5 ms·
I agree that it's not heroic since the rat has no real conception of what it's doing. I was curious after reading your comment what the mortality rate among min
by ALittleLight 5y ago
I agree that it's not heroic since the rat has no real conception of what it's doing. I was curious after reading your comment what the mortality rate among mine detecting rats was.
This organization says that none of their rats have ever died as a result of their detection work. As I understand it the rats are too light to detonate the mines. Their role is just to detect them and they don't have to worry about accidental detonation.
That makes sense if you think about it. If these mines were the kind of thing that could be detonated by a curious rodent, they probably wouldn't have lasted so long in rural areas.
That's another reason not to call the rats heroic. There is no real hardship for them in this work. They explore and smell and get a reward when they find something. I'd bet it may be better than a wild life, though a moral ideal might be letting the rats choose to work or not. (I wouldn't suggest actually doing that, since I think the forced labor of rats is a small price to pay to save human lives, but ideally the rats would be employees rather than slaves)
https://www.apopo.org/en/herorats/faqs https://www.apopo.org/en/herorats/faqs
- Retric 5y agoHeroes don’t need to risk death to be heroes. People volunteering to fill out sandbags in a flood can save a community with no real risk to themselves, but their still making a sacrifice for others.
- nopcode 5y agoWhat about the rats that fail the training/final exam? I understood most don’t make the cut. I can’t imagine the dropouts have long and interesting lives.
- bayesian_horse 5y agoIt sounds way better to call them heroic. That's reason enough for me.
- ALittleLight 5y agoSure, it would sound better if I introduced myself as an NBA player, but that doesn't make it true. "Life-saving rats" sounds pretty good and is defensible. "Hero" seems like a bit of a stretch.
- BoorishBears 5y agohero: a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. The rats are admired for their outstanding achievements. Ergo, they are heroic rats. What's the point of being pedantic if you're not at least accurate?
- mrwh 5y agoIndeed. You don't need to know that you're a hero in order to be a hero...
- ALittleLight 5y agoI don't understand how this isn't accurate. Even with your definition: A. Not a person. B. Not courageous because they have no idea what they are doing. C. Noble qualities aren't in evidence because all the rats know is that the sniff a field and get treats.
- Luc 5y agoThat’s a wilfully unsophisticated view of language though.
- ALittleLight 5y agoIn what way? I'm considering the qualities of a hero from the given definition and arguing that they don't apply to bomb defusing rats and it's therefore wrong to call them heroes. I can't imagine how that's unsophisticated.
- BoorishBears 5y agoYou failed to heed the meaning of the term "or" (!) Doesn't that alone disqualify your rebuttal?
- ALittleLight 5y ago