Sorry about the color mix up. I appreciate the reply and additional info! I guess bc I know nothing about peafowl (and the fact i dont breed any type of animal), I'm having a hard time understanding how being sterile would be unethical. I do somewhat get the shortened life span. I really would like to understand this, I just sometimes need stuff explained like I'm 5.
Up front, there's no "somewhat get" to a shortened lifespan being caused by a mutation in captive populations. If an animal is capable of living 20+ years (and some live 30+ or even 40+!) and some non-essential mutation is causing them to live 7-9 years, it's flat out absolutely unethical to breed that mutation, full stop, regardless of anything else going on. That's indicative of a MAJOR problem in their genetics. There's NO ethical reason to breed that because humans like how it looks. So, even without the sterility, these birds would 100% be unethical to produce.
The short answer on sterility is this: we don't know WHY they are sterile, but they shouldn't be, and that means something has gone wrong. When something goes wrong with an animal, and it's something genetic that can be passed on, the ONLY responsible and ethical thing for a breeder to do is to stop using that animal for breeding and closely monitor any already-produced offspring for signs of the problem, and likely not breed them, either.
The longer more complicated answer is this: sometimes it's possible to separate the problem from the aesthetic when it comes to morphs, like it was for cameo + blindness, but sometimes it's NOT, like it wasn't for spider + head wobble for ball pythons. In those instances, it's... difficult. Because you're LIKELY going to produce animals that suffer the same problem as their parent(s), in the attempt to separate the problem from the aesthetic, and sometimes that's ALL you're going to produce. As a breeder, it's your absolute responsibility to NOT release the offspring into the general population, where the problem may be replicated without control, and to keep or cull the affected individuals if the problem cannot be separated from the aesthetic, or AT BEST find them guaranteed pet-only homes that will NEVER breed them.
Sometimes the problem IS purely aesthetic or harmless, like it was for pied in peafowl, and sometimes it's not, like it was for vitiligo in peafowl. The problem comes when you ASSUME a mutation is the first, and treat it like the first when it's really the second. This has caused FAR reaching consequences in the peafowl community, and I'm sure in others, where now the autoimmune disease that first bronze had has been passed into genpop by folks who thought they were breeding a harmless new variation of pied. Hybrid animals are often sterile (not in peafowl though, hybrid cristatus-muticus birds are fertile) because of a mismatch in chromosome pairing numbers, and often that's harmless. So, in some cases sterility is not an issue because it's the expected result or is otherwise harmless... but in the case of peafowl, it's NOT an expected result and we don't know if it's caused by something harmless or not.
Some species, like mice and horses and cattle and dogs, genetic testing and DNA mapping done with millions of dollars has proven that while some stuff isn't purely aesthetic, it also doesn't cause harm to the animal in a way that affects quality of life or that can be adapted for in captive care. For example, in chickens, the frizzle gene causes curled feathers in single copy and an absence of feathers in double copy. This gene is considered ethical to produce IF the breeding is done responsibly by putting a single copy bird over a zero copy bird, which produces smooth coats and frizzle coats, but it is unethical to produce double frizzles (called "frazzles") because frazzles cannot thermoregulate, can easily sunburn, and easily suffer skin injury during normal chicken activity.
For peafowl, we have NO genetic testing. We do not have the genome mapped. As far as I know there's a research group working on it (mostly for green peafowl though, in conservation efforts), but that's not remotely finished or available to the public to test anything. We don't know where any of the morph mutations sit, or what is causing them or if they do anything beyond just change the color. Sometimes color mutations are the result of malfunctions in enzymes. For charcoal specifically, we don't know what the mutation does, besides what we can observe on the outside- the birds have half or less the lifespan of normal birds, poor feather quality, and the hens are sterile. Is the sterility harmless like it is in some hybrid animals, or is it actually a major organ failing? Is it the only major organ that fails due to this mutation, or is it just the first sign of their shortened lives? Is it some deficiency in something the birds need to be healthy? Does it hurt the bird? We don't know, but we do know the mutation and the problems (multiple, please do NOT forget that this is one OF MORE THAN ONE problems) can't be separated, and so until we do know why and whether it's harmless or not, the ONLY ethical response to seeing a problem in a major organ's function linked inextricably to a mutation in color is to not propagate that mutation. If someone wanted to fork over the millions it takes to sequence and map genomes and then determine exactly what is going on with peafowl, that would be nice and good, but I don't see that happening. When I win the lottery big, I'll be doing it, but til then we can only follow normal breeding guidelines
Also, to put this into perspective... peafowl mature sexually around 3 years old. They are chicks until the turn of the new year following their hatch. They are yearlings that year, and immature 2yo next year. They aren't actually considered fully grown until 6 years old, and should live another 14+ years. Charcoal birds die a 1-3 years after full maturity. Is it a coincidence that they fail to thrive shortly after full sexual maturity, or is it linked? Again, we don't know. We don't know if the sterility is fine or if it's just a symptom of something worse.
Even without the sterility, though, charcoal has enough issues it would be unethical. If it was JUST sterility, with no other deleterious effects, then maybe it would be different. But it's not.
108 notes
·
View notes
good boy's director, producers, and marion bailey did an interview on the life in film podcast, talking about the film, casting, funding, etc. it's about an hour long, so i just transcribed the ben bits (but the whole thing was quite interesting)
you can (legally!) watch good boy here (use a uk vpn if you're outside the uk)
HOST: How did you guys connect? And how did you guys all come together to make this?
TOM: Ummm well, what, oh I can't remember, did we have Ben when we started working together, Elettra?
ELETTRA: Yeah, we just about…
TOM: Yeah, so I knew Ben a long time ago, Ben Whishaw, who's umm the lead in it opposite Marion, and um we sort of left drama school at around the same time. We knew each other a long time, but we hadn't seen each other for a while, so after one of the lockdowns um we went for a big long walk on, um, on the Thames and um on the southbank. And, um, I was telling him about my writing stuff and, um, my mum had just died and so I was telling him about that. And, um, and then out of the blue he just, sort of, just was like "I think you should direct something". And he sort of gave voice to, um, and he was like "I think you'd be really good at it". And he sort of gave voice to something that I'd been feeling but hadn't acknowledged out loud to anyone before that. I'd really been wanting to direct for a while, I think. And, um, it was the kick I needed to go home and write the script and, um. So then I went home and wrote it and then a few months later sent it to him. And he loved it, and said he wanted to do it, which was, you know, gob-smacking and exciting.
TOM: And then so, obviously, I needed a producer, ummm, and then, like Elettra explained, a few mutual friends were introduced and that's how it all began really. And then, um, Elettra built the production team, herself, and then got Max and Kay onboard. And meanwhile Ben and I were talking. We both came up with lists of, ummm, the best person to play his mum in it, who would be, and the top of both of our lists was Marion Bailey. And so I couldn't believe it when, uhhh, the, her agent came back to say that, uh, the day after I sent it, to say that she wanted to be involved. And Ben and me were so thrilled. Ummm yeah, so yeah, that was it.
~~~~~~~~~~~***~~~~~~~~~~~
(re: the acting)
TOM: I think that they, uh, neither Ben nor, Ben isn't playing me and Marion isn't playing my mum. There's, they, our DNA is definitely in there but, uhhh, the characters are very different and their circumstances are very different to, um…
HOST: I hope so! Hahahaha
TOM: But what, um, what they both did was sort of hon-honour, I dunno, somehow honour the, umm, the energy of us and the DNA of our, of our relationship is definitely in there, um, which was, yeah. So I, yeah, I couldn't ask for a better on-screen version of me - oh my god - than Ben Whishaw, that's ridiculous. And equally, to have, my mum would be thrilled, Marion. Hahaha
HOST: The performances are just. I mean, sometimes you can't, I don't, maybe this is just me, but sometimes when I watch short films I don't expect to have this level of performance. Sometimes you're like, I was like, you know the scene with Ben when he loses it in the front seat of the van? And, ummm, you're watching that, you're just thinking "wow!" Like, I don't know. Like, in my mind, I'm like, "he could just phone this in". And he wouldn't, cuz he's Ben Whishaw, but you're watching and you're like "this is a BAFTA-level performance right there. And, um, is it mad? Is it, when you're there and you're directing this, and you're looking through the monitor like "yes! Yes, this is it!"
TOM: Well actually I was lying down on the… Um, yeah, it was, um, an enormous privilege to watch these two work, Marion and Ben, particularly how they worked together. And, um, no spoilers, we won't say what happens, but there is an emotional peak in the story, umm, or an emotional break through and it happens, um, a lot of it happens in, whilst driving around in a camper van. And for a lot of the shoot, I was lying down behind the, um, behind the front seats with this tiny little monitor whilst, um, it played out in the front seats in front of me. Um, and when it got to this emotional peak moment, which actually happened before I was expecting it to because Ben and Marion did a beautiful thing where they ran into the next scene but before I was expecting it and so it really hit me emotionally. And I, the, ummm, the synergy between the two of them and the, ummm, the emotional honesty coming from those front seats was, was, ummm, extraordinary and so raw and so real. And I, you know I've been around, you know like I said, I've been an actor for twenty years on stage and screen, and I've been around some amazing acting. I've seen some incredible acting up close, but it's really rare when… for the acting to be that good, you know. I've never been that close to such extraordinary acting. Sometimes actors, umm, like, change the molecular structure of a room when they open their mouth and a bit of magic sort of pours out. And that happened in this, umm, film with both Ben and Marion. Particularly in that scene. Um, so yeah, I was watching it going, uhh, I wasn't watching it from the outside, going "awww yeah, this gonna make the film!". I was just very moved and I was very in it with them, and all the.. the very… sharing and the emotional honesty of it, if that makes sense.
ELETTRA: I think after the first… before the first take of that scene, the crew was quite bubbly and, you know, we having a really good energy on set. And then Marion and Ben delivered that scene. They called cut, and there was absolute silence. Absolute silence. And we were all just… (whispering) "are we allowed to talk?", you know. It was, it was really, it's never happened to me before. It was really surreal, the first time that the entire crew just felt so drawn in to, you know…
TOM: Something happened. There was some magic. But what was so shocking to me was that then Ben and Marion were able to repeat it again and again and again. And they weren't doing it technically, they were doing it for real. And I was watching them and, yeah, that ability to just reset and go again, is just, mind-blowing to me. It's way beyond my, um, expertise as an actor, haha.
MARION: It was wonderful to work with Ben, a real joy. And um, it's lovely to see you say those things because that's always what you're hoping will happen. But yes, it takes a whole team, it takes a whole combination of elements to make that little bit of magic happen. Ummm. And a very nice thing, when the crew do appreciate the acting. Because normally they're doing their jobs, they're not really…
ELETTRA: It takes a lot of magic to get a crew to shut up, so…
~~~~~~~~~~***~~~~~~~~~~
(re: their sole financial backer pulling out 2 weeks before shooting)
TOM: I remember bumping into Ben- I remember bumping into Ben Whishaw at a party, and we'd just heard that all the money had gone, and he was like, "are we still on for April?". And I was like, "okay, don't panic… uhhhhh, we have zero money". And he was so cool. He was like… he went silent for a second, and I said, "are you panicking?" and he was like, "not one bit, not at all". And he said, "this, this happens, it will all be good." And I was like "ohhh… okay…" hahaha, um yeah. So…
MAX: [???] as well, because this film very much had its leads in order, and we all kinda fell in love with what it was going to be. And so the idea that, for example, Ben's availability only fit that weekend that we shot, if we weren't gonna do that then… Tom's story only fits the golden hour of Somerset, really, and you're only going to get that twice a year, ya know, in the spring and late summer. And so, ummm, there were some real conversations about "is this going to happen?" which none of us wanted to face because we were so in love with the project.
23 notes
·
View notes