Heroic rat retiring from detecting land mines
npr.orgWhat a great example of how language can be used to obscure reality. This rat has no concept of the harm that may come to them when performing this job that has been forced upon them.
Now one might say: "This rat enjoys this work!". One cannot make that claim without: 1. The rat having informed consent about what this work entails (not possible, given a rat's limited ability to understand what land mines are) 2. In good faith, the rat having been given many alternatives as to what it wishes to do, without coercion
At its core, I see this as necessary work, whether it is automated by machines or performed by humans or non-human animals.
But let's at least be clear what's happening here and not sugar coat it: this is forced/coerced labor, there's nothing heroic about it given that the rat has no idea what might happen to them, and it's not a 'retirement' (this rat didn't wake up and say, I'm going to retire today!), it's that the rat's handlers have decided to no longer force/coerce this animal to work.
I agree that it's not heroic since the rat has no real conception of what it's doing. I was curious after reading your comment what the mortality rate among mine detecting rats was.
This organization says that none of their rats have ever died as a result of their detection work. As I understand it the rats are too light to detonate the mines. Their role is just to detect them and they don't have to worry about accidental detonation.
That makes sense if you think about it. If these mines were the kind of thing that could be detonated by a curious rodent, they probably wouldn't have lasted so long in rural areas.
That's another reason not to call the rats heroic. There is no real hardship for them in this work. They explore and smell and get a reward when they find something. I'd bet it may be better than a wild life, though a moral ideal might be letting the rats choose to work or not. (I wouldn't suggest actually doing that, since I think the forced labor of rats is a small price to pay to save human lives, but ideally the rats would be employees rather than slaves)
Heroes don’t need to risk death to be heroes.
People volunteering to fill out sandbags in a flood can save a community with no real risk to themselves, but their still making a sacrifice for others.
It sounds way better to call them heroic. That's reason enough for me.
Sure, it would sound better if I introduced myself as an NBA player, but that doesn't make it true. "Life-saving rats" sounds pretty good and is defensible. "Hero" seems like a bit of a stretch.
hero: a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
The rats are admired for their outstanding achievements.
Ergo, they are heroic rats.
What's the point of being pedantic if you're not at least accurate?
I don't understand how this isn't accurate. Even with your definition:
A. Not a person.
B. Not courageous because they have no idea what they are doing.
C. Noble qualities aren't in evidence because all the rats know is that the sniff a field and get treats.
That’s a wilfully unsophisticated view of language though.
In what way? I'm considering the qualities of a hero from the given definition and arguing that they don't apply to bomb defusing rats and it's therefore wrong to call them heroes. I can't imagine how that's unsophisticated.
You failed to heed the meaning of the term "or" (!)
Doesn't that alone disqualify your rebuttal?
Wait... I "failed to heed" the word "or", but you get to ignore the word "person"?
When 2/3rds of an argument is countered by not ignoring the term "or" I tend ask you fix that first?
Especially when that remaining 1/3rd is just you taking an unsophisticated approach to the concept of anthropomorphization...
I think it's pretty clear the given definition doesn't apply here. While I do enjoy debating semantics, I don't see that you actually have any argument here, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
Can’t you just go with Merriam Webster’s fourth definition under hero “an object of extreme devotion or admiration”.
Although the synonyms section cracked me up cause it definitely took me a second
Synonyms “Cuban sandwich, grinder, hoagie (also hoagy), Italian sandwich, po’boy, …”
I don't see any evidence that the rats are the object of extreme devotion or admiration. The featured rat did its job well for five years and is now retiring with a modest celebration.
If there were some evidence of extreme devotion or admiration, for example maybe the locals celebrate this rat, know its name, call this one for especially challenging fields, erect statues to it, etc - then I'd agree that a specific rat could be heroic by this definition.
As is, the rats seem to be doing a not particularly challenging or dangerous job in exchange for payment. One rat is retiring after a successful career - which is laudable, but not so much so that it qualifies for extreme devotion or admiration.
In general, I like to push back on cheapening words like "hero" so that we can use them for better effect when they actually fit. I also don't think teachers, hospital workers, police, soldiers, etc are heroes though some people sometimes call them such. Individuals in those professions might be, but the general classes are not, nor are bomb defusing rats.
Hmm. I’m not sure. I bet in the areas these rats perform their duties there’s a fair bit more admiration than from thousands of miles away.
Anyways, it’s all good by me!
This chain of comments right here is one of the reasons I do so love HN.
A technical debate on the semantics of heroic rats.
Plus it actually helped improve my English!
Cheers :-)
Being wrong with great conviction doesn't make you right...
Your "argument" was torn down piece by piece.
You were wrong by not understanding the concept of an "or", and you were wrong by not understanding that in this context the rats are being anthropomorphized.
I think most of us have just been mocking the absurdity of this by replying succinctly enough to watch you flounder a bit more at this point, you would have been best served leaving it at heroic rats...
I found a good night's rest has restored my appetite for discussing this subject. Sorry if I was a bit cranky earlier, it was past my bedtime.
Let's look at it in a different way. Are these rats doctors? Well, definition 4 of "Doctor" from Merriam Webster's says ": a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things." These rats are certainly restoring the fields by identifying the mines for removal. We can just anthropomorphize the rats to get by the "person" part of that definition and conclude that the rats are, in fact, doctors.
Are the rats lawyers? Again, from the same dictionary the first definition for "lawyer" says "one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters". That definition is of the form "X or Y" and Y would be "profession to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters." The rats, of course, aren't removing the mines themselves. They simply locate the mines and inform their human employers who then defuse and remove the mines. We could say the rats are advising the humans. If the humans running this operation come to know about a mine they clearly have an obligation to remove or designate the mine for removal - knowingly leaving a land mine in a field is liability. So, these rats, in their professional capacity, are advising the humans with regards to their legal obligations. The rats are lawyers!
Are the rats scientists? Merriam-Webster tells us that scientists include "scientific investigators". The rats are clearly investigators. Are they scientific? The definition for "scientific" includes "practicing or using thorough or systematic methods". Well, the rats search an entire field. The article tells us that the rats scour fields so thoroughly that the human operators are willing to play soccer on the fields afterwards. That sounds pretty thorough to me, so we can call the rats scientific investigators, or scientists too.
I hope you get my point. Using this "sophisticated" conception of language, where you look at dictionary definitions and suggest that one interpretation of some clause of a definition could technically apply so therefore a word is apt to describe something leads to absurd conclusions. Not only are our rats heroic, they are heroic lawyer scientist doctor rats! And more!
The truth is that dictionary definitions are guides to help us understand language. An articulate person will strive to find words that fit well, not words that, by some torturous and philosophical contortion could technically, arguably, maybe not be entirely wrong if you ignore a couple words. "Hero" fits these rats the same way doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, and so on fits the rats - which is to say, not well.
This is so many words to simply miss the concept of anthropomorphism.
By calling the rat a hero, it's implicitly being anthropomorphized.
"Rat doctors sniff out cancer!"
"Rat lawyer cracks a tough case after DNA links owner to scene of the crime"
This is why you're being accused of having an unsophisticated grasp of language.
You're not understanding the implicit meaning of a statement and confusing it with a lack of specificity or suitability of the explicit terms in said statement.
That's silly.
Indeed. You don't need to know that you're a hero in order to be a hero...
What about the rats that fail the training/final exam?
I understood most don’t make the cut. I can’t imagine the dropouts have long and interesting lives.
> 1. The rat having informed consent about what this work entails (not possible, given a rat's limited ability to understand what land mines are)
You can totally enjoy something while being ignorant to aspects of the task
> 2. In good faith, the rat having been given many alternatives as to what it wishes to do, without coercion
You can enjoy doing a task, while still enjoying something else more.
Sounds to me like this rat had a pretty good time eating bananas.
---
Rats enjoy and seek out tickling.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/rats-tick...
> Panksepp and Burgdorf showed that the animals remembered areas in their enclosures where they had been tickled before and routinely returned to those sites.
> And in the current study, rats were observed performing something called Freudensprünge, or “joy jumps,” after tickling.
They can also apparently feel regret:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rats-experience-f...
> Rats showed both a behavioral sign of regret (turning and looking at the missed high-value reward) and were then more willing to wait for a reward following regret-inducing instances, indicating that they learned from their mistake.
You have no idea what it's like to be a rat, and no basis by which to make this claim. Given that they are intelligent mammals closely related to humans and with similar brain structures, it seems plausible, even likely, that they experience emotions thst are similar (if not entirely the same) as ours.
Humans are driven by food and reproduction too, but that doesn't mean we don't also experience a wide range of complex emotions.
Ah typical old school scientific Nonsense. Similar to old theories that babies don’t feel pain.
Spend a significant amount of time around animals and you will see a lot beyond the more base rutting instincts.
You make a good valid point.. that being being said... Free food for life in exchange for sniffing out 71 landmines that I'm too lightweight to trigger...
If I was a rat, I would take that deal... considering that the alternative is, well, being an actual rat :)
Yeah, sure, we didn't ask for consent, but I'll confess my hamburger probably didn't consent either -- though I think we only have get consent if we serve cookies :)
(Bad jokes may be present)
Had a rat that loved packing peanuts. One night he found a stash and kept grabbing them. After taking away the fourth one, he ran up my arm and stared me straight in the eye for about 30 seconds. He then proceeded to grab one and move the further away. I’m quite sure I got chewed out by a rat.
Why do you have to be so negative? This rat is not at any risk of harm because it is too small to trigger the mines. I would say this rat has been and will continue to be very well taken care of. It is also wholesome that people celebrate its "retirement" and appreciate its accomplishments. Your criticism is off base and rabid.
I'm vegan and think treating animals as tools is unethical, but I somewhat agree, how is this different from the treatment of any beast of burden, or god forbid, livestock? It seems so condescending to criticize people in less technologically advanced countries for using beasts of burden or livestock.
I'm not trying to shut down abstract debate or discussion on the issue of animal welfare/rights/liberation, but I do perceive a lack of context leading to condescending criticism of others living in tough circumstances where they literally can't trust the ground they stand on to not suddenly kill them.
I think this story about the rat and what it did is cool, it makes me happy, but I do agree with OP that the language of the story misrepresents the reality of the situation.
If I was given total control over your life and made you work for me, would you be ok with that so long as, according to me, I treated you well enough? I doubt it.
That isn’t the point though. This is not a debate about whether anyone thinks the rat is being treated well.
The rat did not consent to this (because it can’t), so this is, factually, forced labor. I am ok with it in this situation, but let’s call it what it is and express gratitude for what the rat did to clean up human messes.
Second, you can’t do something heroically if you either 1) don’t know what you are doing and what the risks are or 2) there are no risks. Take your pick, but either way it isn’t heroic. The rat did a great thing for us but hero is not the right word.
> The rat did not consent to this (because it can’t), so this is, factually, forced labor.
On the other hand, anyone who's owned an uncooperative dog will know that it's nigh-impossible to effectively train an animal who just doesn't feel like playing along.
And also a dog will do what you ask it because you ask it and it wants too help you. My husky used to pull me on my bike. He knew when I got the bike and lead out that was what was happening and he wanted to do it. He certainly did not think that he had to do it and could easily have refused to let me put the harness on.
> If I was given total control over your life and made you work for me, would you be ok with that so long as, according to me, I treated you well enough? I doubt it.
By definition, if you treat me well "enough", I'm already satisfied. That's a silly proposition.
I think you are missing the “according to me” (the person you are working for) part of the sentence.
In this thought experiment, like the rat, you have no say in what constitutes being treated “well enough.”
You might be missing the unspoken alternative. You will be treated well, as long as you do my bidding. Otherwise all bets are off.
If your bidding isn't pleasant enough to keep me happy then you're not treating me well enough. The constraint, as defined, is on the master.
You have made a tautology. It's moot. Coercion isn't all about carrots.
You seem to be suggesting that working animals are forced labor. Does that include all the working dogs such as police, rescue, military, and comfort dogs?
The opposite of heroic is cowardly and it perfectly describes people that try to silence opposing opinions.
Not GP, but for me it's a matter of striving to reason clearly and correctly. I try to avoid slipping into pleasant error on any topic, because I don't want mental habits that let me do that with important topics.
The error here is thinking that the rat is in danger when doing its job and that the word heroic cannot be used to describe non-human.
From Webster, heroic: of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life.
This rat's work has saved lives. So, we can call it heroic. It is not even anthropomorphic strictly speaking.
Love this analysis. It reminds me of Maggie Mae's breakdown of My Octopus Teacher as eco-horror film -- it ends up exploring the same themes around language and communication that you brought up here. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whb4unrhy44
Specific time stamp for section on language (Gorillas in the Congo): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whb4unrhy44&t=1016s
The even deeper horror is that they explored many alternate narratives, and this is the one that they collectively though would, and in reality did, resonate most strongly with viewers.
The horror isn't the film makers, it is that this is the narrative that global society prefers to hear.
For even deeper horror still I suggest reading Francis Bacon, since from square zero modern science is founded on the rape of nature.
The article was not written for rats but for humans who love to anthropomorphize. So you comment is moot.
And, perhaps more importantly, the article was written in order to bring attention to the work that is being done to remove land mines. Giving medals to "hero rats" seems like a pretty cheap way to secure additional funding for a worthwhile cause.
This comment is written for rats.
The rats aren't in danger though...that's the whole point.
> Though they have terrible eyesight, the rats are ideal for such work, with their extraordinary sense of smell and their size – they are too light to trigger the mines. When they detect a mine, they lightly scratch atop it, signaling to their handler what they've found.
I think it's very apt that they use military language when talking about this rat.
Same language was used to describe heroic soldiers wanting to save lives with exactly the same disregard of what actual enlisted humans think and feel.
OK, well, if we start dissecting our human acts the same way, we'd literally end society. Most people are coerced into their jobs, due to society taking away their means of alternate survival, and job availability.
Societies should exist for the benefit of the people living in them. If aspects of it do not serve the people living in them well then they should be abolished.
That doesn't really mean anything. Society benefits some, is to the detriment of others, and for most it's a mixed bag.
I said should and, if you haven't noticed, the things people have often fought hardest for are changes to society that increase benefits to the people living in them that don't currently enjoy such benefits.
The fact people have fought about things doesn't tell us much either. Did they get what they fought about. Or not. Typically not. Also is fighting to get more "society"? It happens even without society. So it's not an example of society.
Everything you say applies to the humans doing this work. To bring it back to the rat is also obscuring reality.
For the workers these dumb things just make everyone's lives better, rat and humans alike.
That's no different to people keeping dogs as pets. They are exploiting pack behaviour, without really asking those animals.
Dogs are typically strong, fast and dangerous enough so you really can’t do squat if they don’t want to live with you. Well except if you keep them in cages and use weapons and tools to control them.
Their relationship also has utility for them. They use us for problem solving. Civilization is scary and complex.
I also worry sometimes about what you’re trying to convey though.
I'd prefer he stayed and keep him fenced, but he could leave within 20 seconds if he wanted to.
Yup. This applies for almost all pets as well. Given the choice to be free, most cats dogs birds etc would "retire" away from us, asking only for food and affection on the ocassional visits.
Humans have a long history of normalizing captivity and slavery of other life.
Also rats are awesome creatures, highly misunderstood.
>This rat has no concept of the harm that may come to them when performing this job that has been forced upon them.
You're probably very wrong here. It is very probable that the rat feels the fear and sense of danger being experienced by her handlers around/toward the minefield (dogs and cats definitely feel the fear of their human companions), and she has been the one who has been going into that danger zone for 5 years. What she definitely doesn't know is that that danger isn't applicable to her. So 'heroic' may be very well applicable here.
Well written. This was my thought as well.
"Heroic" language is also deployed to distract from the exploitation of humans financially coerced into doing dangerous or stressful jobs. The clearest example I can think of is the public glorying, on certain types of public holiday, in the "heroic sacrifice" of all the soldiers who were marched pointlessly into machine gun fire in WW1.
>there's nothing heroic about it
The whole medal thing is laying it on a bit thick and sure the rat doesn't know wtf is going on, but I do think the word is warranted.
This rat found 71 land mines. That's 71 mines that are not stepped on by some kid playing soccer in a field.
Yes there are issues with forcing animals do thing, but that seems pretty worthy of grandiose terms.
I love this analysis. If you don’t know it already I think you may resonate with George Lakoff’s work on framing and metaphors.
According to your definition, 1 and 2, I've been doing a "rat's work" more than once :)
---
Can you link to any evidence that rats simply exist and don't understand the concept of options?
The article made absolutely no mention of how or why those land mines got there in the first place. Considering that they exist in such quantities that they are still being cleared up 40+ years after the end of the Vietnam war, it should have at least had a link to a story with more detail.
Which Vietnam war? You have several to choose from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_Wars
The Cambodian–Vietnamese War ended in 1989, so the mines are possibly not that old.
Most of the unexploded ordinances in this country were dropped from big planes. Think clustered munitions and such. Those big planes came from a far away land.
While Cambodia did suffer from this, Laos by comparison was hit much harder:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0003.107?view=text;...
Source?
The still-incomplete database (it has several “dark” periods) reveals that from October 4, 1965, to August 15, 1973, the United States dropped far more ordnance on Cambodia than was previously believed: 2,756,941 tons’ worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites.
US Air Force bombers like this B-52, shown releasing its payload over Vietnam, helped make Cambodia one of the most heavily bombed countries in history — perhaps the most heavily bombed.
To put 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II. Cambodia may be the most heavily bombed country in history.
https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabomb...
That's a great link. I didn't realize how heavily the U.S. bombed Cambodia.
That said, it seems the bigger problem in Cambodia is landmines, and AFAICT most of those were buried during Cambodia's internecine conflicts by various domestic factions and by the Vietnamese. See https://www.halotrust.org/where-we-work/south-asia/cambodia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines_in_Cambodia, and https://www.dw.com/en/clearing-cambodias-leftover-land-mines... According to that last article a large number of them were planted along Cambodia's western border by the Vietnamese to keep the Khmer Rouge at bay. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K5_Plan
> According to that last article a large number of them were planted along Cambodia's western border by the Vietnamese to keep the Khmer Rouge at bay.
It seems odd that the Vietnamese would expend much effort to keep the Khmer Rouge out of Thailand. Do you mean Vietnam's western border/Cambodia's eastern border?
No, the border between Cambodia and Thailand. And they were trying to keep the Khmer Rouge in Thailand, at least the members they couldn't kill.
For various reasons--human compassion, border control, protection of Vietnamese ethnic groups, geopolitical maneuvering, etc--Vietnam invaded Cambodia to put an end to the violent Khmer Rouge regime, installed a friendly government, and ended up in a protracted guerilla war w/ the Khmer Rouge, who would stage attacks from Thailand. In a way I guess it was sort of Vietnam's Vietnam.
It's been awhile since I read the political history, but IIRC Thailand tolerated the Khmer Rouge retreating into and camping along its border because Thailand and Vietnam were (and remain?) regional power rivals. They avoided direct conflict but were happy to poke a stick in the other's eye.
> For various reasons...
Yeah the loco Khmer Rouge repeatedly attacked Vietnam.
From context, I'm guessing they wanted to keep the Khmer Rouge out of Thailand for the same reasons that led the French to mine Algeria's borders with Maroc and Tunisia.
Vietnam was invading Cambodia, and trying to weed out the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge did what an inferior force does in this situation, and fought a guerilla war.
Thanks for posting this link, I had no idea the relationship between the covert war in Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge.
After working with rats for two years I came to the conclusion that they're basically cats that drew the shortest end of the cute stick. They more intelligent than people think and they have about the same variance in personality as traditional pets like cats/dogs.
but rats are really cute. You just don't get to see a nicely cared for one all that often compared to cats.
I agree when they're well-groomed and not cranky they're very cute. They love to purr if you scoop them, lol.
If only they lived longer.
Cats live much longer than rats however.
Yeah, rat cancer is no joke.
But at least we have thousands of different of cures for it!
None of which sadly make it into routine vet practice.
I’m keeping rats of over 5 years now, and even the treatment options at one of the most experienced rat vets in the area feel just above medieval.
There are basically 5 medications that are tried (NSAIDs, antibiotics, bronchiodialators and diuretics, cortisol) based on the presumed diagnosis, and easily located tumors can be operated on (depending on the skill of the vet).
Our vet aptly described the state of the art in veterinary care for rats as knowing the LD50 dose of all medications for rats, but there being nearly no literature or experience on therapeutic doses. Through trial and error vets have developed therapeutic protocols for rats over the last decades, but the speed it’s been going at is slow and availability of medicine in the right dosages scarce (rats are tiny after all). Just now we’re going through treatment of a respiratory issue where the medicine of choice is no longer being produced, and our main option after the vet uses up her remaining 2 vials is to start experimenting with dosing for a yet unknown in rats (aside from LD50) replacement medicine.
For what it’s worth, the rats in this article are gambian pouched rats which have life expectancies of around 5-7 years, vs. 1.5 - 2.5 years for domestic fancy rats.
"We really trust our rats, because very often after clearing a minefield, our teams will play a game of soccer on the cleared field to assure the quality of our work," he said.
Wow. That's dedication.
I don't even think that's necessary to reassure the local population. Often the area they're de-mining is being actively used by locals who have no other choice.
As a side note, biologically this is not a rat, but a pouched mouse.
Still, as a rat dad this makes me feel happy. Another example as animals help to unfuck human errors
Finally somebody noticed this. This is not a lab rat. Is a tropical rainforest species of pouched rat. Much bigger and totally different creatures in many aspects. Is like calling rabbit to a hare, or bison to a cow.
Walking around and exploring until finding food is not "forced labor", is what rodents do all the time in the wild. They are inquisitive mammals by nature. I'm 100% sure that the rat enjoy finding mines (= fruit) in the same way as we enjoy hitting bricks in supermario games. Not to mention being safe from predators at night, the veterinary healthcare services, being cleaned from nasty parasites, the food, water and the human company in an animal that is more or less social by nature. It seems a very good deal for the animal.
Trying to claim "animal cruelty!" here is a total nonsense.
APOPO (the association behind this initiative) lets you "adopt" a rat: in exchange for money they give you regular information on what and how it is doing.
This sounded like a great gift so I did that for a friend but, sadly, passed the "thank you for adopting your rat, here are some information about him", he received no more information.
The "Sponsor a ____" is a marketing tactic, the end result is the same as setting up a regular monthly donation, it all goes into the same pot, unless it's marked for a specific cause or appeal.
However, there is a way to do this right. I donate to the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, an elephant conservation region in Kenya. You can sponsor an orphan baby elephant, and they send you monthly updates on the elephant's growth, role in the herd (Bull, matriarch, mini-matriarch, etc), and you can follow their progress as they are rehabilitated and released into the wild.
If you just take the money and run, that sours people on giving monthly.
I don’t understand. It’s a marketing tactic except for this place you’re doing this exact thing with?
Yes, because by framing the donation as supporting something specific, such as the care of a specific endangered animal, makes people feel more connected to the cause. It is disclosed that the money is still ultimately going into a bigger pot that supports the entire organization.
However, donors can still see the impact of their gift if the digital team is diligent about providing updates for the particular animal being cared for. Sheldrick Trust does this by being highly active on social media with daily videos showing feeding times for the ophans, while the caretakers talk about individual elephants and how they're health and social skills are developing inside the herd.
My Mum does the same with some donkey/dog charities.
They are smaller in scope but they are also way more involved with keeping people in touch with what is happening - it's good because she can see where the money is been used pretty clearly.
They also do a thing where they run a raffle where the winner gets to name the new foal/a puppy - which is a neat idea.
Hmm, I "adopted" one for a couple of years and I would get regular updates - once they passed training, once they were active etc. I think it was every month or two.
Makes you wonder whether you could train birds by burying peanuts over fake mines and then look for where they are scratching for them.
Less intelligent birds are best, because smarter birds like crows would only scratch at some of the mines to attract people intending to dispose of them, only to watch them trigger buried ones in their path. It's something a cat would do as well.
You need to have confidence that a piece of land is cleared. If a trained bird does not scratch a surface, does it give you enough confidence to play football on it?
As a rat, I entirely approve of this story.
The rat having informed consent about what this work entails (not possible, given a rat's limited ability to understand what land mines are)
In good faith, the rat having been given many alternatives as to what it wishes to do, without coercion
Enjoy doing a task, while still enjoying something else more.
Sounds to me like this rat had a pretty good time eating bananas.
Thank you to all the heroic commenters here. Now I have a beautiful, concrete example of a "storm in a teacup".
That rat is a mensch.
Magawa is set to spend the rest of his days living in the engine compartment of my car.