Over centuries, Europeans have developed local traditions that define the economy, the arts and the rituals of daily life. Those traditions sometimes belong to nations or are spread across the entire continent. Sometimes they are very local and remain unknown beyond a small region. The institutions of the European Union have made an effort to regulate and even suppress some of those practices as well as preserve and protect many others, particularly those that have been endangered by modernity.

The Guardian highlights one example of a traditional hunting practice in the southeast of France called la chasse la glu or glue-trapping. The practice consists essentially of using the calls of encaged songbirds to incite unsuspecting members of the same species to land on sticks placed nearby that have been coated with glue. After landing, the birds become literal sitting ducks for the hunters to aim at. The practice turns out to be doubly cruel because the hunters capture and cage living birds whose calls attract the free birds that will be killed by the hunters.

As The Guardian reports, glue-trapping was banned in the EU by a 1979 directive, except in special circumstances where it is controlled, selective and in limited quantities. Since 1989, France has invoked these circumstances to permit glue-trapping in five south-east departments on the grounds that it is traditional.

Here is todays 3D definition:

Glue-trapping:

A traditional French hunting method for catching and killing birds, by which the victims are enticed through pleasurable and flattering messages to an area in the wilderness where sticks covered with glue are placed by hunters to prevent the birds from escaping, a strategy carefully imitated by the marketing minds of commercial social media

In the name of protecting the ecosystem and minimizing the degree of cruelty and suffering related to hunting, European law forbids the practice, but French law permits it as a recognition of a time-honored traditional practice linked to the local economy. The hunters claim glue-trapping dates back at least several family generations, and reject accusations of cruelty, The Guardian reports.

The avoidance of cruelty has become a cultural norm in the modern world, especially in Europe, where cruelty to humans is severely repressed, as witnessed by the disappearance throughout Europe of the death penalty. The glue-trapping hunters base their claim of legitimacy on three criteria: the universally recognized tolerance of hunting as a strategy for survival (even if modern hunters can survive without hunting), the consecration of time (tradition) and genealogy (family). The last two values tradition and family are specifically important in southern French culture. They have less impact or persuasive value in northern European countries.

The tolerance of hunting is universal and has always been regulated by complex laws. Despite its universal acceptance, in recent times anti-hunting movements have emerged, focusing on the question of unmerited cruelty to prey. The hunters argument based on time and tradition appeals to the psychological and sociological principle of cultural inertia that clearly influences law, as a factor of social stability and historical continuity. Time-honored practices that may grate against modern sensibilities can continue to survive, thanks to their perception as being rooted in what may be thought of as an ecology of human behavior. This is especially true if there is an economic dimension and the practices impinge on the struggle for survival.

Todays European political and economic news contains an extreme illustration of that principle, far more significant than the question of glue-trapping. An initiative against tax havens has been voted down by states who cannot afford to lose the revenue such status brings, The Guardian reports. The reason cited is the reliance of these countries on artificially favorable corporate tax rates granted by some countries to big US tech companies. These corporations thus find a way to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they do business. The article notes that too many influential countries are now utterly dependent on being tax discounters. It concludes that countries such as Malta, Cyprus and Ireland need to be compensated in some way to ease them through a transition period.

In the case of European tax evasion, it isnt clear who is luring whom to the trap, since the countries use their favorable tax policies to lure the corporations and glue them into their economic fabric. But the corporations are the big winners, unlike the caged birds. They use their economic clout to lure the countries into granting them favors. The countries remain glued to their sticks.

The solution that The Guardian proposes would be compensation for the loss of revenue. Its unlikely that a similar solution to glue-trapping could exist. Still, after so many years of failure, the critics of the practice might be wise to imagine an approach similar to the one recommended for the tax issue: These countries need a carrot and not just a stick. And certainly not a gluey stick.

The bird campaigners who seek a total ban on the practice appear to have turned their lobbying campaign into something of a tradition with its own cultural inertia. With their repeated forays over the past 30 years to gather evidence and present it to European courts having failed, they have now quite logically resorted to taking their case to the court of public opinion by offering journalists an opportunity to appeal to their readers shared sense of indignation at unnatural practices. The intention is good but the approach is bound to be ineffective. Weve concrete evidence that sometimes the bird is struggling for 20-30 minutes, says Yves Verilhac of Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (LPO). Its the sometimes that hurts. Things that happen sometimes rarely justify changing behaviors rooted in tradition or passing laws that will only create local friction.

The discourse of the critics can appear to be less about cruelty than an attack on the very idea that tradition and cultural inertia can sometimes trump legal principles. One critic commented, This is what they call tradition, but its a practice from the middle ages and barbaric.

Hunting in the middle ages was most likely less barbaric than today. Apart from a few privileged aristocrats a tiny proportion of the population, who hunted only on rare occasions common people hunted, when it was permitted, for survival. Killing always involves cruelty, but anyone who isnt a vegan learns to live with it. With everyones survival now ensured by the existence of supermarkets, hunting has become a sport and a leisure activity.

And todays sport is possibly far less disciplined and regulated by tradition than the sport practiced by medieval aristocrats. US vice presidents, for example, have even been known to shoot their friends in the face, though the vice president in question, Dick Cheney, had few qualms about ordering the killing of thousands of people who werent his friends.

The glue-trap hunters, after all, have a point. I say to people: You dont like hunting, thats fine. I respect your view, but leave me alone. I probably dont like some things you do but thats your decision, your life. Its hardly a valid excuse for undue cruelty to animals, but if the courts have not found the detective work of the bird campaigners convincing enough to force the application of the law, their eagerness to expose the crime begins to resemble a form of harassment.

The real lesson of the story should come from seeing it as a parable rather than a serious social problem. Whether its the practice of certain social media seeking to lure people into a trap and glue them to a stick (e.g., your Facebook page) as repeat consumers who subsequently leave their feathers and much of their flesh (personal data) in the hands of the corporation that runs the media, or whether its the corporations that have cemented needy governments into their geopolitical tax schemes, glue-trapping can be seen as a metaphor for the most effective marketing schemes of modern times.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devils Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

The rest is here:
The Real Glue-Trapping Scandal - Fair Observer

A distinction is often made between Judeo-Christian ethics and Islamic ethics. Judeo-Christian ethics are supposedly mild and compassionate, whereas Islamic ethics embrace aggressiveness and violence. Nevertheless, my decade-long experience in social media suggests that fundamentalist Christians can be no less aggressive than their Islamic counterparts in denouncing not only each other, but also homosexuals, abortion activists and progressive politicians.

Even though traditional Judaism is opposed to these practices,few practicing Jews indulge in the demonization of opponents which is so fashionable in other milieus. This reluctance to paint adversaries with a broad brush encompasses Jewish attitudes to Muslims, which, far from being as hostile as the latest eight decades might warrant, are remarkably nuanced.

In order to understand why in many respects Christians and Muslims seem to be on the same page in their reaction to hostile forces, I propose a distinction between the combative ethics dear to most Muslims and many Christians and the constructive ethics embraced by Jews.

A combative view of ethics calls upon us to fight evil wherever it is found. A constructive view of ethics calls upon us to fight for goodness whenever possible. Thus, the person devoted to combative ethics will fight poverty, injustice and oppression, whereas the person devoted to constructive ethics will fight for wealth-redistribution (or wealth-creation), justice and freedom. This is not an academic distinction, but a crucial difference based on our essential understanding of ethics as primarily a fight against evil or a struggle for goodness.

At first glance, it appears unfair to distinguish Christianity from Judaism in this regard. After all, the Christian Gospels are less militant than most books found in the Hebrew Bible. It is Jesus, not the Prophets who invites his followers to love their enemies and turn their cheeks to them. Nevertheless, it is clear that most Christians dont subscribe to the literal meaning of these words. This is not just a reflection of how hard and unrealistic such a course of action usually is. Tolerating evil also clashes with the Christian imperative to resist and oppose Satan.

In the Jewish tradition, Satan plays a very limited role. The Satan, or Ha-Satan, is merely the heavenly prosecutor who makes a case in the divine court against the sincerity of righteous figures like Abraham and Job. This is a far cry from the role that Christianity and Islam assign to Satan. Both in Christianity and in Islam the devil is a powerful force that opposes Gods designs and lures men and women to sin and perdition. In this regard, fighting and defeating the devil in Islam and Christianity is a prerequisite for Gods earthly will to be realized.

The importance attributed to the devil in a culture and religion is directly related to its inclination to engage in combative ethics vis--vis constructive ethics.The importance attributed to the devil in a culture and religion is directly related to its inclination to engage in combative ethics vis--vis constructive ethics. In a world where Satan is viewed as omnipresent, goodness can only be achieved by fighting evil. In a world where the devil does not exist, the temptation to view ethics as a fight against evil is less appealing. It is thus not surprising that in Islamic milieus where the devils presence is acutely felt, the lure of combative ethics is far stronger than in Judaism or contemporary Christianity.

During many centuries Christianity was also under the spell of Satan. The massacres of cats which facilitated the plague, the Salem witch trials and the rhetoric of clericalist parties which in the 19th and early 20th century labelled progressive adversaries as satanic, highlights the crucial role of the devil in the Christian consciousness and ethical worldview. This is the most plausible reason to explain why both Islamists and Christian fundamentalists tend to demonize opponents in a way that is alien to the attitude of most observant Jews.

Focusing on the devil in order to account for differences in human behavior and worldviews in the 21st century may appear absurd. Nevertheless, given that the Manichaean worldview of Islamists and fundamentalist Christians is not shared by people who do not believe in the devil, it makes sense to pursue further research that ascertains how individual and collective attitudes towards the devil and ethics interact and shape each other.

It would be therefore extremely interesting to research whether the role people accord to the devil correlates with their preference for combative vis--vis constructive ethics. A scientific demonstration of this relationship could shed light on a crucial cultural and psychological factorand on the malignant shade the devil casts to this day.

Researchers and academics are welcome to contact the author atrafaelcastro78@gmail.comto jointly pursue this research project.

Excerpt from:
The Ethics of the devil - Arutz Sheva

In a sprawling gallery of the Royal Ontario Museum, curators and technicians crowded around two large coolers that had recently arrived at the Toronto institution. Wriggling inside the containers were live sea lampreys, eel-like creatures that feed by clamping onto the bodies of other fish, puncturing through their skin with tooth-lined tongues, and sucking out their victims blood and bodily fluids. Staff members, their hands protected with gloves, carefully lifted one of the lampreys and plopped it into a tall tank. It slithered through the water, tapping on the glass walls with its gaping mouth, rings of fearsome teeth on full view.

Having explored its new environment, the lamprey settled onto the pebbles at the bottom of the tank. It will remain on display until March as part of a new exhibition exploring the oft-reviled critters that bite, pierce, scrape and saw their way through flesh to access their favorite food source: blood.

The exhibition, called Bloodsuckers, includes displays of other live animalsmosquitoes, ticks and leechesinterspersed throughout the gallery. And dozens of preserved specimens, arrayed down a long, curving wall, offer a glimpse into the diverse world of the roughly 30,000 species of bloodthirsty organisms across the globe. Among these critters are vampire moths, which can pierce the thick skins of buffalo and elephants. Vampire snails target sick and dying fish, making for easier prey. The oxpecker birds of Africa pluck ticks and other insects off large mammalsand then slurp blood from their hosts sores.

Sebastian Kvist, curator of invertebrates at the Royal Ontario Museum and co-curator of the exhibition, knows that these animals are likely to make some visitors shudder. But to him, blood-feeders are the loveliest of organisms, the result of a refined evolutionary process. Leeches are a particular favorite of Kvists, and his research focuses on the evolution of blood-feeding behavior, or hematophagy, in these predatory worms. Sometimes he even affectionately lets the leeches in his lab gorge themselves on his blood.

When you have live animals in your care, they demand some respect, he says. I think that it is giving back to the leech what we're getting from them to donate our warm blood.

Bloodsuckers opens in a corridor bathed in red light, where an installation featuring three strands of red blood cells dangles from the ceiling. Blood is a hugely abundant food source, so it makes sense that wherever vertebrates exist, animals would arise to steal their life-sustaining fluids. Blood-feeding likely evolved repeatedly over the course of our planets historyperhaps as many as 100 times, according to Kvist. Bloodsucking creatures have no common ancestor, as the behavior has cropped up independently in birds, bats, insects, fish and other animal groupsa testament to its evolutionary value.

I can think of no other system thats [so] intricate that has evolved separately, Kvist says. And it makes blood-feeding as a behavior even more beautiful.

Subsisting on a blood-heavy diet is tricky, however, and relatively few creatures have managed to retain this ability over time. Thirty thousand [bloodsuckers] out of the roughly 1.5 or 1.6 million species [of animals] that have been described is a very, very small number, Kvist says. But it turns out that being able to feed on blood puts tremendous strain on your physiology, on your morphology, and on your behavior.

For one, blood lacks B vitamins, which all animals require to convert food into energy. Many bloodsuckers thus host microscopic bacteria inside their bodies to provide these essential nutrients. Because blood is so iron-rich, its toxic to most animals in large amounts, but habitual blood-feeders have evolved to break it down.

Getting to the blood of a living creature is no mean feat either. Blood-feeding organisms have different ways of accessing their preferred snack. Mosquitoes, for instance, pierce the skin with their long, thin mouthparts, while certain biting flies boast serrated jaws that slash through flesh. But all of these methods risk being met with a deft swat from the host. To counteract this problem, some blood-feeders, like leeches, have mild anesthetics in their saliva, which help them go unnoticed as they feed. Certain creatures like vampire bats, lampreys and leeches also produce anticoagulants to keep their victims blood flowing, sometimes even after theyre done eating.

A leech feeds five times its body weight in blood, up to ten times sometimes, Kvist says. If that blood congealed or clotted inside its body, then the leech would fall to the bottom [of the water] like a brick.

Kvist and Doug Currie, the Royal Ontario Museums senior curator of entomology and co-curator of the exhibition, hope museum visitors gain a newfound appreciation for the elegance of bloodsucking organisms. Humans share a long and complicated relationship with blood-feeders. Leeches, for instance, were once seen as a life-saving force, and are in fact still used by medical experts today after certain types of surgery that overfull parts of the body with blood. But at the same time, we are unnerved by creatures that steal blooda wariness that has persisted for centuries, as suggested by the fearsome bloodsuckers that populate folklore traditions around the world.

A natural history and culture institution, the Royal Ontario Museum also explores how blood-feeding, a trait that exists in nature, has crept into the human imagination and morphed into something fantastical. Monsters abound within the gallery. There are models of the chupacabra, a beast rumored to drain livestock of their blood, and the yara-ma-yha-who, which originated in the oral traditions of Australia and boasts blood suckers on its fingers and toes.

These creatures do not directly resemble any real blood-feeding animal. Instead, they speak to our innate fear of something taking our life force, says Courtney Murfin, the interpretive planner who worked with curators to craft the exhibitions narrative.

Dracula, arguably the most famous of all the fictional bloodsuckers, may have a more tangible connection to the natural world. Legends of vampires predate Bram Stokers 1897 novelvisitors can see a first edition copy of the book at the exhibitionbut the notion that these undead beings could transform into bats originated with Dracula. Vampire bats, which live in Mexico and Central and South America, feed on the blood of mammals and birds. They were first described in 1810 and documented by Charles Darwin in 1839. The animals may have influenced Stokers supernatural count.

Depictions of vampires in todays popular culture run the gamut from cool to sexy to goofy. We can have fun with them now, Murfin says, because we know they arent real. But when vampire lore arose in eastern Europe in the early 1700s, the beasts were a source of true terror. Confusion about normal traits observed in decomposing bodies, like swollen stomachs and blood in the mouth, led to the belief that corpses could rise from their graves to feast on the blood of the living.

They started digging up graves and staking the people to the ground so they couldn't stand up at night, Kvist says.

Fears about losing their blood to vampires did not, however, dampen Europeans enthusiasm for bloodletting, an age-old medical practice that sometimes involved applying leeches to the skin. The treatment can be traced back to the ancient world, where it arose from the belief that draining blood helped rebalance the bodys humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. Bloodletting reached its peak in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when a leech mania swept across Europe and America. Pharmacies stored the critters in ornate jarsone is on display at the museumand Hirudo medicinalis, or the European medicinal leech, was harvested to the brink of extinction.

Bloodletters also had other ways of getting the job done. One corner of the exhibition is packed with a grisly assortment of artificial bloodletting tools: scarificators, which, with the push of a lever, released multiple blades for opening up the skin; glass cups that were heated and suctioned onto the skin, drawing blood to the surface; smelling salts, in case the procedure proved a bit too overwhelming for the patient.

While medical professionals no longer believe that leeching can cure everything from skin diseases to dental woes, leeches are still valued in medicine today. Hirudin, the anticoagulant in leech saliva, is unrivalled in its strength, according to Kvist. Its synthesized in labs and given to patients in pills and topological creams to treat deep vein thrombosis and prevent strokes. Leeches themselves make appearances in hospitals. Theyre helpful to doctors who perform skin grafts or reattachments of fingers, toes and other extremities. Newly stitched arteries heal more quickly than veins, so blood that is being pumped into the reattached area doesnt flow back into the body, which can in turn prevent healing.

Stick a leech on, and it will relieve that congestion of the veins, says Kvist, who also studies the evolution of anticoagulants in leeches.

Earlier this year, Kvist received a call from Parks Canada asking for help with an unusual conundrum. A man had been apprehended at Torontos Pearson International Airport with nearly 4,800 live leeches packed into his carry-on luggage, and officials needed help identifying the critters. Kvist took a look at some of the leeches, which appeared to have been smuggled from Russia, and pinpointed them as Hirudo verbana. Because they are threatened by over-harvesting, this species is listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, meaning it cannot be transported without a permit. Just what the man was doing with the bloodsuckers is unclear, but Kvist says he claimed to sell them for New Age medicinal purposes.

There is a larger-than-we-think underground network of people that use leeches to treat a variety of ailments, Kvist says. The Royal Ontario Museum took in around 300 of the contraband critters, and a few dozen are presently lounging in a display tank at Bloodsuckers.

While leeches have long been valued for their healing propertiesscientifically valid or otherwisesome bloodsuckers are better known for their ability to transmit serious illnesses. Certain species of mosquito, for instance, spread West Nile, Zika and malaria. Ticks transmit Lyme disease. The exhibition does not shy away from exploring the dangers associated with blood-feeders, and it offers advice on how to protect yourself from infection.

Some fears are real, Kvist says. Disease, unfortunately, is a necessary consequence of blood-feeding.

Most blood-feeding animals, though, do not pose a serious threat to humans. In fact, bloodsuckers are vital to the health of our planet. Mosquitoes are an important food source for birds. Fish eat leeches. Even sea lampreys, which are invasive to the Great Lakes, can bring essential nutrients to the aquatic habitats where they spawn. And like all species, blood-feeders contribute to the Earths biodiversitya richness of life that is fast declining due to factors like pollution, climate change and habitat degradation.

Many, many animal groups need to be part of conversations regarding biodiversity, Kvist says, but he and his colleagues opted to spotlight the bloodthirsty ones. The museum hopes to help visitors feel more comfortable living alongside these animalseven if they arent willing to volunteer an arm for a leechs next meal.

See the rest here:
Why the World Needs Bloodsucking Creatures | Science - Smithsonian