So the really fabulous thing about this is that while there’s two basic theories about how the seals get an eel up their nose, there are also problems with both of them. The first is that the seal is shoving its head in holes in the rocks and the eel panics and goes for what looks like a hole—ie a seal nostril. And that would be a great theory, except that seals have what are described as “extremely muscular nostrils” because they gotta slam them closed when diving to keep water out.
Which, okay, fine, except that there’s often like two, three feet of eel INSIDE THE SEAL. The stuff hanging out is just the end of the tail. And eels are astonishingly powerful for their size, true, but so are seal nostrils. (Why am I typing these words? How did my life come to this?)
The other theory, of course, is that they barfed up an eel and it came out their nose instead, but we’re talking a fairly impressive feat that the eel lined up just right to come out the nostrils, and also those are BIG eels. It’d be kinda like a human puking a spear of asparagus out of their nose. (Why am I typing THESE words, too? Why?)
The remaining theory, which is actually the one ascribed to by the lead scientist on the endangered monk seal project, is that dumb teenage seals are snorting eels at each other for fun. And y’know…I just…sure. We live in a world where that wouldn’t even be the tenth strangest thing I’ve heard about mammals.
In conclusion, if any young monk seals are following me, Just Say No To Eel.
EXACTLY LIKE THAT probably
Ok but the real question is what happens to the eels? Are they alive up there squiggling around like, ‘wtf?’ Do the scientists remove them? Are eels beginning to avoid areas where teenage monk seals hang out?
I regret to say that the eels do not come out of this as well as the seals do. But it did lead to one of the most understated and marvelous sentences ever spoken by a wildlife rehabber, namely:
“Though no seals have died or been seriously affected by the eels, having a dead animal up their noses for any extended amount of time poses potentially adverse health impacts, said Simeone, director of Ke Kai Ola, a monk seal hospital in Hawaii run by the Marine Mammal Center.”
So I guess by now the seals know if they snort an eel, they get to go to an all expenses paid vacation in the seal hospital, and just hang out and get fed and meet other cute young seals?
oh, fuck it. I was going to put this in the tags but it got too long and I’m going to get flamed to hell and back by my fellow ~leftists~ but whatever.
I may have said this before, but one of the things I’ve been sort of ruminating on lately is how extremely Western the whole “I can’t vote for a candidate if they don’t align exactly with my idea of Progressive” thing is. like. when it comes to voting, sometimes adhering to your own particular, individual sense of ethics and morality and not voting for the progressive (or less bad) candidate means a fascist gets elected. for this kind of person, if the fascist got elected because you (and millions of similarly conflicted people) didn’t vote for the other candidate, well, that’s just the way it goes sometimes and your conscience is clear, because you stood on your moral high ground and that’s the most important thing! never mind the effects of a fascist’s rule on millions of vulnerable people – at least you didn’t violate your own internal sense of whatever by voting for someone not ~progressive~ enough!
this is a very, very individualistic idea. and it strikes me as extraordinarily arrogant and Western – and, yes, privileged – to think that the priority when choosing between an actual fascist and a left-leaning centrist is to think that the priority in this situation is to stand on your moral high ground no matter the real-life consequences. rather than using your individual vote as part of a larger collective action to try to mitigate the worst case scenario, our hypothetical leftist voter will prioritize their own sense of comfort with adhering to their morally pure stance and find no disconnect whatsoever in the ethics around the real world consequences of that stance. the moral purity in this scenario apparently never extends outside the confines of the individual’s own skin.
is this about the upcoming US presidential election? yes, obviously, but it’s also about every election, ya feel? and it’s about unions, and supporting other organizations’ strikes, and protest marches, and cleaning up litter in your neighborhood, and so so SO many other situations in life that have nothing to do with voting, where collective action for something not perfect (but also much better than the alternative) would be for the greatest common good, but doesn’t happen because every person thinks “it’s not my perfect solution so I’m going to sit this out”.
I’m not trying to encourage groupthink or whatever and I’m not trying to discount the mental conflict of lending your effort to something that you feel isn’t progressive enough for you. I’m saying that progress is made incrementally, bit by frustrating bit, over the course of months, years, decades, and no one person can do it by themselves.
progress is made by groups of people getting together and pushing and pushing and pushing until something changes. we have this idea, particularly in American society (I’m American so I’m speaking to that culture primarily), that our individual actions have either no effect at all on the world or that we are the savior of everything by ourselves. this has just never been true. individuals can inspire, they can lead, they can be figureheads and representatives of a movement, but nobody has ever changed the world alone.
I say this with love and on the verge of a nervous breakdown from watching beginner cooks who don’t know better yet: ALWAYS turn your pot and pan handles in so they aren’t hanging over the edge of the stove
even if you don’t have children or pets who might hit or grab the handles, it just takes one moment of it catching on your shirt or your hip bumping it in passing to send a bunch of hot food and oil right at you
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
amhrancas 