Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2017

The AIH Transcript for November 3, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Spoiler alert: we're the spoilers. In a new U.S. federal government report, hundreds of scientists reach a conclusion the President has already rejected: humans cause climate change, and it's getting worse.

JD: Silent pardners. First the Country Music Awards told journalists not to ask any performers about Las Vegas or gun control, but even after that policy was changed, one singer worries the industry's stance on the issue never will.

CO: First discharge, then diss. An American military judge gives Beau Bergdahl a dishonourable discharge for deserting his post in Afghanistan, and then the U.S. President publicly complains that the former Taliban captive won't do any time.

JD: Re-turn of phrase. In the wake of the New York attack in which the accused shouted two words that are unfairly associated with terrorism, our guest discusses his recent op-ed, called "I Want Allahu Akbar Back."

CO: That's all, hoax. "Jenna Abrams" appeared to be an American blogger with right-wing fans and lots of Twitter enemies, but as our guest explains, she wasn't American, a blogger, or a person, but the creation of a Russian troll farm.

JD: And...slip of the dung. There's a fight going on inside the organization in charge of emojis, because certain members were fine with the original poop emoji, but draw the line at a new one, in which the poop is frowning.

JD: As It Happens, the Friday ambition. Radio that guesses it comes down to different stools of thought.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Climate report, Bergdahl verdict, new orangutan

Climate report

Guest: Katharine Hayhoe

JD: Humans are responsible for climate change.

That's the conclusion of twelve U.S. federal agencies, and hundreds of scientists, in a huge scientific report published today. The Climate Science Special Report is published every four years. It’s considered the U.S. government's most definitive statement on climate change science. Although, this year's report goes against the President Trump's definitive statements on the issue: in the past, he has described climate change as a hoax. Katharine Hayhoe is a Canadian climate scientist and one of the lead authors of the report. We reached her in Lubbock, Texas.

CO: Ms. Hayhoe, give us the headline. What is the overarching conclusion of this report?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: The 600 pages that make up this report can be summarized in pretty much one sentence: climate is changing, humans are responsible, the risks are serious and the window of time to fix this thing is narrowing fast.

CO: And this is not news is it?

KH: These are things that we have known for decades. As early as 1850, we knew that burning coal and gas and oil was wrapping an extra blanket around the planet that was trapping more heat, causing the earth's temperature to warm. But what we've learned over the past years and decades is that many of these changes are far more widespread. They are happening faster and/or to a greater extent than we first thought. From the rate at which the Arctic and the Antarctic ice sheets and the Greenland ice sheets are melting — from the changes that we see in the frequency and timing of extreme events. We are seeing these impacts today it is no longer a future issue and every additional gigaton of carbon that we produce carries with it a very real cost.

CO: We have been covering so many stories in the past year-two years of all the different weather catastrophes or weather-borne catastrophes from heatwaves to well… there's fires, there's floods, there's heavy rains, there's all kinds of extreme weather events. And are you concluding that most — if not all of them — relate back to climate change.

KH: The reason that we care about a changing climate is because it exacerbates the naturally occurring risks that we already faced in the past. Climate change doesn't create a hurricane, but it makes it stronger and exacerbates the risks and the impacts associated with it. Climate change is amping up our heat waves, our heavy rainfalls, our droughts. That's why we care as humans because our infrastructure, our society, our economy, our agriculture, our water resources they're all built on the assumption that long-term climate is stable. We are not prepared for this type of rate of change.

CO: Now we will point out that this is a United States government report. This has come out of the U.S. government and does it have the stamp of approval of the White House?

KH: This report has undergone public comments, a National Academy of Sciences review and multiple agency reviews by every federal agency that has any relevant expertise. Now the first agency review happened during the Obama administration. But the final review, which was completed just this past August, did in fact occur under the Trump administration. And it was approved for release by those agencies according to law, because this report is mandated under the Global Change Research Act. The government has to produce one of these reports every four years or if it actually opens itself up to legal action.

CO: OK this is staying into politics now. But you know that the administration and the president has articulated that he is a climate change skeptic, and that he has appointed people to two key positions who are also climate change skeptics. So was there any reaction? Was there any effort to try and suppress this report?

KH: Well, I would quibble a little with the word skeptic. Skeptic implies that more evidence would convince them. I would actually call people dismissive. Dismissive are people who dismiss any evidence that confronts them. And I have no doubt whatsoever that this report will be dismissed by some of the very people in the government that released it. We live in a strange time, a time where somehow the number that a thermometer gives you is perceived to be different depending on whether you vote Conservative or Liberal. But the reality is that gravity doesn't care if you believe in it or not. If you step off the cliff, you are going down. And so the fact that this report actually came out, which is certainly a minor miracle under this administration, the fact that this report came out as a solid science report that clearly communicate the risks that we are facing and the urgency of swift action to address them. What people do with that is politics. But the report is out there and it lays out the truth of what's happening to our planet. And as you pointed out, in this current political climate that really is a miracle.

CO: OK just stay with politics a moment because here is the list. I mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency has removed references to climate change from the website under the Trump administration, and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject. Scott Pruitt, who is the administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, has said he doesn't believe that carbon dioxide is a contributor to warming. Rick Perry, energy secretary, says the science is out on whether humans cause climate change. This entire report contradicts everything and, of course, the president himself, who has said that he doesn't think climate change is caused by humans. And now you have an entire report that contradicts everything that the government has sent it out is saying. So can the world be forgiven for being a bit confused right now?

KH: Yes, absolutely, you are right. This report flatly contradicts many of the statements of the federal government has made. And so it is the report that was begun again under the previous administration. It was amazingly allowed to proceed in a scientific fashion and according to the schedule that was laid out over a year ago. And it was actually allowed to be released today in its current and final form. So how did this happen. I don't know. This is the process that was laid out, and it was followed. And I think we have to give credit where credit is due. The fact that they allowed this report to be released really is amazing and deserves credit. But you're right, at the same time, this report is very clear on what the science says — science that has been contradicted very clearly and very frequently by many people in the administration.

CO: There's nothing to celebrate in this report. But will you be celebrating that it was released?

KH: Of course, I will. And when I look for good news, which I have to as a scientist, I don't see good news in the science, but I do see good news in what is happening around the world. Where I live in Texas, last year, they got over 12 per cent of their electricity from wind, and that number going up every year. India just set a record for the lowest prices for solar energy ever. China hit its 2020 clean energy goals early this year, and they're investing 360 billion dollars in the clean energy economy. So when I look to solutions we're moving in the right direction. But what the science tells me is we're not moving fast enough to avoid the really serious and dangerous impacts yet. And that's what I hope this report will emphasize to people.

CO: We will leave it there. MS. Hayhoe, I appreciate speaking with you.

KH: It's a pleasure. Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Katharine Hayhoe is a Canadian climate scientist and one of the lead authors of this year's climate science special report. We reached Miss Hayhoe in Lubbock, Texas.

[Music: Jazz]

Bergdahl verdict

Guest: Corey Dickstein

JD: Bowe Bergdahl will not be returning to captivity. Mr. Bergdahl is the U.S. soldier who was held for 5 years by the Taliban and its allies, after he walked away from a US army outpost in Afghanistan. Last week, he pled guilty to abandoning his post and endangering the soldiers sent to search for him. And this morning, a U.S. military judge rejected the prosecution's call for a 14-year prison sentence, and instead ordered that Mr Bergdahl be stripped of his rank, forced to forfeit some salary, and then dishonourably discharged.Corey Dickstein covered the trial for Stars and Stripes. We reached Mr. Dickstein on the road outside Rocky Mount, North Carolina.

CO: Corey, how did Bowe Bergdahl react when Judge Nanse read out the sentence this morning?

COREY DICKSTEIN: Bergdahl really had a lot of emotion. To look at his reaction, one would almost think that he had been sentenced to prison time. He kind of slumped over, his whole body shuddered. He even wept a little bit. Two of his defense attorneys kind of grabbed him. And one of the defense attorneys even tried a little bit. It was a very emotional moment in the courtroom.

CO: But isn't this the best he could have expected? That he would have a dishonorable discharge, but face no prison time?

CD: I think a lot of people would argue that. I suspect his attorneys had hoped perhaps that he wouldn't have been subjected to forfeiting essentially $10,000 over the next 10 months. But the defense argued for no jail time. They argued that instead a dishonorable discharge would be appropriate, considering that what he did was wrong and he knows what he did was wrong. But they really were weighing that the judge would consider you know these five pretty brutal years he spent in the hands of the Taliban.

CO: Can you just for those who it's been a while since they have followed this story you don't know it tell us what Bowe Bergdahl went through when he spent his five years in captivity with the Taliban?

CD: He was captured within a few hours by a group of Taliban fighters. And they took him away. He made several escape attempts, even according to his testimony, that same day — unsuccessful obviously. He was eventually moved into Pakistan and turned over to the Haqqani network, which is a terrorist organization. They would beat him with copper wires. They'd burn him. He spent most of five years in their hands isolated alone. About a year after he was captured, he managed to get away for eight days. And the Haqqanis, after recapturing him, they stuck them in a small cage and basically left him to rot for the most part. Every once in a while, they would come in and he'd be beaten at times. He was subjected to beheading videos and told this this is what’s going to happen to you. One day we're going to behead you. He was forced to watch videos of Taliban IED attacks on U.S. soldiers.

CO: So it was awful. His five years was just absolutely frightening. And that was one of the things the defense has argued that he had suffered enough. You couldn't possibly punish him any further than those five years did. But one of the issues that the prosecution has raised and many others have raised is the fact that the military — the U.S. military — searched for him and took casualties because of that. Can you tell us a bit about what happened to some of the people who went looking for him?

CD: Hundreds of service members spent weeks outside the wire, searching for him. And they underwent pretty brutal conditions themselves. But the prosecution really focused in on three particular service members who each were shot on missions that the judge ruled would not have occurred had Bergdahl not gone missing. In one of those cases a Navy SEAL was on a rescue mission launched after they had received some information saying that Bergdahl may be here. On that mission, the SEAL was shot through his leg and it shattered his thigh bone. He testified that he nearly bled to death. A military working dog was killed on that mission. And then on a subsequent mission, two Army National Guard soldiers were also shot. One was shot with rocket propelled grenade in the hand. It left his hand you know fairly crippled. And the other soldier, Master Sergeant Mark Allen, was shot through the head and he's been left virtually entirely paralyzed. He's unable to communicate. His wife testified, and she’s been basically rendered to the caretaker — it’s hard to even consider it a relationship at this point.

CO: Bowe Bergdahl's defense team also argued or gave testimony as to why he walked away that day. Why he had left his base. And what mental state he was in at that time. What was that argument? And how did that affect the judge and the decision at all?

CD: It's hard to say what affected the judge. The judge didn't elaborate on his ruling. He literally sentenced Bergdahl and left the room. He didn't offer any insight into what his thought process was. However, the defense has made it very clear that Sergeant Bergdahl had a series of mental issues. He suffers from a personality disorder that according to a psychiatrist who testified, makes him really struggle to understand how his actions impact other human beings. That he doesn't anticipate a second and third order effects of what he does. Their argument was that when he walked off post, he didn't understand thoroughly that the military would go looking for him and that troops would be endangered. He also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. And the psychiatrist testified that doesn't necessarily originate from his Taliban captivity. Instead, he's actually suffered from PTSD since he was a child.

CO: One of the mitigating circumstances here is that the president, Donald Trump, has denounced Sergeant Bergdahl in the past. Called him a “dirty, rotten traitor” and called for him to be executed, and then supported that statement later. Does that play into the decision on the part of Judge Nance?

CD: Right, Judge Nance on Monday, ruled that he wasn't going to throw the case out based on the president's past rhetoric. However, he said he would take it into consideration as mitigating evidence. So it is unclear how much that weighed. One would certainly think it was part of his decision. The president actually came out today again and announced the sentencing on Bergdahl, which could potentially be an issue as this goes forward in an appellate court, which is an automatic consequence of the punitive discharge.

CO: All right. We will continue to follow this story. Corey, I appreciate you telling us this part of it today.

CD: Thank you for having me.

JD: Cory Dickstein is a reporter for Stars and Stripes. We reached him outside Rocky Mount, North Carolina.

[Music: Slide guitar]

New orangutan

Guest: Michael Krutzen

JD: It's a discovery 3 million years in the making. Deep in the Indonesian jungle, researchers have found a new species of orangutan. Professor Michael Krutzen teaches Evolutionary Anthropology and Genomics at the University of Zurich. He's one of the scientists involved with this new discovery. We reached him in Zurich.

CO: Professor Krutzen, what makes you so sure that this is a new species of orangutan?

MICHAEL KRUTZEN: Well, I think we have several lines of evidence. You know in the olden days, new species were mainly described by morphological differences. So you look at differences in the skull shape for instance. But for the tapanuli orangutan, now we really could look at genetics and genomics. So we have genomic evidence. We could look at morphological evidence. And we also look at behavior. And all these things are quite different for the tapanuli orangutan, and you know that makes us confident enough to call it a new species.

CO: Can you tell us what the tapanuli orangutan looks like that's different from other kinds of orangutan?

MK: Well, actually, at first sight it's very hard to see. I mean the fur is a little bit different compared to their counterparts. They are a little bit smaller to their Sumatran counterparts I should say. They are a little bit smaller. But actually most is not to see you know easy with the naked eye. So we really need to start looking at this. So we measure skulls of orangutans and compared that to the tapanuli orangutan. And we looked at genes, of course, which you can’t see either.

CO: And there are already two species of orangutan that had been identified, is that right?

MK: Yes, exactly. So there have been two species of identified. So far, one off this species occurs in Sumatra and the other one in Borneo. And from our genetic analyses that we did about 10 years ago, we already realized that the population which is now the new species there was something different. But we couldn't really put our hand on it. And it really turns out that that the major differences are in the genes. And it's very hard, of course, to see this. But with complex analyses with genomic analyses where we really look at the entire genome with the entire genetic information of orangutan, we could see that they have been basically a single line for the last almost three million years. There was some genetic exchange with the orangutans further north, but that exchange has definitely stopped now. So over the last 10 to 20 thousand years, these guys have been totally isolated.

CO: And where do these tapanuli orangutans live?

MK: Yeah. So basically, it's an isolated population. It’s at the southernmost tip of the range of orangutans in Sumatra. It is a very small area only, 1,100 square kilometers. It's isolated. It's very hard to get to. You can't go by car, so you have to actually take a six tr eight hour hike to get there. And it's also a highland area, so it's also unusual for orangutans. Most orangutans occur in the swamps. But these guys almost exclusively occur in these fairly high areas.

CO: And how many of them do you think are left?

MK: So our estimate — and there were previous estimates from colleagues of ours — they reckon it's about 800 individuals that might be left. So with that, it's probably the smallest great ape species. The most endangered great ape species in the world. 800 Is a positive estimate. But we do hope that this number will not go down in the future.

CO: I understand it is almost by accident that this new species was discovered. Can you tell us a bit about how you actually found them?

MK: So it was a colleague of mine. That was before I started actually started studying orangutans. And so there were reports from the 1930s that there were some orangutan sightings in that area, but these reports have been forgotten and they were in Dutch, so people wouldn't read these kind of documents. But a co-author of ours, he's actually Dutch, and he went back to all these old references. And he had seen that you know in that area there was supposed to be orangutans. So he went back in 1997 with some other people and indeed they found orangutans there. So they were in a way rediscovered only in 1997.

CO: And then how did you confirm it? What did you find them that made you say aha! What was your aha moment on this?

MK: I guess the eureka moment, if there is such a thing, I would say last year at the primary primatological conference in Chicago, where colleagues and here in particular the colleagues on the skull and the colleagues who worked behavior and myself and for the genetics got together, and we looked at all the evidence together and realized wow! This is really something unique that indeed might be new species. And so we went back and looked at the evidence a little bit more closely and we thought yep, that's strong enough to provide us new evidence for a new great ape species.

CO: So we have new cousins. It's always good to discover cousins.

MK: Exactly. You're right, in a way it's quite amazing because it’s only the seventh great apes species described if we don't count humans. And it is quite special, you know? But, of course, it's something you can’t plan. I mean you are lucky to have the data, and it's sort of very nice to bring the data together and realize wow! We have something potentially very novel here that has not been described before.

CO: Have you come face-to-face with one of our new cousins?

MK: Well, actually, I haven't. You know as it is you know we are very specialized these days. And my area of expertise is genetic and genomics, so I've seen their DNA. I've seen their DNA in the lab and on the computer, but not face-to-face yet. And, of course, I can't wait to go and see them.

CO: Well, it's all in the family, isn't it?

MK: Yeah, exactly. And from that point of view, it's quite exciting you know to be able to work on great apes, you know excluding humans. You know I find it much more interesting I must say personally to work on non-human great apes than on humans.

CO: I think a lot of people would agree with you. Professor Krutzen, Is it good to talk to you. Thank you.

MK: All right. Thank you very much. Take care.

CO: All right. Good night.

JD: Professor Michael Krutzen is part of the team that discovered a new species of orangutan. We reached him in Zurich, Switzerland.

[Music: Folk]

Dateline: Cockatoos wreck internet

JD: Dateline: Australia.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A cockatoo makes a ton of noise]

JD: That is not Carol Off laughing. That's the sound of a cockatoo. Parrot. Mimic. Saboteur. Recently, Australia's National Broadband Network, or NBN, has undertaken an enormous national infrastructure upgrade. The internet speed there is comparatively lousy, so the NBN is under pressure to work quickly. But one group of Australians is slowing down that hurrying-up. When technicians put up fiber cables on communication towers, they leave some spare cable for future expansion. And technicians returning to those sites have found that cockatoos have been destroying those cables, stripping them to the point where they're irreparable. Which means they need to be replaced, at a cost of ten thousand dollars every time. Now, a cockatoo expert will tell you the birds are constantly sharpening their beaks. An expert on animal behaviour like Gisela Kaplan, of the University of New England, who told The Guardian, quote: "Usually they do that on wood, or tree bark. But apparently, something about these cables — their colour or location — has proven attractive." Unquote. Sure. Maybe. Or maybe the cockatoos have joined the squirrels, who also routinely sabotage human telecommunications infrastructure, in a sinister global conspiracy. Now, an NBN project manager has tried to laugh the whole thing off. She said, quote, "You wouldn't think it was possible, but these birds are unstoppable when in a swarm. I guess that's Australia for you; if the spiders and snakes don't get you, the cockies will." Sure. But don't get too confident about stopping them. Because when it comes to sabotage, if the technicians get cocky, the cockies will get them.

Back To Top »

Part 2: CMA censorship, Wajahtat Ali NY Times op-ed

CMA censorship

Guest: Will Hoge

JD: The policy was reversed faster than a speedin' pick-up truck pullin' a U-turn on a back road. The Country Music Association Awards are next week in Nashville. In advance of that big night, organizers sent out a warning to the press: Do not ask country musicians at the ceremony about gun rights, or last month's Las Vegas shooting. If you do, you'll risk losing your credentials, and being escorted out by security. The backlash to that was strong, and it was sustained. And so, earlier today, CMA organizers apologized, and lifted the restrictions. Will Hoge is a Nashville country singer who has been speaking out against the restrictions on Twitter — when hardly any other country musicians were. We reached Mr. Hoge in Lubbock, Texas.

CO: Will, we've heard from the CMA Awards; they've just released a statement apologizing for these media guidelines saying that they wrote them with the best of intentions. What do you make of this change of heart?

WILL HOGE: I'm glad that they did it. I think it’s the right thing to have done for sure. I mean whatever the intentions were, it was wrong, and they remedied the problems. I think that's a good thing for the awards show and the genre in general.

CO: You were among those to immediately speak out, and said that the Country Music Association should be ashamed of this. What do you think actually prompted the CMA Awards to change this restriction?

WH: Well, I think that there were probably a handful of folks that spoke out, and once that starts to make a bigger roar nationally, I think that it's just a very bad look for them. And, ultimately, Brad Paisley speaking out as a co-host and saying that he thought it was ridiculous and unfair. So you know I think when your co-host starts to shine that light on there, that's time to make a change. And I think that was probably a huge part of it.

CO: There were some others who, not many, but those who spoke out, there was very funny… I guess a tweet from Ryan Adams, who said that he lists the approved topics at the CMA Awards: wagon wheels, bacon, repurposed barn wood, cussing at snakes, camo bed sheets, chewing on dirt clogs, short shorts. And dang its.

WH: Yeah, that's actually the first verse of the new Luke Bryan song, so that's perfect.

CO: Why do you think that country music artists are so reluctant to make a statement about what happened in Las Vegas in general, and gun control?

WH: Fear of losing money. You know the NRA plays a huge role in the country music world. And the idea that you can say much about gun control and the fear of that affecting your audience or, ultimately, your ticket sales or your record sales is a fear for a lot of people. The NRA, I mean there's an hour's-long conversation we can have about how bad that organization is for just our politics here in general. But they certainly don't help anything musically. I mean it's an advertising platform. There are a lot of people that hunt. There are outdoorsmen that own guns that like country music. And, unfortunately, we become a society that doesn't like to have conversation — intelligent, adult conversations — about issues very often. And I think that you know more artists could sort of use their platform to try and remedy that.

CO: What's the conversation that you would like to have?

WH: I mean if you’re talking about guns I mean it’s just very common sense legislation that you could pass. There’s simple things you could do, You could ban assault weapons. You could get rid of these bump stocks. You could close the gun show loophole. You could make sure that screening and background checks and training were more intense. You know those combinations of things would go a long way.

CO: What effect does it have on your career in country music that you speak out about it in this way?

WH: There's obviously a contingent of people that you know you get to shut up and sing thing every time that you say something. And that’s just sort of to be expected. But I mean it's definitely not the best business decision to do things like that. To potentially alienate anybody I guess if you're just looking at it from the sheer capitalism standpoint. That's probably not a smart move. But I'm an artist before a capitalist I guess. So that doesn't really matter.

CO: We don't see too many country musicians speaking out on this, but there was Caleb Keeter, a musician who was in Las Vegas before the shooting, playing on stage earlier that day. What do you make of what he had to say?

WH: I had a lot of respect for him doing that. I thought it was really brave because one, he was very eloquent in what he said. I mean he's a gun owner. He's always been pro-gun and big NRA guy and all these things — he's from Texas. They had a lot of guns on their bus. It was just an eye-opening, real-world experience. He saw something firsthand that changed his mind and realized that something needs to be done. And he spoke up about it. He’s caught a lot of flak for it, but I think he's also probably getting support that he didn’t know was out there. It takes some guts to stand up and do that.

CO: Did you think after this shooting it would be a game-changer for people in the country music industry after that that? That it would be OK, we have to speak out.

WH: Realistically, no. After Newtown, when we had the school shooting with all the elementary school kids, if there was going to be a game-changing event that should have been it. And when that didn't change the game you start to realize there's not going to be a game-changing event. There can only be these sort of trickles toward turning this around. And I think that after this, in Las Vegas, the trickle that can come from this is not going to be a game-changer. It’s not going to instantly fix any of these problems, but it can start to open the eyes of a lot of folks that are in the world of pro-guns and NRA. It does start to make them ask some harder questions, even if it's in private in smaller circles. It starts to change the conversation a lot. And, ultimately, that will lead to some sort of change. I just hope it's sooner than later.

CO: You mentioned asking hard questions. And that's what it seems that the CMA Awards are trying to avoid when they put out this restriction: “That there should be no questions asked by reporters about Las Vegas, about gun rights, political affiliations, or topics of the like.” That's a quote. And the quote was, “We want everyone to feel comfortable talking to press about this exciting time.” Do you think there are a lot of people in the industry would have been happy with those restrictions, so they don't get asked those hard questions at this at this event?

WH: From an artist's perspective, yeah, I think there are probably quite a few folks that would love to just not have to deal with that. And, ultimately, I understand that. If that's your position on it, there's a real polite way to say that. Or you can have your individual publicist let people know that you won't be talking about any of those things. I mean for the guy like Jason Aldean that was on stage when that happened. I mean I can imagine there's some serious PTSD involved in that. And it may be something he's not comfortable revisiting. But I think the issue is the CMA trying to make sure that this overarching reach of none of the press can ask these questions, A. And then, B, if you do, you're to be removed from the premises. That's just bad business. And, obviously, they realize that.

CO: Obviously, they did figure it out somewhere along the way, and that's been changed. But it's good to talk to you, Will. Thank you.

WH: I appreciate the time. Thanks.

JD: Will Hoge is a Nashville country singer. We reached him in Lubbock, Texas. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Country rock]

Julie Payette

JD: It's still early days for Julie Payette in her role as the country's Governor General. But the former astronaut is already under fire, after comments she made earlier this week. In a speech at a science conference in Ottawa, Ms. Payette — among other things — took on believers of divine intervention. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has come out in support of Ms. Payette's speech. But today, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer spoke out against that support. A statement on Mr. Scheer's Facebook page reads, in part, quote, "Respect for diversity includes respect for the diversity of religious beliefs, and Justin Trudeau has offended millions of Canadians with his comments." Unquote. Now, if you haven't heard Ms. Payette's speech yet, here's a clip.

SOUNDCLIP

JULIE PAYETTE: Can you believe that still today, in learned society, and houses of government, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the earth warming up — or whether even the earth is warming up period? That we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention, or whether it was coming out of a natural process. Let alone oh my goodness, Lo-and-behold random process. Yet, so many people, I'm sure you know many of them, still believe, want to believe, that maybe taking a sugar pill will cure cancer if you will it good enough. And that your future, every single one of the people here’s personality can be determined by looking at planets coming in front of invented constellations.

JD: That was Governor General Julie Payette, speaking earlier this week at a conference on science.

[Music: The Work by I Am Robot and Proud/ Electronic]

Wajahat Ali op-ed

Guest: Wajahat Ali

JD: "I Want Allahu Akbar Back." That's the title of Wajahat Ali's recent op-ed in the New York Times. Mr. Ali is a writer and a playwright. His piece was published following this week's attack on a Manhattan bike path. Eight people were killed in that attack. We reached Wajahat Ali in Alexandria, Virginia.

CO: Wajahat, when you heard news reports, as we did on Tuesday, that the New York City attacker shouted “Allahu Akbar”, how did that affect you?

WAJAHAT ALI: It's “Groundhog's Day” for Muslims after 9/11, because you sit there and you do something called the “Muslim drill”, which is a drill that many people of colour do. It's a prayer: please don't let it be a Muslim. Please don't let it be a black guy. Please don't let it be an Asian. Let it just be a white dude. Oh, it's Allahu Akbar, great! The entire framing now will be about Muslims and Islam and terrorism. And a common expression that we use — like I use like 100 times a day — which means literally “God is greatest”, which we use in prayer. And also for like you know innocuous stuff like after I eat a tasty meal, I say Allahu Akbar like literally. After I watch you know a sporting event where my team wins, I say Allahu Akbar. This now — just like my religion, like my identity, my entire being — is synonymous with terrorism. And here we go again.

CO: In the same breath, because it was almost immediate that news came out that he had said Allahu Akbar, and it's in the same breath that it’s said that he was a terrorist. And so for the public, who is immediately like you, but you're saying this prayer please don't let it be et cetera. People are saying well, who is it? What is this about? And then we hear oh, he had a beard. Oh, he said Allahu Akbar. Oh, he's a terrorist. This all makes sense. We understand now. So these are synonymous things in the public mind, aren't they?

WA: Exactly, and you said the same breath. It was the same headline because I was watching the rolling coverage. You know we're still investigating what caused this. Oh, next headline: you know viewers heard him say Allahu Akbar. Now, FBI is investigating as terrorism. As if that was the turn, right? And so then in America a month, ago Stephen Paddock, a white man, killed 58 people, injured more than 500. He's still seen as a lone radical. We're talking about mental health. No one's called him a terrorist. But what we know now is if he had simply said Allahu Akbar, it would have changed the entire discussion.

CO: You're talking about Las Vegas in case people don't know the reference you’re making.

WA: Yeah, the Las Vegas shooting. And also, Charlottesville, more than two months ago in August, same exact type of terrorism. A man drives a car through a crowd, killing a woman. It took Donald Trump, our president, a few days to kind of condemn it. Then, he blamed both sides, and so there were some very nice people. Still hasn't called it an act of domestic terrorism. It was a white supremacist. But we know if he had said Allahu Akbar it would have changed everything. And so that's the double-standard at play here, which affects language, discourse, policy and the presidential response, Carol, to acts of terrorism. Where it seems that if a suspect is white, president Trump is neutered in his response and can't advocate any policy change. But if the suspect says Allahu Akbar, within hours, he said we're going to do extreme vetting. And then, he also said we're going to have the diversity lottery visa that brought the individual here.

CO: But putting all this at the feet of Donald Trump it's easy isn't it? Because he is been saying… he was making Islamophobic statements. But it goes beyond that, doesn't it? I mean you heard all the comments, the discussions on media over these past days since Tuesday, refering to well what they say Allhu Akbar in some cases, which I believe means something entirely different, doesn't it?

WA: Allhu Akbar means potatoes are great, and yes they are. So I think all Americans and Canadians can agree if you can agree with Allahu Akbar — God is greatest. Maybe we can all agree that Allahu Akbar — potatoes are great. Some of my best meals have potatoes in it. But you make a very good point that this is nothing new. This has been going on for decades — hundreds of years — this type of ignorance, this is sensationalism. But Donald Trump has brought it to the forefront.

CO: I want to ask you about something else you mentioned in your New York Times piece, and that's that just after the Charlottesville attack there was another one in Barcelona. And Mr. Trump repeated the statement that there had been this General Pershing, who was able to control terrorism by shooting the perpetrators with bullets smeared in pig's blood, what did you make of that?

WA: Yes, so I'm glad you brought that up. A few days after Charlottesville, the same exact type of terrorism happened in Barcelona. The suspects again weren't Nazis, but they were Muslim extremists. Within a few hours, unlike what Trump did in Charlottesville, he responded, called it an act of terrorism and again tweeted out a de-bunked fake news story of General Pershing, which never happened, where General Pershing over 100 years ago, apparently told his soldiers that the best way to kill Muslim radicals is dipping their bullets into pig's blood. And I always joke, and you have to have some dark humour, that as a Muslim, I want to save pig lives; pig lives matter. You don't have to dip your bullets into pigs to kill Muslims; regular bullets work just fine. Why? Because we're human; we're not vampires. And it just goes to show you yet again, when the suspects are Muslims, Trump has no problem rising to action and making the most inflammatory statements and dehumanizing people. And actually you know in this in a very kind of terrifying way urging and recommending some members of his base that this is a way to respond to terrorism.

CO: The title for your opinion piece in the New York Times is “I Want Allahu Akbar Back.” What do you mean by that? What are you asking to reclaim?

WA: So extremists on all sides not only hijack a religion and identity in narratives they also hijack language to rationalize their violent ideology and their violent actions. Muslims overwhelmingly know what Allahu Akbar means. We don't have to hijack it from ourselves. However, as you have mentioned, in America, in the Western press, Allahu Akbar, much like the religion of Islam, has become hijacked by extremists to mean extremism and violence. I want to take it back and say no. Allah Akbar means God is great. I use it in prayer. If it takes me a little bit of work to explain it to people it's worth it for myself and for my kids and for the future of America. Because I'll be damned if I let anyone hijack my religion for their nefarious deeds, or use or and abuse of my religion to divide fellow Americans.

CO: Wajahat, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Carol.

JD: That was Wajahat Ali, a writer whose op-ed was published in the New York Times earlier this week. We reached him in Alexandria, Virginia.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Frowning poo emoji

JD: Emojis are fun, aren't they? To members of the Unicode Consortium, which is in charge of choosing and managing emojis, that's not a rhetorical question. And their answer would be "No." Possibly accompanied by a "thinking face" emoji. Every time a new batch is proposed, members engage in a debate over the merit of each little image. Right now, they're considering the emojis that will be dropping in June, 2018 — one of which is droppings. If you're a fan of the existing "pile of poo" emoji, you'll be excited to know that a frowning pile of poop is in the running for next year's class. In the twelve-page document submitted to the U.C., the creators make a thorough case for this important new image. "Frowning Poo," the authors insist, "can express a range of meanings that the smiling poo emoji cannot." Unquote. But in a recent memo, Unicode contributor Michael Everson strongly disagrees. He wrote, quote, "Organic waste isn't cute...The idea that our 5 committees would sanction further cute graphic characters based on this should embarrass absolutely everyone who votes yes on such an excrescence." Unquote. Fellow typographer Andrew West strongly agrees with Mr. Everson's strong disagreement. He wrote, quote: "Is there really any need to add a range of emotions to “Pile of Poo”?...If this is accepted then there will be no neutral, expressionless Pile of Poo, so at least a pile of poo with no face would be required to be encoded to restore some balance." Unquote. High drama over a frowny poop emoji. But if you've ever lost your footing after stepping on the stuff in the real world, you won't be surprised to hear that slippery-slope argument.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Jenna Abrams troll, snack history, woolly mammoth

Jenna Abrams troll

Guest: Ben Collins

JD: If you followed Jenna Abrams on Twitter, you knew a few things. She had some outlandish opinions on slavery and segregation. She believed America's problems stemmed from political correctness. And she had thoughts about Kim Kardashian's wardrobe. Her Twitter account earned her some enemies. But it also earned her nearly 70 thousand followers, and exposure from news outlets like Buzzfeed and the New York Times, who featured her tweets in their articles, except they weren't really her tweets. Because there is no Jenna Abrams, she was the creation of the Internet Research Agency. That is a Russian government-funded troll farm in St. Petersburg — one of 27-hundred fake accounts linked to the troll farm that Twitter has now suspended. Ben Collins is a senior news editor at the Daily Beast, he wrote about Jenna Abrams this week. We reached him in New York City.

CO: Ben, before her account was suspended, you were familiar with Jenna Abrams. What was your impression of her on Twitter?

BEN COLLINS: She was always a little fishy, but I never really believed, at the end of the day, that she was a Russian troll because she had done a very good job emulating life on the Internet for an American. She had her own Gmail account, she had a Go Fund Me page, she a lot of other things that regular American people might have if you've been on the internet for a few years. And that's what she was. She was a fully-fledged character in the American discourse.

CO: Or so it seemed. And so and it started slow, didn't it? How were people pulled in initially? She was writing about Kim Kardashian, and about man-spreading on the subway, things like that.

BC: Yes, she like made a Photoshopped thing about Kim Kardashian's wardrobe. And there was a specific article — one of many articles about her — but they said she had a perfect response in all caps to a Kim Kardashian selfie. So that sort of thing where you know she wrote benign or sometimes even agreeable things for most people over the course of two years. And then, by the time the 2016 election came around, that account was used as a weapon.

CO: People say she was funny. She was this, she was that and she built up a follower of 70,000 people, right?

BC: Yeah. But I would say it's not even the half of it. You know her tweets appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, like the National Post in Canada. If you can think of an outlet, her stuff was probably in it at some point. Sometimes it was about Kim Kardashian, but sometimes it was about immigrants. Or sometimes it was about ballistic missiles or just straight-up Russian talking points.

CO: And then when the 2016 election loomed, how did it turn?

BC: There were things about revisionism of the Civil War for example. She said the Civil War wasn't about slavery; it was all about money. That received a ton of ridicule from journalists and historians in the United States. But, by that point, people had accepted that she was a person, and she had developed some genuine far-right fans in the United States.

CO: And the responses she got, you mentioned when it was in response to the Confederate flag, and saying you've got to remember that the Civil War was about money; it wasn’t about slavery. Some very high-profile people responded very sagely. I’m looking at Al Letson, who's in the center of Investigative Reporting, who said it's much easier to say the Civil War was about money when your ancestors weren't the currency. So smart responses, including from the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Can you tell us how Michael McFaul responded?

BC: Yes. So Mike McFaul argued with this person on Twitter for ten months. This guy is a Russian propaganda expert. So if even the best of us can't really spot it, it means they're running a pretty sophisticated thing.

CO: So who or what was Jenna Abrams?

BC: Jenna was most likely a bunch of people in the Internet Research Agency, which is the big factory in St. Petersburg. And within it, it was people who were posing as Americans on the Internet, on Twitter and Facebook and Reddit and a bunch of other places. And it was cut-out by the Kremlin. The Kremlin spent about two million dollars and gave it to this guy — this oligarch — who has this not-for-profit trolling operation, which is a bunch of people in this place in St. Petersburg. And what they would do is pose as Americans poses, during the French elections, pose as French people and during the U.K., pose as Brits and try to stir up resentment and divisiveness within those countries.

CO: And now we know that Jenna Abrams, she was fake, or it was fake. And her account was one of 27 hundred fake accounts that Twitter has now suspended — all coming from this so-called Internet Research Agency that you mentioned. What did it actually accomplish before it was shut down?

BC: Sure. It was initially to sow chaos and to make it appear as if democracies across the world weren't totally on the up and up. If you want chaos, they had a perfect chaos candidate and Donald Trump. So they latched on to Donald Trump, they started pushing things about Hillary Clinton is the devil and how Donald Trump can save you and things like that for the 2016 election. This was people posing as African-Americans on the left. People pulling in you know gun-toting Texans on the right.

CO: And we spoke with Micah White last night, and he was describing how he was trolled on the left by the same agency. He fell for an organization called Black Matters, but his conclusion was that what this effort did was to create cynicism. It, ultimately, shakes people's faith in democratic processes. Would you agree?

BC: Yeah, if everything could actually just be an act then it de-legitimizes all protests. It de-legitimizes the concept of free speech in the United States. That was the point. Russia has a considerably less free society, where journalists are car bombed if they speak against the state, whereas in the United States, that is the one thing that has remained sacrosanct in the United States. It tries to sow some doubt. And it certainly works. I mean look at where we are now. Where you know we have a president that has written off the press as fake news. And has tried to bring his followers to this idea that the things that the press are saying is not the story; it's the opposite of the story. And you can't really think of a more Kremlin talking point than that.

CO: And there are people in Russia who said that the Kremlin itself was surprised at how successful this has been — this propaganda effort. Do you think it would have been possible for them to be so successful had there not been Donald Trump?

BC: They spent two million dollars on this, which is like a bad NBA player, right? So it’s not a ton of money and it worked so well that you know this is the playbook that has been copied by China now and other countries across the world. So you know the fact that Donald Trump is able to take those messages onto the national stage, push them out in mainstream media and now is effectively running the United States. You know an alternate version of truth is available that you know will allow for xenophobic ideas to be taken as gospel. That would not have happened without Donald Trump.

CO: Ben, we'll leave it there. Thanks for speaking with us.

BC: Absolutely. Thanks so much.

JD: Ben Collins is a senior news editor at the Daily Beast. We reached him in New York City.

[Music: Instrumental]

BBC Uber driver

JD: Last week, Damian Erskine and his girlfriend flew from the U.K. to the United States for a wedding. After arriving at the airport in Newark, New Jersey, Mr. Erskin called an Uber. He says that the driver of that Uber was Sayfullo Saipov, who's accused of driving a rented truck onto a bike path and killing eight people in New York earlier this week. Mr. Erskine spoke with the BBC about what that Uber ride was like. Here are some excerpts from that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

DAMIAN ERSKINE: It was weird because we'd been in the taxi with him for about an hour the journey to the hotel. So we talked for a long time. You get an idea of the person. He seemed absolutely normal. We got on about cars and just normal things. And he said how he wished he could own a Range Rover. He said they were at the height of Britishness and kind of luxury and that kind of thing. He was very polite. He helped us with our bags. I mean I gave him five stars an Uber, which seems a bit weird now. He was absolutely fine. It just makes you feel very dirty almost. It's not a nice feeling.

JD: That was Damien Erskine, speaking with the BBC. Last weekend, Mr. Erskine's Uber driver was the man accused of killing eight people in Lower Manhattan by driving a truck into them.

[Music: Electronic]

Snack history book

Guest: Janice Thiessen

JD: Everyone's got a favourite snack. For some of us, it's a crisp apple or something weird like that. But for most of us, it's a thing that comes in a package, and contains way too much sugar or salt. A chocolate bar, perhaps. Or a particular flavour of potato chip that sends your heart racing — and not just because of the sodium content. Most of the snack food you'll find at your local grocery store probably comes from big American-owned companies. But Canadian snack food producers are out there. And they often have a devoted following. Janice Thiessen wanted to give them the recognition they deserve. She is the author of the recent book, "Snacks: A Canadian Food History." We reached Ms. Thiessen in Winnipeg.

CO: Janice, what's your favorite Canadian snack?

JANICE THIESSEN: Oh, Old Dutch dill pickle-flavored potato chips.

CO: So what is it about the dill pickle-flavored Old Dutch chips that speaks to your soul?

JT: They’re salty and they’re fatty and they’re crunchy and they are made from my favorite vegetable.

CO: And now, there's one fascinating story you tell about Old Dutch chips. And for many people who grew up in the west will know this. And you reminded us — or me — of “Kids’ Bid's” this bizarre television program where kids would collect all these rappers and boxtops from Old Dutch chips, and then go on TV and bid like as an auction for prizes with it. It’s a most bizarre show, isn't it?

JT: It is, and super popular. I mean I still, to this day, the book has been… I finished writing the first draft of it two years ago. And I still, just this weekend, got an email from one of these folks who were on that show saying please interview me. I won a bike. They are huge fans of it to this day. But yeah, it was this show. There was a different version in every Western Canadian town, but Old Dutch sponsored it. Yeah, you would go on and you would bid on prizes. And instead of money, you would bid with empty packaging from Old Dutch.

CO: And the bike was a three-speeder.

JT: The three-speed bike was the grand prize. You had to hold out for that, but you needed a lot of empty packaging to win that one.

CO: I remember people who had garages full of those things.

JT: They did. Surprisingly, not a lot of them, actually almost no one we spoke to, talked about increasing their chip consumption to be able to get on the show. It's just they recruited family and friends and their parents coworkers to troll backplanes and garbage bins and collect the stuff.

CO: So bizarre. Now, there's another one: Cheezies — Hawkins Cheezies — and that's a favorite snack here at As It Happens. But a bizarre business model, can you describe that?

JT: Well, they only have one product in only one flavour. It is made the exact same way and using the same equipment as when it was first invented back in I think it was 1949 if I remember correctly. It’s the original machine. And they do not advertise because they don't want to increase market share because they’d have to start working weekends to crank out more products.

CO: So they've never tried to expand or get into the United States. I guess they came from the States first as you write.

JT: It's true; they came from one of the biggest snack producers in the United States: W.T Hawkins of Chicago. That company went bust partly from a result of bitter divorces, and potentially, some mafia action. But the remnant that remains is this one former branch plant in a small town in Ontario.

CO: There's a story you tell that I think a lot of people don't know about, which is this bizarre children's protest that took place post-war Canada, where children in the thousands turned out in the streets across Canada to protest against the increased price of chocolate bars. Can you tell us about that?

JT: Oh yeah. Not just the streets, some of them stormed I think it was the Victoria legislature.

CO: And they went to the House of Commons too.

JT: Yes. Yes. And it was a protest against just changing the price of a five cent chocolate bar, right? They felt this was a fundamental children's right: affordable, occasional treats. And to just arbitrarily jack up the price, in their minds, was something that was worth protesting. Here's a little sliver of childhood that needed to be preserved for future generations.

CO: Now, there were some church leaders and police chiefs who accused the kids and the whole movement of being part of a communist conspiracy.

JT: Yeah, well, anyone who's upset must be a communist by definition I guess, right?

CO: Why did you want to write this book?

JT: Oh gosh. Well, I'm a business and labour historian. And I was looking around for another topic — another business to cover — and my brother said, possibly semi-jokingly, well, you like a lot of potato chips. Why don't you study Old Dutch?

CO: Ooh!!

JT: Yup. And a colleague suggested well, why don't you just study the whole industry. And into the whole industry is really too big. But I had also been reading you know Michael Moss's “Salt, Sugar, Fat” And some of Michael Pollan's writings about you know his food rules. And there's a lot of criticism and critique of people and their eating habits — a lot of judgment these days. And I wondered how accurate or fair was that judgment, particularly when we're looking at businesses that aren't you know huge monoliths like Frito-Lay? What if they’re just small family-owned businesses that have operated pretty much the same way for 100 years? Should they be critiqued in the same manner?

CO: Well, this is very much a kind of ode to snack food — to Canadian snack foods. But you do point out that some of the Canadian chocolate companies were muscled out by big chocolate, weren't they?

JT: Very much so, yes. Yes. So you had this is a story of course of Moyers and the east coast of Canada you know bought out by Hershey's. Hershey a couple of years later then builds a new plant for them. And a couple of years after that shuts it all down just because it's cheaper to you know to produce the stuff in Mexico.

CO: I guess only Ganong survives this?

JT: Only Ganong of the three really large chocolate manufacturers that have a long history in Canada that's the only one that persists. But they also have claim to fame as being the inventor of the chocolate nut bar. And they claim to be the inventor of the heart-shaped box of candy for Valentine's Day.

CO: Now, do you think there's a future for these small companies like Ganong or Hawkins Cheezies?

JT: Oh, definitely. They have really dedicated clientele some of them. Ao if you go to the Hawkin's factory in Ontario, for example, they've got one wall of their plant that is dedicated to photographs that customers mailed to them, pictures of themselves on their retirement day, kicking back in recliners with a bag of Hawkins Ceezies. People are dedicated to this stuff.

CO: Well, it might be that As It Happens keeps them in business.

JT: Right on.

CO: Janice, it’s great to talk to you. Thanks.

JT: A pleasure. Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

JT: Bye bye.

JD: We do eat an awful lot of chips here. Janice Thiessen is the author of the book “Snacks: A Canadian Food History.” We reached her in Winnipeg.

[Music: Show tunes]

Woolly mammoth

Guest: Love Dalen

JD: Researchers have long been confused about why most woolly mammoth fossils are male. Swedish scientists though think they now know why: male woolly mammoths needed their moms more than they were willing to admit. Love Dalen is a researcher at the Swedish Natural History Museum. We reached him on the Canary Islands.

CO: Professor Dalen, what does your research tell you about the behavior habits of male woolly mammoths?

LOVE DALEN: So we found this skew in the sex ratio in the fossil record. And that led us to hypothesize or to propose the idea that male mammoths were more risk-taking than females.

CO: And how did you determine that?

LD: Well, we haven't really determined it. It's more the only reasonable explanation we think for our results. It's a combination of that males in general in animals are more risk-taking. But also that in elephants, as well as mammoths, the females live in a herd together. And that means that they are led by an old, wise female whose knowledge probably helps the females and the young to avoid getting stuck in these kind of natural traps and dying in these kind of accidents that lead their bones to become buried in the permafrost.

CO: So basically you're research is into the fossils and the remains of these woolly mammoths So what do they tell you about the way that these animals — the males — conducted themselves that got them into these traps.

LD: I think the main thing it tells us is that it's highly likely that woolly mammoths had a similar kind of social structure and behavior as modern day elephants do in the sense that they the females live in these female-dominated herds led by wise, old female. Whereas the males tend to when they reach sexual maturity, which is around 15-years-of-age, they tend to leave the herd and start roaming the tundra by themselves or in small kind of bachelor groups.

CO: So if you found them because they fell into traps or whatever what kinds of traps? What were the things that actually killed these male woolly mammoths?

LD: So we can't say exactly what it was for each individual specimen since we find them when they have come out of the permafrost again. But we do know that Siberia is just covered in small lakes and bogs. There are lots of rivers and lots of crevices and also long river banks and so on. It's very common during the warm season that the permafrost melts and there are these big mud flows and so on. So any kind of these natural traps could have led to a quick burial of the remains.

CO: And why were the females less likely to get into those traps?

LD: Well, we think it's partly because males in general are a bit more risk-taking, but we also think a big explanation for this is that the females stuck together. And they were led by these wise, old female who probably knew better than the males how to avoid these kinds of dangerous areas. For example, you know taking a walk across the thin ice in early autumn of a lake is not a very good idea if you weigh about five-six tons. And it's probably the case that these old, wise females knew that one should avoid these. Whereas perhaps the young males who had just left the herd didn't have that knowledge with them.

CO: You're determining this from where you found and what you saw of the fossil record, is that right?

LD: We are proposing this based on that we find more males than one would have expected. Essentially the number of living mammals, or at least at birth, there must have been an even sex ratio with an equal number of males and females. And since we are finding more males in the fossil record in general that implies that males are more likely to die in a way so that their bones are buried into the permafrost and thereby preserved them to present day.

CO: This is, like you say, kind of a gender bias in your fossils. What did you see? What is the ratio?

LD: So the ratio is about 70 per cent male and 30 per cent females. And that's a sample from about 100 specimens that we have determined the sex from using DNA analysis.

CO: So you used DNA in order to discover which ones are male and female?

LD: Exactly. It's very difficult from many of these findings to determine just by looking at them whether they are from the male or female. You can't do that with teeth or bones. And only if you have intact and very large tusks then you can actually determine the sex.

CO: And so what do you think became of the remains of the females that means that you found so few of them? What became of them?

LD: Most likely there is a higher proportion of females that died and just ended up on top of the ground. And that means that within a few centuries, their bones and teeth and tusks will have eroded from weathering.

CO: Why do you think that they evolved in that way? That the males would be such risk-takers and that the females should follow the lead of wise, old matriarchs?

LD: Well, I think that males are more risk-taking is a general pattern in animals. So in most animals, especially in animals where the males compete for access to the females, so that only a few males get to mate with the females, that's a typical pattern that you see that males are more risk-taking. And that is because evolutionarily it actually pays off for them because they need to take those risks in order to grow and become the largest male, so that they can become the dominant bull that gets access to the female. So it's what you would expect from some evolutionary theory.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Thanks for speaking with us, Professor Dalen.

LD: Thank you very much, Carol.

JD: Love Dalen is a researcher at the Swedish Natural History Museum. We reached him on the Canary Islands.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

November 3, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This