Reminds me of the delightfully strange short story by the Argentinian writer Julio Cortázar:
‘Axolotl’ is narrated by a lonely man who regularly visits the local zoo, where he becomes fascinated by the axolotls in the aquarium. In time, he states that he, too, is an axolotl, and feels he has become one of them.
Curiosity about the works of man >> curiosity about the "works" of "God"/"Nature"??? Ironic that this masterpiece is about an extreme form of the latter XD
"It has an impressive resume, being the most studied animal in the world, subject of more investigations than even the Drosophila melanogaster or common fruit fly that resides in thousands of laboratories around the world."
It would be great to have a source for this claim! Recent studies have estimated that between 10 million and 110 million (it's controversial!) lab mice are used per year in the US, representing 93–97% of all experimental animals.
The mice aren't being studied for their mice-ness, they've been industrialised for their ease-of-production and easy-to-slaughter mammalian analog attributes.
Wheras Axoloti and co., are still being studied for their unique characteristics.
Thanks to Minecraft and pester-power, we bought our son an axolotl some years ago on the condition he would look after it (figuring we'd end up looking after it anyway).
And since they live a long time it's given us an out every time he asks for a new pet ;)
They are relatively popular legal pets in Europe - though not sold in many mainstream pet shops. 100% of those kept as pets here are bred in captivity.
Having kept them before, they are genuinely about as hard to care for as goldfish but need bigger tanks and a little bit more cleaning.
Also super easy to breed, we let the spawn hatch once and ended up with about 70 larvae, they cannibalize quickly but 6 grew to full size and we sold them on very easily.
Also note most goldfish are abused, they need huge tanks 40G+ if I remember right, and not the 8-16 fl oz bowls they're stereotypically kept in. And they need filtration and would do better with a water heater. So idk if pointing to goldfish is the best indicator, even if imo you're technically correct - the refrigerating system isn't really a lot to maintain and that's the main difference.
To add to this, ideal temperature is 16C to 18C (we use a Pi to keep a running graph of the temperature). Lower is generally ok, apparently if it gets into the mid-20's they get so stress they try and escape the tank. We have a chiller, though we have also used the fairly common trick of putting ice bottles in the tank as needed (milk containers filled with water and left in the freeze for 24 hours work well).
Indoor water temp was fine for us, maybe depends a lot on the climate where you live, cool is easy here!
Hopefully we kept them well. We had them for years and in that time they spawned regularly, ended up giving our original pair up for adoption when we moved house.
Tank was smaller than 40g. You're right though bigger is better, that's the general advice with all pets (including goldfish which can grow huge!).
The other interesting things about axolots is they have what is called "neoteny" basically meaning the organism COULD proceed to adult form but never does - the natural axolotl is sort of a half-metamorphized creature for life, similar to a frog halfway through the tadpole->frog changes. You can induce the transformation with thyroid-type hormone stimulation (thyroid / TSH), which results in a salamander - essentially resurrecting this ancient morphology not seen in this world for a long time.
Then the regenerative capabilities (seen in other amphibians as well) you can think of that as, "child humans heal better, what if the human is a child for life" in simplistic terms. There are also tradeoffs the organism makes i.e. ability to reproduce at a younger age (reproduction evolutionary win), and notably, the histology and cellular structures are simplified and less complex than say mammals, thusly making body parts easier to regenerate.
It's also notable that amphibians have massive genomes, the axolotl being 10x the size of humans! - but with about the same number of genes, why? Well if mutations occur at random positions and you have ~10x more non-coding junk DNA, you've just lowered the frequency of mutations hitting coding genes, they are more likely to hit "safe" non-coding parts. All of this is important because if a mutation slips into the regenerated limb -> cancer, so we're de-risking mutations by having a massive genome
https://www.mdpi.com/2221-3759/9/1/2
Indeed it makes little sense that the error rate would be independent of genome length. Even in the case of radiation it's going to depend on the cross section at minimum, which is related to volume, which is related to genome length.
I only have 101 biology, but I think, we don't really know for sure, but at least some repairability must exist based on the fact that women are resilient against some hereditary problems.
Amphibians are sadly, more susceptible to environmental toxins than reptiles are. I think it’s because their skin is more absorbent than reptile skin, but my biological knowledge is fairly limited.
I sometimes hang out with people that are super into retiles and amphibians and even somewhat know a guy that raises axolotls for a university, they are very careful about they put on their hands when going out looking for them in the wild or even when handling them as pets and such. No recent use of lotions or hand sanitizer and such. It sucks having to be careful with things like bug spray when you are going to be in prime mosquito territory.
Thanks for posting, I'm so excited to finally have a good summary! El Pais killing it, as usual. A comment and a challenging question:
1. We all pronounce it wrong apparently, even the Mexicans who just substitute "ach" for "ecs" -- it's actually "sh", and the l is basically silent. An interesting example of cultural heritage where I, a quite progressive person trying my best to be accommodating to all cultures, just flat out refuse to change! It's just one of the best words out there, and I will not give it up for anything.
2. Why don't we set up sanctuaries?! I read the entire article, but if there was a reason that the Axolotl could only survive in this one super specific, uber-populated place, I missed it. Appearently it can't get cold, ok fine -- but Mexico is huge, not to mention the rest of the world! Are we so dedicated to Leave No Trace that we'll let this incredible, unique, inspiring species die out in the wild rather than cull some lake of predatory fish?
IMHO we need to be bolder about environmental design, because the changes are coming regardless; pretending like we can save everything is just lying to ourselves, especially as the global climate itself changes.
Just recently, the US Feds moved forward on a plan to institute owl hunting permits just to protect the range of a particular owl from being encroached on, which... I mean, how can you shoot an owl and think of yourself as the good guy?
The article mentions other similar Ambystoma salamanders, it sounds like the others are less studied. I've come across old mexican recipes for Axolotls, probably something I'll never eat. The floating gardens were an environment that is likely hard to replicate in other places, though certainly not impossible. Looking at an early spanish map and comparing it to google maps makes it clear how much changed as the Spanish drained the lakes. The article also mentions that axolotls are significant predators so they may not be great to introduce to other places.
> 1. We all pronounce it wrong apparently, even the Mexicans who just substitute "ach" for "ecs" -- it's actually "sh", and the l is basically silent. An interesting example of cultural heritage where I, a quite progressive person trying my best to be accommodating to all cultures, just flat out refuse to change! It's just one of the best words out there, and I will not give it up for anything.
It's OK for different languages and cultures to have different names for the same thing. You probably wouldn't bat an eye at saying "alligator" in English but it likely comes from the Anglicization of the Spanish "el lagarto" (the lizard).
Words from one language get adopted into other languages and modified all the time. A very large percentage of Modern English words are borrowed from various Romance languages, and others.
Even more obviously, in my language there are words "pizza", "kiwi", "de facto", "dystopia", "system", "terror", and they mean exactly the same thing as in english, but we pronounce them differently. And anyway, Romans pronounced "de facto" in yet another way, so it doesn't matter. Words get localised.
The range used to be somewhat larger, but the environment has been reduced (most of what’s now Mexico city used to be a lake). It needs the right combination of climate and environment which doesn’t really exist outside of Mexico City (and that environment is constantly being encroached upon and degraded, although it is relatively protected at least).
It seems that many people know about the axolotl courtesy of Minecraft which on the one hand is cool because hey, now they know about this endangered species but on the other hand is not cool because a not insignificant number of them think, hey I want one as a pet which leads to poaching and death because neither poachers nor video gamers are adept at caring for fragile amphibians.
"if one of its legs is cut off, a new limb will grow in a few hours, identical and pristine. The same process occurs with any other part of its awe-inspiring form"
What's happening in China is slightly different. For the non-excluded population, there's generations now who do not have brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts or uncles. Add on top of that selective abortion for the male preference, and no social safety net, and you've got the most interesting sociology experiment in history.
Japan, Russia and Italy aren't being forced through it by an authoritarian government, but are rather experiencing ennui at a social level.
America is the same, though immigration helps hide the problem. I have one sibling. My parents had six each. Their parents had between 6 and 12.
The rapid expansion of the last two-four hundred years is definitely slowing down throughout most of the world.
It's less about population size, and more about ecological footprint of the population. Per capita, rich nations and rich populations within developing nations are the ones having the biggest ecological impact: https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/country-over....
Humans will inevitably change the world but there's also lots of things that humans do that really increase their impact (global warming, farming that emphasizes really high land use foods, industrial pollutants, poor stewardship of land in general). I think just emphasizing population growth is ignoring tons and tons of decisions that we make
The funny thing is degrowth will almost definitely result in us burning lignite which is essentially super dirty coal. It’s freely available all over the surface of the earth, while the cleaner burning fuels are more difficult to get. We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict. Very good chance there’s a huge spike in global emissions if population decreases.
Not to mention evolution will route around the antibiotic of neo-globalism and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations. It’s gonna be all Mormons and Muslims as they’re praising Allah for giving them the bountiful peninsula of Hanbando after the previous inhabitants disappeared due to their “sinful ways”.
>and whatever creed promotes having kids will inevitably win out in 100 years when all the liberal atheists don’t have kids for a few generations.
That is sadly true, the religious seem to be outbreeding the rest of us by a huge factor. On the plus side, religion gets less popular every year, so hopefully it hits a sweet spot where the over reproduction is offset by people losing faith.
> We’ve seen Germany turning to lignite to heat homes due to the Russia Ukraine conflict.
Coal is used mainly for electricity, not heating homes directly. And shutting down nuclear plants is the main reason for the increasing demand of dirtier energy sources even if Russia is a convenient scapegoat.
Since the popular narrative completely ignores population for the most part in the: impact = population * pollution/intensity rate per person relationship. Since no one want to discuss active limits and we would rather have limits as second order effects of other policies. Calling out a comment for just mentioning growing population is a bit weird.
Since world fertility seems to be dropping, it is unlikely to dominate in the future. Therefore, your summation of what we should be focusing on would be more correct. This hasn't always been true and it is still and important factor to keep in mind.
We're nowhere near active limits. Of course the limits will shrink with mismanagement, but we could feed a good deal more people with the amount of food we produce today.
We will reach there soon. A tendency is that people don't want more than two kids after they are rich enough. So we just need to wait for everyone rich enough.
People who believe that will natural selection themselves out of existence and nobody will think such silly things in a few hundred years. Modern liberal sensibilities are a disease that can only be sustained on the back of a healthy host. It’s funny that the people most likely to believe in evolution are the least evolutionarily fit.
More people who eat 3 cows a week and drive a monster truck 40 miles each way to work? No. More people who mostly eat plants and mostly take the train or ride their bike where they need to go? Shouldn't be a big problem.
3 cows a week is an insane amount of food. Most I can manage is 1.75, but my average is 1.1. Which is actually quite nice, because that's about the most I can comfortably fit in my monster truck.
It was an exaggeration, but my point is that focusing on population when one person can easily have ten times (or more) the impact of someone else seems like a distraction.
‘Axolotl’ is narrated by a lonely man who regularly visits the local zoo, where he becomes fascinated by the axolotls in the aquarium. In time, he states that he, too, is an axolotl, and feels he has become one of them.
https://ambystoma.uky.edu/teachers_materials/axolitbook/Axol...