialist ideas. Now my gut is telling me that it won’t be much longer until she identifies with the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, and other revolutionaries.

This isn’t just about her as an individual: Thunberg represents a generation watching as the capitalist system lurches toward inconceivable violence, in the form of ethnic cleansing, nuclear war, and climate apocalypse. They have seen politicians make nice speeches but refuse to take any meaningful action. This is because capitalism is fundamentally incapable of dealing with its own limitations. Since elites couldn’t corrupt her, they are now defaming her. She is a great example of how climate activists can resist cooptation, and organize to bring down the system.


Nathaniel Flakin

Nathaniel is a freelance journalist and historian from Berlin. He is on the editorial board of Left Voice and our German sister site Klasse Gegen Klasse. Nathaniel, also known by the nickname Wladek, has written a biography of Martin Monath, a Trotskyist resistance fighter in France during World War II, which has appeared in Germanin English, and in French, and in Spanish. He has also written an anticapitalist guide book called Revolutionary Berlin. He is on the autism spectrum.

Sunday, October 13, 2024

 

Canadian Coast Guard Contracts to Remove Oil from Long-Forgotten WWII Wreck

WII era shipwreck
In the 1920s the undistinguished little cargo ship sailed as Ace (courtesy of Ocean Ecology)

Published Oct 11, 2024 9:24 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

As part of its efforts to protect Canada's oceans and waterways, the Canadian Government is bringing back to life the story of a long-forgotten wreck from the World War II era which continues to haunt the Inside Passage between Canada and Alaska. The Canadian Coast Guard reported on October 10 that it has awarded a C$4.9 million (US$3.6 million) contract to Resolve Marine to remove oil from historic shipwreck USAT Brigadier General M.G. Zalinski.

It is an interesting tale shedding light on the forgotten past. The vessel was built in 1919 in Ohio known as Lake Frohna for operation as a Laker on the Great Lakes. She measured 251 feet (77 meters) and approximately 3,500 gross tons. Her career was undistinguished operating in the 1920s as Ace and finally in 1941 being acquired by the U.S. Government.

Renamed Brigadier General M. G. Zalinski no records survive of a distinguished war career. What is known is she set off in September 1946 on a resupply mission from Seattle to Whitter, Alaska. She had a crew of 48 aboard and was loaded with 700 tons of Bunker C fuel oil, gasoline, bombs, grenades, and small arms. 

Heading north on the Inside Passage she encountered a strong rainstorm and initially anchored. Later heading north she approached the Grenville Channel, an area known for a very strong current, tides, and weather patterns. At 0300 on September 29 she grounded and with a gash in her hull began taking on water. The crew along with an Irish Setter dog made their way into two lifeboats and were rescued by a commercial fishing boat while the cargo ship slipped below the water with all assuming it was the end of her story.

 

 

In September 2003, 57 years after she sank, however, USCG cutter Maple sailing in the Grenville Channel spotted an oil slick and began to investigate. The Canadians surveyed the site and in October to everyone’s surprise they found the USAT Brigadier General M.G. Zalinski. Instead of having sunk to the depths she was sitting upside down on a rock ledge just 112 feet below the surface. (Her full story is recounted in a 2019 article in Haikai Magazine and by Ocean Ecology which is following the efforts.)

As she continued to leak, a dive was mounted to the vessel in 2013 to remove the oil. Porter Marine Salvage details the 2013 operation including its surprise to find the ship was home to a two-and-a-half-meter Giant Pacific Octopus. They removed what was accessible, but reports are that a later survey said as much as 27,000 liters is likely still aboard. 

The Canadian Coast Guard believes that the ship’s structure has continued to deteriorate, causing previously inaccessible fuel tanks to collapse. They report currently only a minimal amount of oil is “upwelling” from the wreck but it has been decided to proceed to clean the wreck to prevent long-term damage. They said the new state of deterioration poses a significant risk for the release of a large amount of oil.

Resolve Marine will use a process called "hot tapping" to reduce the volume of fuel in the tanks. First, drainage valves are attached to the hull, then a hose will be connected to the valves and the fuel will be pumped out into holding tanks on a barge. The hot-tap method has been used successfully on shipwrecks for many years, including during the Canadian Coast Guard's response to the historic Nootka Sound shipwreck, the MV Schiedyk, in 2021. 

Work is scheduled to begin in mid-October and is expected to take several weeks. Given the nature of the operation, the Canadian Coast Guard reports there is a small risk of a release of oil while draining. It will have personnel on-site and ready to respond if needed.

Demonizing Hezbollah to Legitimize a US/Israel Onslaught on Lebanon
October 12, 2024
Source: FAIR



Corporate media’s handling of the US-supported Israeli assault on Lebanon has, like all war propaganda, entailed a campaign to demonize the purported bad guys—Hezbollah, in this case. The coverage of the US/Israeli assault on Lebanon has also evinced a casual disregard for Lebanese lives, and often an outright zest for killing the country’s people.

The Wall Street Journal (9/29/24) celebrates assassination as “deterrence.”


One person’s terrorist…

Denouncing Hezbollah as a terrorist outfit is pervasive in corporate punditry. A Wall Street Journal editorial (9/25/24) called the group “terrorists” three times, as in, “One lesson of October 7 is that Israel can’t let terrorists build up armies.”

Another Journal editorial (9/29/24) used the T-word twice before asserting that Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader Israel recently assassinated, was “a terrorist whose killers are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Europeans.” The claim that Hezbollah is liable for killing “thousands of Americans and Europeans” is extraordinary, but the authors don’t make clear who or what they’re talking about, let alone offer any evidence to support their claim.

In the New York Times (9/25/24), columnist Bret Stephens said Hezbollah is a “terrorist militia” and a “terrorist group” that “terrorizes its neighborhood.”

Max Boot of the Washington Post (9/26/24, 9/28/24) called Nasrallah a “terrorist kingpin” and referred to Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization” three times. “It would be nice to think the Lebanese government could now disarm Hezbollah and end its reign of terror,” he mused, describing the organization as “one of the world’s deadliest terrorist groups.”
Violence they dislike

Two decades out from 9/11, it should be clear to honest observers that the term “terrorism” is politicized to the point of uselessness. The US, Canada and other Western states have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but there is no universally applied objective measure of whether a given group deserves that label, nor is there a neutral body that decides who is and is not a terrorist. The US put Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress on a terror list in 1988, and Mandela’s name was not removed until 2008 (NBC, 12/7/13).
Amal Saad (X, 10/4/24): “The US and other Western powers’ designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization has effectively empowered Israel to escalate its campaign of state terrorism in Lebanon.”

In practice, to paraphrase what Noam Chomsky said when asked if he thinks Hezbollah is a terrorist organization: “Terrorism” is used by the great powers to refer to violence that they dislike. The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist group, he argued, because the US supports Israeli invasions and occupations of Lebanon, and Hezbollah has twice driven Israel out of the country through successful military campaigns.

Amal Saad of Cardiff University, a scholar who focuses on Hezbollah, raised the salient point about the US and its Western allies’ listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization:


The blanket proscription of Hezbollah, including its civilian and political branches, has created a direct conflict between domestic and international law. By criminalizing these non-military elements, it provides Israel with cover to blur the critical distinction in international law between combatants and noncombatants, enabling it to act with impunity….

This was showcased by Israel’s strike on Hezbollah’s Islamic Health Unit, along with separate incidents where many other paramedics and healthcare workers were killed while attempting to rescue victims of Israel’s attacks. It was also shown by Israel’s pager attacks on Hezbollah cadres, most of whom were members of its mobilization unit (off-duty reservists and thus noncombatants), healthcare workers and other civilians.
Lebanon ‘hijacked’ and ‘kidnapped’

What the Mideast crisis is “really about,” according to Thomas Friedman (New York Times, 10/1/24): a struggle between “decent countries,” like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and “brutal, authoritarian regimes.”

Stephens (New York Times, 9/25/24) built on the terrorism theme, writing that Hezbollah has “hijacked” Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies won the majority of seats in Lebanon’s parliament in 2018, and although the bloc lost its majority in 2022, it still won more seats than any other formation (Al Jazeera, 5/17/22). Performing well in elections isn’t “hijacking” a country.

Nor is it “kidnapping” a country, as Stephens’ Times colleague Thomas Friedman (10/1/24) asserted. Friedman wrote:


It is hard to exaggerate how much Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah…were detested in Lebanon and many parts of the Sunni and Christian Arab world for the way they had kidnapped Lebanon.

Friedman is also wildly oversimplifying the range of views held by people in “the Sunni and Christian Arab world.” The Associated Press’ Bassem Mroue (9/28/24), writing from Beirut, characterized Nasrallah as “idolized by his Lebanese Shiite followers and respected by millions of others across the Arab and Islamic world,” even as Hezbollah lost some of its popularity after intervening on the side of the Syrian government in the war in that country.

Saad Hariri, the two-time Lebanese Prime Minister and leader of the primarily Sunni Future Movement party, called Nasrallah’s assassination “a cowardly act that we condemn in its entirety.” He offered “heartfelt condolences to [Nasrallah’s] family and comrades,” and added that the killing has brought Lebanon and the region “into a new phase of violence” (LBC International, 9/28/24).

Lebanese Christian leaders praised Nasrallah, including the country’s former president, Michel Aoun, who called Nasrallah “a distinguished and honest leader who led the national resistance on the paths of victory and liberation” (Newsweek, 9/28/24).
Reduced to a ‘proxy’

For the Washington Post (9/29/24), Nasrallah’s assassination was “a much-deserved comeuppance for an Iranian proxy militia.”

A slight variation on the effort to suggest that Hezbollah should be understood in purely sectarian terms are the ubiquitous reductions of the group to an Iranian “proxy” (Wall Street Journal, 9/29/24, 9/25/24; Washington Post, 9/29/24; Boston Globe, 10/6/24; New York Times, 10/1/24). Stephens (New York Times, 9/25/24) made the same allegation but in more racist, dehumanizing language, writing that “Tehran is the head of the octopus and Hezbollah…is merely one of its tentacles.”

As I’ve previously shown (FAIR.org, 4/21/21, 8/26/20), it just isn’t true that Hezbollah is an Iranian vassal. The goal of this narrative is to misrepresent Hezbollah as a foreign imposition without a mass base in Lebanon.

The point of presenting Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon in the most negative possible light is, of course, to make the US/Israeli onslaught against Lebanon sound legitimate: Readers who think Hezbollah is a terrorist group without any legitimacy in Lebanon are more likely to support a war to crush them than audiences who are aware of facts that don’t fit this narrative—such as the group’s record of building “a vast network of social services, including hospitals, schools and youth programs” (New York Times, 8/14/20).

Nor, likewise, do simplistic tales that cast Hezbollah as a purely malevolent force capture the widespread popularity the group has at times garnered in Lebanon and elsewhere in Arab majority countries. It won considerable admiration in 2000 when its military forced Israel to end its 18-year occupation of Lebanon (AP, 9/28/24), and, as the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (3/8/16) conceded, when it successfully fought off Israel’s 2006 re-invasion.

‘Remarkable restraint

The Wall Street Journal (9/25/24) claimed that Israel has given the last 11 months “over to diplomacy on its northern front.” That “diplomacy” has attacked Lebanon 7,845 times, killing more than 600 people, including at least 137 civilians (Al Jazeera, 9/11/24; Amnesty International, 9/25/24).

The commentariat has also painted Hezbollah as the aggressor in its struggle with Israel. The first Journal editorial (9/25/24) on Israel’s Lebanon assault said that Israel had given the months since October 7 “to diplomacy on its northern front, even as Hezbollah fired 8,500 rockets and forced 60,000 Israelis from their homes.” The Journal‘s follow-up editorial (9/29/24) praised Israel for supposedly “exhibit[ing] remarkable restraint for nearly a year in response to Hezbollah’s thousands of rocket and missile attacks that have made the country’s north uninhabitable.”

Carine Hajjar of the Boston Globe (10/6/24) rationalized Israel’s attacks in similar terms, writing that “in the past year, more than 60,000 Israelis have been displaced from the northern region by escalating rocket fire. No country would put up with that.”

These are complete misrepresentations: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) shows (Al Jazeera, 9/11/24) that Israel was responsible for about 82% of all attacks on either side of the Lebanon/Israel armistice line between October 7, 2023, and September 6, 2024. In roughly the same period, prior to Israel’s most recent escalation, Israel had killed 137 civilians in Lebanon, whereas attacks by armed groups in Lebanon killed 14 civilians in Israel (Amnesty International, 9/25/24).

Totally absent from the Journal editorials is the significant fact that Hezbollah has consistently indicated that it would agree to a ceasefire with Israel if Israel agreed to end its genocide in Gaza (Reuters, 2/29/24; AP, 7/2/24). Indeed, an Israeli official told NBC (9/28/24) that Israel “took the decision to assassinate Nasrallah after concluding he would not accept any diplomatic solution to end the fighting on the Israel/Lebanon [armistice line] that was not tied to an end to the war in Gaza.”

Whatever corporate media say, Israel isn’t massacring people in Lebanon because Hezbollah is attacking Israel; it’s massacring them so that it can go on massacring Palestinians.

Arab lives don’t matter to corporate media


Arab deaths are rarely treated as having serious moral weight in US corporate media (Al Jazeera, 9/23/24).

The op-ed pages have also demonstrated, at best, a callous indifference to Lebanese life and, at worst, rah-rah enthusiasm for the slaughter of Lebanese people.

The first Journal editorial (9/25/24) wrote:


Following the exploding pagers and successful attack on Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force commanders, Israel this week dropped evacuation notices and bombed Hezbollah’s missile stores. Israel says it destroyed tens of thousands of missiles and launchers, most hidden in civilian homes, leaving Hezbollah without half its strategic arsenal.

Lebanon says more than 550 people have been killed, including terrorists.

The attacks on the Radwan Force killed 15 Hezbollah members and 31 people in total (NPR, 9/21/24). Wiping out 16 non-Hezbollah persons, including three children (Le Monde, 9/21/24), evidently isn’t enough for the editors to qualify the extent to which this violence was a “success.”

The subtext of the reference to the “evacuation notices” is that Israel did its due diligence by warning civilians—“death threats” is more apt than “evacuation notices”—but UN human rights office spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani pointed out that these “notices” seemed to presume that civilians would know where Hezbollah’s weapons are stored. The messages, she said, helped spread “panic, fear and chaos.” She went on to say:


If you warn people of an imminent attack, that does not absolve you of the responsibility to protect civilians. The obligation to protect civilians is paramount. So, whether you’ve sent out a warning telling civilians to flee, [it] doesn’t make it okay to then strike those areas, knowing full well that the impact on civilians will be huge.

According to Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (9/23/24), despite issuing these supposed warnings,


in both the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the Israeli army deliberately denies civilians enough time to escape the areas being bombed, offering them no real protection from the dangers arising from military operations.

Moreover, some of those Hezbollah “missile stores” the Journal referred to took the form of “hospitals, medical centers and ambulances,” all of which Israeli airstrikes damaged, as the Lebanese minister of health noted (Human Rights Watch, 9/25/24). The Lebanese Health Ministry also said that Israeli bombs hit “cars of people trying to flee” (Al Jazeera, 9/23/24). That the Journal didn’t mention Israel’s killing of 50 children in its September 23 attacks (CNN, 9/24/24) demonstrates how little value the paper assigns to Arab life.

The same applies to a Washington Post editorial (9/29/24), which began:


In a display of military and intelligence prowess reminiscent of its surprise victory over Arab armies in the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel has delivered a series of devastating preemptive blows on Hezbollah, the Shiite Lebanese paramilitary force, culminating in the assassination of its longtime leader, Hasan Nasrallah, under a hail of bombs on Friday.

The piece went on to say that


Israel seems to prefer not to have to follow up its air campaign by going into Lebanon on the ground, which would be costly for both the Jewish state and civilians of Lebanon inevitably caught up in the fighting.

Here Lebanon’s dead are erased, their murders cast as a hypothetical possibility rather than a well-documented reality, while Israeli brutality is praised as “a display of military and intelligence prowess.”

‘More Hezbollah’s fault’
What the Wall Street Journal (9/29/24) called “a remarkable display of intelligence [and] technological skill,” Human Rights Watch (9/25/24) said “appears to violate the prohibition against booby-traps” under international law.

When they didn’t ignore civilian deaths, some of these pundits blamed Hezbollah for them. The Journal editorial board (9/29/24) wrote:

Israel has changed its strategy from tit-for-tat responses to a pre-emptive campaign to degrade Hezbollah’s missile stores, launchers and military leadership. These are all justified targets in war. It’s tragic when civilians are also killed, but that is more Hezbollah’s fault. Nasrallah, who knew he was a marked man, located his hideout under residential buildings.

Israel’s campaign has been a remarkable display of intelligence, technological skill and above all political will. The sabotage of Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies wounded or killed scores of fighters. Its targeted bombings against Hezbollah’s terror masters showed how much Israeli intelligence has penetrated its communications. It continued to bomb Hezbollah targets on Sunday, including military commanders.

Even if US/Israeli attacks were limited to what the Journal calls “justified targets in war,” the bombers’ obligations wouldn’t end there. It’s inadequate—not to mention callous—to brush aside dead civilians as being “more Hezbollah’s fault.” As Human Rights Watch (9/25/24) explained:


The attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians, including the duty to avoid causing disproportionate harm to civilians if the defending party has located military targets within or near populated areas.

Of course, the US/Israeli airstrikes didn’t just “degrade Hezbollah’s missile stores, launchers and military leadership.” Rather, they “randomly and directly target[ed] civilian buildings, including the buildings of surrounding hospitals and schools,” according to the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (9/23/24). According to the group, Israel also “used drones to light fires in southern Lebanon’s forests” and burn agricultural land.

As the UN’s refugee agency put it two days prior to the publication of this Journal editorial, “118,466 Lebanese and Syrian people have been displaced inside Lebanon as Israel airstrikes continue to devastate civilian lives.” It’s patently false to describe such actions as “targeted bombings against…terror masters.”

Likewise, Israel’s pager and walkie-talkie attack (CounterSpin, 9/27/24) didn’t exclusively kill and wound “scores of fighters.” The sabotage killed at least 37 people, including children and medical workers, an apparent violation of the prohibition against booby-traps under international law (Human Rights Watch, 9/25/24). The explosions wounded nearly 3,000, many of them civilian bystanders (CNN, 9/27/24). Calling all this mass maiming and murder “a remarkable display of intelligence [and] technological skill” betrays a racist lust for Arab blood.

Matthew Levitt of the Boston Globe (9/23/24) was similarly unconcerned with the harm done to noncombatants, and gushed over Israel’s technical mastery: “Israel, in an extraordinary cloak-and-dagger deception, outfoxed Hezbollah” in a “tactical success.” Yet the communication devices blew up “in crowded civilian areas, such as residential streets and grocery stores, as well as in people’s homes,” causing innumerable people to lose one or more eyes or hands or both (Amnesty International, 9/20/24).

Whether it’s this cold-blooded attitude to people in Lebanon, or offering one-dimensional accounts of Hezbollah’s role in the country that reduce it to mere villainy, pundits appear to be using their platforms to try to get the public to sign off on savage US/Israeli violence.

Sunday, October 06, 2024

Do Other Animals Have Consciousness?

 Hecht

October 4, 2024
Facebook

Coyote in Yellowstone National Park. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

Humans have had relationships with their pets for thousands of years, talking to them, coddling them, and imbuing them with human attributes. But are these animals “thinking,” and do nonhuman animals have the same sorts of feelings that humans have? Most people with pets would say “yes.”

What does the science say? In recent decades, researchers have begun to find scientific answers to questions of consciousness for a variety of species. The broad consensus is that many animals are sentient (have conscious thought), that there are different types of cognition, and that a larger number of animals require protection and more research is needed for a wider range of species.

At an April 2024 meeting at New York University, 39 prominent scientists from different disciplines issued “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” emphasizing “strong scientific support for the attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds” and “at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).”

The declaration, signed by 480 scientists as of September 2024, further asserts that the evidence should inform decisions about the welfare of these sentient animals. Animal advocates welcome the declaration as progress but note that it includes an ethical dilemma by allowing the continuance of animal research into pain and permitting research in captive settings.

Exploring Animal Minds

Nonhuman animals don’t speak a language humans can understand, so research designs must find ways to measure sentience without direct feedback. The challenge, according to many researchers, is to design research that is appropriate to an organism and its environment. The experiments are inventive and many of the conclusions are speculative. Here are a few examples:

Octopuses: Many experiments have looked at the sentience of octopuses. A 2022 review study reported that octopuses have been shown “to exhibit intentional behavior,” to have memory, and to form “mental maps” for navigational purposes. The same study noted that octopuses could recognize other individual octopuses, and during captivity, could distinguish between food-bearing handlers and those who were obnoxious, even when all the handlers were identically dressed.

Octopuses also cooperate with other species on mutually beneficial hunting expeditions, as a 2020 observational study documents. Coral reef fish such as groupers search the sea floor for prey possibilities, while the octopus follows them and reaches into rock crevices to grab the prey. Groupers perform the same service for moray eels, signaling to the octopus or eel where to get the prey.

Sometimes, the octopus punches its helper to have better access to the prizeas revealed by an underwater video of the punching event described in a September 2024 Nature article. A co-author of the study, Eduardo Sampaio, and his colleagues used several cameras to collect 120 hours of footage in the Red Sea. Sampaio from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany, told Nature magazine: “The octopus basically works as the decider of the group. … There’s a sign that some cognition is occurring here, for sure.”

Elephants: In northern Bengal, India, scientists studied five instances where an entire elephant herd participated in burying a deceased young elephant. The scientists reported that the elephants carried the dead calf’s body a distance to a suitable spot near a tea plantation, covered it with vegetation, and then the herd observed the body. Later, the elephants visited the site several times as the body decayed.

Zebrafish: One team of scientists explored curiosity in zebrafish, showing them 30 novel objects that were previously unknown to the fish, according to a February 2023 article in the Frontiers. The researchers defined curiosity as “the drive to gain information in the absence of clear instrumental goals such as food or shelter.”

The zebrafish were videoed when different objects were placed in their tank, and the researchers later analyzed the results. Curiosity was ranked by how long the fish looked at the object when it was first introduced, compared with the attention given later to the object when it was reintroduced.

The researchers concluded that “… evidence that zebrafish have the capacity to engage with information-seeking for its own sake suggests that certain forms of cognitive stimulation could be beneficial zebrafish enrichment. Providing free-choice cognitive stimulation opportunities is known to increase welfare in other species and may contribute to positive welfare.” The researchers suggest that their findings point to new avenues for investigation.

Other examples abound:

– The cleaner wrasse fish recognizes itself in a mirror.

– Bumblebees “play” with wooden balls.

– Domestic pigs can distinguish between different human faces.

– Octopuses, crabs, and lobsters can “experience pain, distress, or harm.”

A World of Conscious Animals

It is not easy to determine scientifically whether a species has consciousness. How do we know what another animal’s consciousness is? And how much do we impose anthropomorphic measures in evaluating nonhuman cognition?

There is a wide spectrum of approaches to animal consciousness, from examining a particular attribute of one species to panpsychism, the idea that all matter has consciousness (from the Greek words pan meaning all, and psyche meaning soul).

This latter view is not as far-fetched as some might at first believe. For example, the prominent Tufts University biologist Michael Levin has proposed a framework called TAME (Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere) to rigorously investigate cognitive function at all levels. The framework sets guidelines for empirical testing of cognitive characteristics, such as problem-solving, for everything from microbes to robots. It also helps investigators understand different forms of intelligence.

Emphasizing that there are different forms of cognition, a German interdisciplinary research team argued in a 2020 article that it is important to approach animal consciousness from a perspective that there is not “one cognition” and that research should be “biocentric.” In this view, experimenters should look for the particular physical and social environment of the animal, and what the animal needs to know, not just comparing animal sentience to human consciousness.

In other words, animals may not have a “cluster of skills” the way humans do but may have unique skills that are ecologically relevant to them. Some animals are more adept than humans at particular skills.

Evolving Knowledge—and Debate

In July 2012, a statement similar to the New York Declaration was issued by a prominent group of scientists at the University of Cambridge.

Focusing on neurobiology, the “Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness” asserts:

“The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses also possess these neurological substrates.”

In other words, the absence of a brain like that of primates is not an obstacle to sentience.

The Cambridge Declaration was criticized for questioning why there should be any doubt about animal consciousness. In a 2013 article titled “After 2,500 Studies, It’s Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven,” biologist Marc Bekoff wrote: “It’s time to stop pretending that people don’t know if other animals are sentient: We do indeed know what other animals want and need, and we must accept that fact.”

Bekoff, an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is a cognitive ethologist who co-founded Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals with Jane Goodall.

The debate, however, continues in the scientific community: How many animals are sentient, and to what degree? What is cognition, what kind of brain is needed to be conscious, and how do human assumptions about consciousness interfere with experiments? There is also a religious argument that a basic difference exists between humans and all other beasts because of the belief that only human beings have souls.

Increase in Research Spurs Animal Welfare Laws

As public and scientific interest in animal sentience has increased in the past decades, so have research publications. A 2022 study noted that publications on animal sentience research increased tenfold from 1990 to 2011. Now, more kinds of animals are included as research subjects.

New research has helped provide a scientific basis for laws governing the protection of animals. “[M]ore than 30 countries have formally recognized other animals—including gorillas, lobsters, crows, and octopuses—as sentient beings,” states an October 2022 article in the MIT Technology Review.

In the United States, several states have recognized animal sentience in law to some degree. A 2022 publication by the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy advocates for making legislation more explicit, by enacting animal welfare laws recognizing that many animals can feel pain and that human treatment of them should be regulated.

The Cornell article notes that the United States was the first country to pass a law protecting animals from human cruelty1641 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony Code. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties reads: “No man shall exercise any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for mans use.”

There’s no doubt that as scientists investigate more species, they will find further evidence of animal consciousness and new ways to assess it. Accepting the consciousness in other animals will force us to rethink our relationships with them—from research to agriculture to pets to how we experience nature.

This article was produced by Human Bridges.

Marjorie Hecht is a longtime magazine editor and writer with a specialty in science topics. She is a freelance writer and community activist living on Cape Cod.


Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Peter Singer. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243 [revised edition]. As I write this, in ...


* In TOM REGAN & PETER SINGER (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 148-. 162. Page 2. men are; dogs, on the other ...

That's an important step forward, and a sign that over the next forty years we may see even bigger changes in the ways we treat animals. Peter Singer. February ...

In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that ethics is not "an ideal system which is all very noble in theory but no good in practice." 1 Singer identifies ...

Beasts of. Burden. Capitalism · Animals. Communism as on ent ons. s a een ree. Page 2. Beasts of Burden: Capitalism - Animals -. Communism. Published October ...

Nov 18, 2005 ... Beasts of Burden forces to rethink the whole "primitivist" debate. ... Gilles Dauvé- Letter on animal liberation.pdf (316.85 KB). primitivism ..