All the other species, in the authors’ view, were bred by people for their desired qualities. Cats, being without utility, were not. Instead, they domesticated themselves and chose their own mates without human interference.
They had the wits to notice that the first human settlements were full of uncleared garbage strewn about by their slovenly inhabitants and so were overrun with rats, mice and sparrows.
The cats decided to move into this inviting new ecological niche, even though the price of admission was to develop a disdainful tolerance of people.
Clearly, there is no accounting for the vast entertainment value provided by cats.
3 comments:
If the article had been written by farmers instead of scientists, it would have had a very different result. My relatives in western Wisconsin keep hordes of cats around their property to maintain the mouse and rat population in the barns. They feed them just enough to keep them around, but not enough to survive. It keeps a concentration of predators centered around the farm buildings which, in turn, keeps the rodent population low.
Without the cats, the place would be literally crawling with vermin, eating the feed and soiling everything.
Ya, it was strange how they totally discounted the historical value of vermin control provided by cats. I thought he made an interesting point though about cats being one of the few (only) domesticated animals that are pretty much free to breed as they wish.
I read once that cats are the most genetically robust species on Earth. Each time a female mates, it only releases a single egg. That means that a single litter can have many fathers. Cats also circulate widely throughout the country as people move and take them along. Finally, unlike dogs, most cat owners who want kittens don't worry about pedigree, so as you said, they're free to breed.
captcha word: cativ (n) - a steady stream of cat pictures for those times when you find yourself far away from cats.
Post a Comment