Apes prefer cooked foods, and many children don’t get to eat

A while ago I commented on a paper by V. Wobber and others (2008), in which the team ran some tests to see whether great apes prefer cooked foods. In fact, that was the title of the paper: “Great apes prefer cooked foods,” like something ripped from the headlines on the Planet of the Apes. Or perhaps in the movie Dunston Checks In, which of course nobody remembers (and rightfully so). The paper comes to mind again because John Hawks recently blogged about it.

The motive behind the paper is the question of how long it took early hominins to adopt food-cookery after the control of fire–an interesting question, as this new dietary niche probably is responsible for myriad changes that occurred in human evolution. Nevertheless, I lamented then that the paper was a bit silly. Hawks’s post made me think of another qualm with this paper–a problem that arises often for me. Specifically, ‘how important are some aspects of biological anthropology in light of the current state of the world, how is what we study relevant?’ I’ve battled with this as I am working toward a degree in this field–will anything I do make a difference (hopefully a positive one) for anyone or anything?

The relvance here comes from the paper’s Methods sections: apes were variously given carrots, apples, potatos, and beef prepared in different ways, cooked and raw. For the research question, the methods more or less make sense. But one has to wonder that since there are starving people all over the world, children (even in developed nations like the USA) who go to bed hungry at night, have anxieties because they don’t know when and where their next meal will come from–in light of all this, does it really matter whether apes prefer cooked foods? You’re going to let an ape choose between mashed or diced carrots, when there are people–probably right outside the zoos and facilities where these experiments were run–who don’t get a choice on whether they’ll eat, let alone what they’ll eat? This, in a world where great apes themselves are hunted because the people living around them don’t have adequate alternate protein sources . . .

I know that the food from these experiments would not have solved the problem of global hunger, or even satisfied a single person for maybe more than a day or two. And I do my fair share of throwing foodstuffs away (it’s the American way). But it raises a great question about priorities, about what’s ultimately important. I can only hope that my future research will be so important and beneficial to justify the carbon footprint I’ll make traveling for research, the resources I’ll consume in the name of science.

Reference
Wobber V, Hare B, Wrangham R. 2008. Great apes prefer cooked foods. J Hum Evol 55: 340-348.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Apes prefer cooked foods, and many children don’t get to eat

  1. Your argument means 1) we should not feed animals in zoos either, 2) we should all become doctors or join other “useful” professions where “useful” is defined as directly assisting less fortunate humans worldwide, 3) anyone NOT in a “useful” profession (like graduate students in general, especially in anthropology) should also not be fed as they are a waste of resources. I refuse to live in a world like that, so I disagree with your argument.

  2. You’re right in that I did blow out of proportion the ultimate insignificance of the study, as well as overstate the kink in priorities. I think I was just grumpy when I wrote yesterday. Still I worry that I may end up being someone who studies “stupid crap all day for no reason.”But I don’t think your 2nd and 3rd points are necessarily in line with my griping. Not all doctors or people with other ‘useful’ vocations help the less fortunate–LA plastic surgeons immediately come to mind. And #3 about not feeding people is directly contrary to what I was saying; what if less fortunate people also have not ‘useful’ jobs? Catch 22.I guess my overall thought is that since some of us are fortunate enough to be able to make a living strictly from research and studying, perhaps some projects could be a bit more human-oriented. E.g. I really hope that one person didn’t travel from Atlanta to Leipzig to the Democratic Republic of Congo and back just to do the experiment. Based on author affiliations it looks like someone from Atlanta or Leipzig traveled all the way to DRC and back to do this research. Is such expenditure really necessary for something like answering whether apes like cooked food?

  3. OK, I’ll agree that my latter point may have been an exaggeration on my part. But the middle ones: you know what I mean. How is anyone in academia (or LA plastic surgeons) making a difference on the poor and unfortunate of the world? We’re probably not. But, unless you think everyone should stop what they’re doing to focus on the world hunger problem, I think your point is fatally flawed. What makes your research more important to the world at large? A couple steaks going to “waste” on some gorillas (or whatever, I admit, didn’t read the article) is hardly academia’s biggest problem with ivory tower-ism. Furthermore, we are both huge nerds/dorks for continuing this “argument” that is not really an argument: you thought they’re research was worthless so you’re looking to complain (perfectly justifiably), I pointed out you exaggerated…. the end? Would be if I weren’t still avoiding real work. šŸ˜‰

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s