Captivity [Extra Quality]
Captivity, or being held captive, is a state wherein humans or other animals are confined to a particular space and prevented from leaving or moving freely. An example in humans is imprisonment. Prisoners of war are usually held in captivity by a government hostile to their own. Animals are held in captivity in zoos, and often as pets and as livestock.
Captivity
In some wars, such as the First World War, the conditions of captivity were separated between camps for prisoners of war, and those for civilian internment.[13] Some wars have seen mass wartime imprisonment. In addition to enemy military personnel, the Nazi regime imprisoned large numbers of private citizens based on their ethnicity, culture, or political views, as part of the regime's efforts to impose a vision of ethnic purity. Many millions were killed, or died of starvation or disease.[b][15][additional citation(s) needed] In the United States, citizens of Japanese descent were imprisoned out of fear that their loyalty would be to the Japanese enemy.[16][17]
Others have examined economic captivity as it related to varying levels of inequality in developed societies. For example, George P. Smith II and Matthew Saunig examined the concept of economic captivity as it related to housing discrimination.[24]
The definition of false imprisonment also goes beyond kidnapping and hostage taking situations, to include circumstances under which a person is held captive under a fraudulent assertion of authority. For example, if a police officer were to detain a person in their patrol car for a short period of time without a legally justifiable reason, that brief captivity would still constitute false imprisonment.
Captivity "benefits the captor, and in almost all cases, harms the captive".[4] The degree to which captivity affects animals is dictated in large part by whether they were born in wild and then captured, or born in captivity: "The problem of the animal bred in captivity is in one respect obviously simpler than that of one born wild; the abrupt, decisive change from freedom to captivity is absent. No rupture with an existing environment, entailing laborious re-creation of a fresh One, arises".[29]
Captivity, and efforts to endure or escape it, are a popular theme in literature. The captivity narrative is a genre of stories about people being captured by "uncivilized" enemies. A famous example is the Babylonian captivity of Judah, as described in the Bible. Attempts to escape from prison are a popular genre in prison films and prisoner-of-war films, with films in the genre often depicting the captive as a heroic figure, often an innocent person wrongly convicted and seeking to escape the evil or abuses of the captors.[31] For example, the films are said to perpetuate "a common misperception that most correctional officers are abusive", and that prisoners are "violent and beyond redemption".[31]
This work complicates interpretations of canonical authors such as Aphra Behn, Richard Steele, and Eliza Haywood and asserts the importance of authors such as Penelope Aubin and Edward Kimber. Drawing on the popular press, unpublished personal correspondence, and archival documents, Catherine Ingrassia provides a rich cultural description that situates literary texts from a range of genres within the material world of captivity. Ultimately, the book calls for a reevaluation of how literary texts that code a heretofore undiscussed connection to the slave trade or other types of captivity are understood.
As wild environments are often inhospitable, many species have to be captive-bred to save them from extinction. In captivity, species adapt genetically to the captive environment and these genetic adaptations are overwhelmingly deleterious when populations are returned to wild environments. I review empirical evidence on (i) the genetic basis of adaptive changes in captivity, (ii) factors affecting the extent of genetic adaptation to captivity, and (iii) means for minimizing its deleterious impacts. Genetic adaptation to captivity is primarily due to rare alleles that in the wild were deleterious and partially recessive. The extent of adaptation to captivity depends upon selection intensity, genetic diversity, effective population size and number of generation in captivity, as predicted by quantitative genetic theory. Minimizing generations in captivity provides a highly effective means for minimizing genetic adaptation to captivity, but is not a practical option for most animal species. Population fragmentation and crossing replicate captive populations provide practical means for minimizing the deleterious effects of genetic adaptation to captivity upon populations reintroduced into the wild. Surprisingly, equalization of family sizes reduces the rate of genetic adaptation, but not the deleterious impacts upon reintroduced populations. Genetic adaptation to captivity is expected to have major effects on reintroduction success for species that have spent many generations in captivity. This issue deserves a much higher priority than it is currently receiving.
Primate tool use in the wild and in captivity. W, behaviour observed only in the wild; C, behaviour observed only in captivity; W C, behaviour observed in both settings. Data and tool-use categories from [3].
The first factor to consider here is evidence for population interaction. We do not yet know the population size or density of H. floresiensis, although it has been suggested that population sizes may have increased during wetter periods on the island [79]. A testable hypothesis based on the captivity bias effect is therefore that such periods will show increased tool diversity and frequency on Flores, irrespective of whether foraging activities changed during the same periods. Homo floresiensis remains have been found in a single site; however, the species must have been more widespread on Flores (which is a reasonably large island at 13 500 km2) to maintain continuity over at least tens and potentially hundreds of thousands of years, including periods with very little evidence of occupation at Liang Bua. This population also survived the Toba volcanic super-eruption around 74 000 years ago on nearby Sumatra [98], and in fact, the highest concentrations of stone tools at Liang Bua are found immediately following that event [79]. Studies of endemic primates on islands in Southeast Asia and elsewhere have shown that these populations typically have high population densities relative to mainland groups owing to release from interspecific competition [99,100], and there is no reason to assume H. floresiensis would have differed from this pattern. It is a reasonable hypothesis therefore that hominin encounter and interaction rates would have been higher on Flores than over a similarly sized area of mainland. This hypothesis includes encounters with artefacts left by other H. floresiensis individuals [101], possibly further increased through the circumscribed nature of island living. The likely cooperation necessary for hunting and transporting large or dangerous prey such as Stegodon and Komodo dragons [102] may have acted as an additional spur to bring individuals together.
Second, is there evidence for contact with other tool-using hominins, especially H. sapiens? Surrounding currents make Flores a difficult island to reach [77], and the lithic sequence shows little change over time, so on current data, the direct influence of other hominins on H. floresiensis tool use and manufacture is improbable. Nevertheless, the site's lithic team raised the possibility that continuities in stone technology before and after the disappearance of H. floresiensis at Liang Bua (near the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary) resulted from incoming H. sapiens groups incorporating techniques from H. floresiensis [87]. If this suggestion is supported by further data, then the direction of information transmission from the resident species to the new arrivals would be as expected under the captivity bias effect, where it is resident population size and interconnectedness rather than cognitive ability that determines whether technological attributes are maintained.
Further, not every instance of increased free time and observation opportunity will automatically result in wholesale changes to toolkits, and the averaged picture of hominin technological evolution is actually one of prolonged periods of stasis (especially before the Middle Pleistocene). The key is to understand why change happens when it does, and here the animal tool-use record is useful in that it demonstrates that variations in technology characteristically involve the use of individual tools in sequence, and the addition of new tool forms and materials to the repertoire (i.e. increases in diversity), rather than cumulative modification of existing forms. The few possible examples of cumulative change in animal tools, such as the brush-tipped termite fishing probes made by Goualougo chimpanzees [108], are important but very rare exceptions. Where changes are observed in hominin behaviours that may be expected to influence tool use, such as ranging or diet, without accompanying changes in stone tool forms, we may therefore hypothesise that either (i) additional (non-lithic) tools were being incorporated into the toolkit, or (ii) existing tools were being sequentially combined for greater energy returns or to open up new extraction niches. Further, the captivity bias effect suggests that hominin groups, even if members of the same species, will show widely varying levels of tool use as a result of both cultural and stochastic processes [33]. Cognition is irrelevant to these processes. 041b061a72