My experience (cat owner myself, son of cat owners and regular cat-sitter) confirms what the article says: orange cats are no more or less prone to doing seemingly stupid/weird things than cats of any other color. More seriously, I think this stereotype is a direct continuation of stereotypes against red-haired humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_people_...), so it shouldn't be encouraged...
Tell that to my female Standard Issue Cats lol. One is food motivated, pretty intelligent when it comes to food and pretty fat, and her twin sister is routinely making me wonder if she's an orange cat with a modified fur. Dumb as rocks but excessively cute.
"Almost always male" is slightly overstating things. Cat color is a sex linked gene, so a male cat is orange when it has a copy of the gene on its single X chromosome. Female cats can also be orange under normal circumstances though, and about 20% of orange cats are female.
Compare that to tortoiseshell or calico cats, which requires two different color genes (with calico requiring the "white spotted" gene in addition to two colors). That means something unusual usually has to happen for those colors to occur in male cats, which is why less than 0.1% of calicos are male.
I had couple of cats (orange male and tortoiseshell female) that lived 20 years after I picked them off the street. The female had only one kidney and the male had an extra vertebra but these things only became a problem in their last year.
They were both very calm creatures. The male was one of the most gentle cats I've ever known. I really miss him greeting me by nodding at me from the sofa when I got home.
Can you describe what the male looked like? I have a tortoiseshell who's all crooked. Her paws are twisted inward, her tail is shaped like a spring, her rear legs are longer than her front legs. She's all weird. Now I'm wondering if she has extra stuff like a vertebra too. Does your male cat looked overall normal despite the extra vertebra?
We had a cat with a "pig tail" as in his tail was shaped like a pig's and couldn't straighten out. The vet said it was some relatively common birth defect and wasn't a major issue.
Oh, cool! I never heard about another cat with a similar tail as my tortie's. The vet said she was probably born like that, but didn't say anything about this being common-ish.
My brain seized up trying to picture this. They didn't say vertebrum, so that's not just a wee bone but a whole other second spine! How does it even...?? I must know!
You're correct. My neophyte Latin chops be exposed. Let me explain what I just learned with my figurative antennae (plural, not antenna which also ends in 'a' and is singular), something about first and second declensions and neutered...
Did you know people with blue eyes are more likely to have bipolar disorder? This of course doesn’t mean everyone blue eyes has bipolar disorder but it makes it more likely. I think the issue may be playing out in orange cats as well. It’s certainly not going to give me every orange is weird, but it increases the likelihood and I think that’s why we see the stereotype play out.
I had an orange cat growing up in the 1970s well before the Internet and out of the seven cast I own as a child. It was very much different.
I was just thinking how behavioral differences of red haired foxes, cats, and humans from their closest relatives are explained by the same sort of proopiomelanocortin and other substantia nigra differences from weak MC1R activity.
As someone who lives with 4 cats, one of which who is orange and conforming with all stereotypes, I implore you to further that line of inquiry. While the OP paper doesn’t claim behavioral differences are supported, it doesn’t falsify them and there could be a dynamic there. If you could genetically encode shamelessness it might encapsulate the behavior. It’s not a lack of intelligence per se, more of a lack of inhibition.
This paper demonstrates a connection with behavior. I personally suspect gingers have smaller amygdala.
You've got plenty of bacteria working for you (and sometimes against you) in your gut. Microbe-enhanced cement is a significant research topic. And the most plausible route to a chemical "factory factory" that space colonists would need to make middle and top-of-pyramid chemicals is a synthetic biology platform where you could make bespoke bacteria and yeasts that could make just about anything for you.
I’m not sure if I’m joking or not, but the difference between your two examples is one of them is a choice and the other is not. Maybe we’re going to enter a new era of microorganism ethics (or morality?).
Microorganisms get interesting because they’re simple enough that we can see all the parts involved, but complex enough that we can see what looks like intentionality in their actions. We consider them Alive, but we also know all the mechanisms making them seem that way - there’s nowhere for the ghost to hide. They’re a fascinating case for ethics, especially since there’s effectively no way we could operate in this world without both relying on them and killing them in droves, because they’re also parts of the mechanism almost anywhere we look at biology. Hell, human cells are outnumbered 10:1 - by number, we’re outvoted.
Yeah I think if ethics are involved it has to be based on intentions and hence choice. Accidentally stepping on a few million microorganisms is probably ethically ok. Building your civilization in the “enslavement” of gazzilions of microorganisms might be more ethically discussion worthy. I do wonder how plants are different than microorganisms if at all since obviously we farm and eat them.
With microorganisms it’s particularly interesting because the time and space scales are so different there’s no coherent narrative between humans and bacteria - it’d be like a species of sentient space nebulas seeding a promising planet with proto-humans so we’d eventually plant fruit trees there or something. In one sense, yes, if you were one of the eventual resulting humans, you’re the result of an alien species enslaving humans to do their bidding, but you’re living your entire life just generally doing what you’d do as a human totally unaware of your apparent enslavement and with no apparent restrictions on your movement or decision-space. I’m not an ethicist - anything that doesn’t involve the full consent of all parties gives me pause, but I’m not quite sure what the conversation there looks like.
Well these humans would be totally ignorant of what’s going on but that I think would be besides the point because the space nebula would know what they’re doing!
And then one of the space nebula decided to take the form of their creation. Thus it came down to earth to walk amongst them humans as one of them and this is how linus became benevolent dictator for life.
Plants are orders of magnitude more complex than microorganisms and we "intentionally kill/enslave" them in huge amounts. If you think it's ethically questionable to "enslave" microorganisms, what do you think of eating plant based food, and how do you propose we live?
No, that’s precisely what creates the dilemma - do you have a moral or ethical right to take the life of a sentient being to save your own? Do you have a right to do so repeatedly over time? What makes your life worth more than those you’re taking?
I should have been more clear, I meant our choice as in we did not choose or coerce them to be in our gut but we would have chosen to use them in our civilization’s infrastructure.
The fact that brain organelles start spontaneously firing in synchronized patterns when they reach a certain size is enough to give me serious pause about anything trying to use brain tissue. We don’t quite know what consciousness is, but we know what it looks like from the outside.
