Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Turkeys do vote for Christmas - official-ish

Celia Hall
Sunday 20 December 1992 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

TURKEYS like Christmas. Indeed they depend upon it. Were it not for Christmas and stuffing, the turkey population could go into decline.

These challenging ideas come from Ray Carpenter, an American professor of biology, whose theories on evolution do not go down well with orthodox geneticists.

He argues that, while domestication means death for millions of British turkeys each year, it makes certain that the species survives and goes on getting fatter.

'If you want to test the success of a species you look to see if the population has increased over time. There are more pounds of turkey around today than ever.'

So turkeys voted for Christmas? Absolutely, says Professor Carpenter, from Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts. 'Humans didn't select the animals that became domesticated. They volunteered themselves.'

According to his theory, wild animals became domesticated when humans began to live in settlements and accumulate rubbish. This provided a ready food supply for the braver animals, giving them a selective advantage over those that took their chance in the wild. But it was essential that they offered humans something in return. Turkeys - unlike, say, horses - had little to offer. So, had they been too cowardly or too aggressive to volunteer for the carving knife, they would have been sent back to join the tigers in the forests - and look what happened to them.

Individual animals may have come to a sticky end but not before the next generation was ready for fattening. The species, therefore, flourished. 'So long as man is willing to ensure that the offspring survive, it is a positive advantage to turkeys to be eaten,' Professor Carpenter said.

The theory also applies to wild pigs and dogs. Dogs? 'Certainly. I know it is very unpopular, but dogs provided regular litters of puppies which were a valuable food supply and they provided their fur.'

All trussed up, page 19

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in