Not recently. I'm hoping to avoid a knee replacement. She does, for the record. She was a blue-ribbon barrel racer for years. Ah, now that's a different question. Whether we ought breed selectively, and whether existing animals ought be used (or allowed) for a purpose are different. The Fatal Injury Rate in the US is %0.192 or about 2/1000, and has been around that rate for the last twenty years. I think this question is also two different issues. Whether selecting for skill, in humans or animals, and forcing such, are different. The biggest moral problem with eugenics is forcing breeding, and murdering bad specimens. If two Olympic runners voluntarily had a child for purely genetic reasons, would that be bad? What if a thousand did it? But horses can't make decisions. So, we come to a third issue: do we have the right to impose artificial selection on animals? I don't think that's significantly different than any other animal rights question. People, no. Animals? Once again, animals can't legally make decisions. Although, if a horse is greatly opposed to doing something, no amount of whipping will force it. And excessive whipping is abuse, and illegal in the US. Also hard to say what is better. Is it better to live in comfort, or to push your limits? Each human has to make that decision for themself. Unfortunately, horses can't. No simple answer. If it expresses strongly enough, it becomes a pet instead of a racehorse. Or maybe it's illegally abused. Depends on the horse and owner. Yes, I'd probably support stricter laws on that. That said, the riding crop is a slap, not a punch. Yeah, slapping people is bad, but punching people is exponentially worse. You don't go to jail for slapping someone, and you shouldn't. In my opinion, having grown up on a farm, the cultural perception of horse intelligence is a projection of our appreciation for their beauty. In my opinion, a horse is about as smart as a cow, and measurably dumber than a pygmy goat. But yes, even a hamster is capable of expressing preferences and experiencing suffering. In summary, I think most of your concerns seem specific, but actually reduce to animal rights. Which don't have a simple answer (unless you're an extremist). Animal rights are complex for the same reason child and invalid rights are: because they're not legally capable of making decisions. Any time you (or the state) have to make a decision for something intelligent, it's difficult, because everyone involved believes the creature wants or needs something different, often fiercely.you are a runner
your mother, who certainly knows
Are the animals themselves better off for having been engineered for racing?
Don't they break legs all the time?
You and I are not the products of a series of forced marriages, selected for running skill
people should be forced
It's hard to say how much better.
If a horse were to express a preference to do something other than run fast, what happens?
Whipping
Horses seem beautiful and intelligent creatures
capable of expressing preferences
0.2%, actually, which still sounds like a fairly low rate at first, but what is a good rate? These are not broken legs, but “injuries that result in fatality within 72 hours from the race date.” In absolute terms, over 700 horses were killed in races per year (1,532,418 starts × 0.00192 / 4 years). If we disregard the reasons against comparing horses to humans, that rate corresponds to about a thousand deaths a year among marathon runners (based on 541,000 marathon finishers in 2013). The actual marathon death rate is about 3 per year, less than one per 100,000. And, of course, the marathon runners signed up voluntarily and had the option of dropping out. One of my favorite couples is Dana and Emil Zátopek. They were both born on September 19, 1922. She “won a gold medal in the javelin throw at the 1952 Olympics, only a few moments after Emil's victory in the 5 km run.” Emil claimed his victory inspired hers, to which she replied “Really? Okay, go inspire some other girl and see if she throws a javelin fifty metres!” They had no children, but I would be only pleased if they had kids hoping to produce a super-athlete. Partly because parents have surprisingly little influence over the course of their kids' lives, but mainly because the kid would presumably be free to pursue athletics or not. It would be disconcerting, to say the least, if outsiders arranged couplings and controlled individuals in order to breed athletic skill. No objections to your other comments. My opinion on horse intelligence is based on Cormac McCarthy novels. Your summary paragraph hints at a dream scenario for animal welfare activists: putting sentient animals in the same category as children — creatures that deserve our special concern and compassion because they are vulnerable and dependent. There is a world of difference now in that we hope to intervene and protect children for their own good; our primary objective for animals is to meet human needs, with animal welfare a distant second.The Fatal Injury Rate in the US is %0.0192 or about 2/1000
If a two Olympic runners voluntarily had a child for purely genetic reasons, would that be bad?
Thanks for this post. I have never watched that victory by secretariat and it is certainly worth watching. Anyone or anything that can be that much better than the best in their chosen pursuit is worth seeing. M
As for the whipping, wasoxygen -didn't they announce at the end of that video that secretariat was "hand" and not "whip" trained? As for the riding crop, I always thought of it as an extension of the hand, merely elongating the reach. Is that wrong?
It was amazing to watch and something I had never seen. It sounded to me that the announcer said the jockey did not use the whip on the back stretch. I suppose you could think of it that way. Presumably it will only be effective to the extent that it gets the horse's attention. Is entertaining an audience adequate justification for hurting the animal? Seems it would still be a fair race if no jockeys used crops.As for the riding crop, I always thought of it as an extension of the hand, merely elongating the reach. Is that wrong?