This book is like green beans (I’ll explain)

While I really enjoyed this book, I think I’m part of a certain demographic that would inherently be inclined to like this book. I like science, I love evolution, I’m not particularly religious, I’ve received great education, and I like reading science-based or non-fiction books the best. I’m fully aware that not everyone shares those opinions though, which is where I get into the green bean metaphor.

The way I see it is this: people like me are the people who like vegetables. We’ll eat carrots, broccoli, asparagus, and definitely green beans, and green beans in particular are a very popular, well-liked veggie that doesn’t challenge you too much. But there are people who don’t like vegetables at all. For whatever reason, it’s not their scene. Maybe they taste bad, they prefer fruit, etc. However, on occasion, you can probably get someone to have some green beans that have been cooked up real nice, or introduce someone to veggies with a plate of green beans. They may not always turn to them, but green beans a good option if they’re in the mood for some greens.

Just some green beans to illustrate my point

Zoobiquity is green beans. For people who like science, it’s a light and interesting read that exposes you to some new information but doesn’t make you work too hard to get it. For people who maybe prefer works of fiction or don’t like science all that much, I think Zoobiquity is the kind of book that they could end up liking should they decide to pick up a *nerdier* book or want to dip their toe in the water.

 

However, I don’t think this book would ever go over well with someone extremely religious as it challenges a lot of the concepts held by some people in those groups. At least in any religion that’s a fan of the New Testament, members may struggle to accept a book that claims they’re not entirely separated from the rest of God’s creation, much as people oppose to the concept of evolution.

Your Inner Fish

Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin is another fantastic illustration of the intersection between people and the rest of the animal kingdom. In high school, the documentary version of this thesis blew my mind, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in evolution, particularly evolutionary anatomy.

A critique!

Here’s an article of a physician critiquing Zoobiquity as an oversimplification. I’m including this because although I thought this book was great and accurate, I know I’m not a research expert in this field. Besides it’s always good to have some friendly debates.

 

Greek, Ray. “Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing.” Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI vol. 2,4 559–563. 1 Oct. 2012, doi:10.3390/ani2040559

Professional microbiome research

Here are a few citations if anyone’s interested in reading up on the microbiome more:

  1. Cabana, F., Clayton, J.B., Nekaris, K.A.I. et al. Nutrient-based diet modifications impact on the gut microbiome of the Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus). Sci Rep 9, 4078 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41598-019-40911-0
  2. Amato, K.R., Yeoman, C.J., Cerda, G. et al. Variable responses of human and non-human primate gut microbiomes to a Western diet. Microbiome 3, 53 (2015) doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0120-7
  3. Schmidt, Elliott, et al. “Effects of the Captive and Wild Environment on Diversity of the Gut Microbiome of Deer Mice (Peromyscus Maniculatus).” The ISME Journal, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 21 Jan. 2019, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30664674.
  4. Clayton, Jonathan, et al. “Captivity Humanizes the Primate Microbiome.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sep 2016, 113 (37) 10376-10381; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1521835113
  5. Lane, Kelly E., et al. “The Anthropogenic Environment Lessens the Intensity and Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Balinese Long-Tailed Macaques (Macaca Fascicularis).”Primates, vol. 52, no. 2, 2011, pp. 117-28. ProQuest, http://proxy.library.nd.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/859327259?accountid=12874, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10329-010-0230-6.

Next

Next by Michael Crichton features multiple fictional story lines relating to modern science and medicine. Although the rest of the book is great, I’m adding it to this list because of one story line about a chimpanzee-human hybrid child. It’s a realistic and tragic illustration of how people today view themselves so separately from even our closest relatives, and even with hate.

A means of validation

In all honesty, one of my favorite takeaways from this book was the validation it provides a ton of people with. Every day people are faced with harassment, cruelty, and judgement for things that are out of their control, such as their body weight, their mental health, their sexual preferences, their addictions, their anxieties, their overall strength, etc. And for a lot of these, you hear people say “It’s all in your control,” or “That doesn’t exist in nature,” or any number of ignorant things. This book puts a lot of those things to bed.

 

As someone who has struggled with a good number of the conditions described in this book, it gives me a great sense of comfort knowing that there are solutions and connections being made. It’s nice to know that my mental health issues aren’t just some strange complication of being an *intelligent being* to aid in a forever growing existential crisis. I’ve literally had malignant melanoma more than once and I hate talking about cancer because it’s so real to me, and yet this book gave me unique angles on my exact experiences that were previously never mentioned to me- and honestly I don’t know why they weren’t.

 

I understand that this doesn’t apply to everything; I’m not going to excuse bullying just because some primates do it somewhere. But this knowledge provides an opportunity for improvement. Even if knowing that these conditions exist in a higher quantity complicates the dataset, it’s still more data, and when has that ever been a bad thing for science?

How’d it all start?

Dr. NH
Kathryn Bowers

The first chapter of this book describes how Barbara Natterson-Horowitz (who I’ll be referring to as Dr. NH for brevity), a human cardiologist, got mixed up in this whole animal debate. In 2005, she got called into the LA Zoo to treat a tamarin monkey for some heart troubles. She approached the monkey as she would a human patient: calmly, eye contact, and speaking to her. To Dr. NH’s surprise, the on-call vet warned her to not look at the monkey that way, as it could trigger capture myopathy. Capture myopathy is a vet term for when a surge of adrenaline in an animal’s heart, eventually leading to death. Immediately, Dr. NH thought that sounded familiar, and she was right. About 30 years after vets identified capture myopathy, human cardiologists named the same condition “Takotsubo” in humans. Why did veterinarians figure this out first, she wondered.

 

As Dr. NH dug deeper, she realized that vets and human doctors overlooked not just this condition, but a plethora of others. After reaching out to Kathryn Bowers (a scientific journalist and the co-author of this book), the two started to uncover “the astonishing connection between human and animal health,” as it had been overlooked for so long.

 

The introduction of this book is a fantastic way to ease readers into the next 300-odd pages. It’s fun, engaging, and quickly shows the unfortunate consequences of separating humans from our fellow creatures… and how promising it could be to look at human health from a more primal angle.

 

PS here’s a little Tamarin Monkey to warm the heart:

I’m hype to take egotistical human-beings down a notch in the name of science :)

My entire life I’ve struggled to justify my supposed superiority as a human being in this world. I was a church-goer (for a time), and aside from trying to understand how Jonah was supposed to survive being in a whale, I didn’t get why people were so separated from the rest of God’s creatures. I know that’s a very controversial opinion to have at a school like Notre Dame, but whenever classes would try to thoroughly distinguish human rights versus animal rights, or human love versus animal love (etc.), I’m at a loss. I can’t think of any unbiased reason as to why my version of life is better or different. At the beginning of my bio-anthropology class this year, this same question was posted and I had the same answer: I don’t know.

 

Zoobiquity as a book kind of confirmed my hesitations and ideas which was genuinely exciting- and not even a “I’m right your wrong” kind of exciting which is when you know it’s real. There were finally concrete connections between animals and things people perceive to be *uniquely human*. It makes a ton of sense if you look at any evolutionary tree because yes, even though there’s more than one solution to any problem, there are only so many ways to get to the answer, and we all started at the same place.

Tree of life to make you feel incredibly small 🙂