關於 scientific name common name ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

請傳給你認識的外國朋友

（繼續發酵！英文翻譯上線！幫手推！）🔥 有外媒相繼報道了關於袁國勇、龍振邦兩位教授疑似因壓力而撤回《明報》專欄文章一事，有手足更花了時間，把文章譯作英文。西方社會是需要知道真相的，請廣傳給在外國的朋友：

[On Mar 18 2020, Professor David Lung at the University of Hong Kong and his colleague Professor Yuen Kwok-yung, a world-renowned expert in microbiology and infectious diseases, withdrew their op-ed in the Chinese-language newspaper Ming Pao, in which they elucidated the origin and naming of the Wuhan Coronavirus, and criticized "inferior Chinese culture" for being the origin of the present pandemic. This led to allegations that the Chinese and Hong Kong governments are covering up the truth and suppressing academic freedom. Below is an English translation of this op-ed. Please spread the word and expose the truth!]

Outbreak in Wuhan shows that lessons from seventeen years ago are forgotten - David Lung and Yuen Kwok-yung, University of Hong Kong [translated from Chinese]

The novel coronavirus outbreak began in Wuhan in Winter 2019, and engulfed the entire province of Hubei by Spring 2020; the number of cases in China grew to over 80,000, with at least 3,000 deaths. The outbreak in China slowed down only after a month-long lockdown, which has failed to curtail the spread of the disease overseas by March 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) was sluggish in response and failed to declare this a pandemic in a timely fashion. Shortage of relevant measures and protective gear around the world contributed to the global outbreak. Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and the Republic of China have so far been spared of the pandemic, though cases linked to overseas travel have yet to cease.

This pandemic is caused by a coronavirus, thus named because of its shape. From 2015 onwards, the WHO has ceased to name diseases using monikers for people, places, animals, food, culture, or occupations. As such, they labeled the disease using the year of the outbreak; thus the designation COVID-19. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) used viral genome sequencing as the sole criterion for the naming of viruses; because the similarity between the genetic sequences of the SARS coronavirus and the present novel coronavirus, which therefore is not truly "novel", the ICTV designated the novel coronavirus as "SARS-CoV-2.0". Media organizations and the public call this the Wuhan Coronavirus or the Wuhan Pneumonia; this is perfectly fine because of its simplicity.

There has been heated debate over the naming of the pandemic. As a matter of fact, the disease is named by the WHO and the virus is named by the ICTV; the common name is purely a customary matter and suffices to serves it purpose as long as it is simple and clear. The official names of COVID-19 for the disease, or SARS-CoV-2 for the virus, must be used in scientific and academic discourse. However, the simplicity of the popular designations "Wuhan Coronavirus" and "Wuhan Pneumonia" are far more conducive to daily communication and conversations in the media.

The 2020 pandemic originated in Wuhan

Roughly 75% of novel diseases can be traced to wild animals; the ancestral virus from which several mammalian coronaviruses descend can be traced to bats or birds, both of which can fly over a distance of several thousands of kilometers to the location of first discovery of the virus. As such, the nomenclature of viruses may utilize the name of the location of discovery. The most accurate and objective means to identify the origin of the virus is to isolate the virus from the animal host. However, the Huanan Seafood Market had been cleared, and live wild animals vacated, by the time researchers had arrived for live samples. Consequently, the identity of the natural and intermediate hosts of the coronavirus is unclear. According to local personnel, the wild games in the Huanan Seafood Market are shipped and smuggled from various locations in China, Southeast Asia, and Africa; it remains impossible to identify the ancestry of the Wuhan Coronavirus.

Viral genome sequencing shows a 96% similarity between the Wuhan Coronavirus and the viral strain RaTG13 found in bats, lending credence to the belief that the RaTG13 strain is the ancestral virus for the Wuhan Coronavirus. This viral strain can be isolated from the bat species Rhinolophus sinicus found in Yunnan, China; thus bats are believed to be the natural host to the Wuhan Coronavirus. Epidemiological studies show definitively that the Huanan Seafood Market was the amplification epicenter, where the transmission of the virus from the natural host to the intermediate host likely occurred, before a mutation to a form that can adapt to the human body, followed by human-to-human transmission.

The identity of the intermediate host remains unclear; viral genome sequencing, however, reveals a 90% similarity between the spike receptor-binding domain of the Wuhan Coronavirus and of the coronavirus strain found in pangolins. While uncertainties remain for us to unambiguously identify the pangolin as the intermediate host, it is extremely likely that the pangolin coronavirus strain donated the spike receptor-binding domain genetic sequence, or even the entire gene section, to the bat coronavirus strain, culminating in the novel coronavirus upon DNA shuffling.

Wild animal market: the origin of numerous viruses

The SARS outbreak in 2003 can be traced to Heyuan prior to engulfing Guangdong and ravaging Hong Kong. The SARS Coronavirus was found in the masked palm civet; China has subsequently outlawed the sales of live wild animals. Seventeen years later, wild animal markets have instead grown unabashed, in flagrant violation of the law. The Chinese people have forgotten the lessons of SARS in their entirety. The glaring appearance of live wild animal markets in city centers, and the egregious acts of selling, cooking, and eating these wild animals, constitute a stunning and blatant disregard for the laws. The feces of these wild animals carry large concentrations of bacteria and viruses; the crowded set-up, the poor hygiene, and the proximity of different animal species are extremely conducive to DNA shuffling and genetic mutations. As such, these markets need to be banned outright.

Remodeling of markets is key to the prevention of epidemics. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments must promptly improve the set-up of markets by enhancing ventilation and getting rid of rats and pests. Before the elimination of all live poultry markets becomes a reality, animal feces found in these markets must be handled properly to lower the chances of genetic shuffling between viruses.

Internet conspiracies of an U.S. origin of the virus is not supported by facts, and only serves to mislead the public. The dissemination of conspiracy theories needs to stop. Transparency is first and foremost in the fight against an epidemic; we need cool heads and rational analysis in place of hearsay and falsehood. The failure to close all live wild animal markets post-SARS was a colossal mistake; to win the battle over the pandemic, we must face reality, and not repeat the same mistakes while leaving the blame upon others. The Wuhan Coronavirus is a product of inferior Chinese culture -\-\ the culture of recklessly catching and eating wild animals, and treating animals inhumanely, with an utter disrespect and disregard of lives. This inferior culture of the Chinese people -\-\ specifically the consumption of wild animals to satiate themselves -\-\ is the true origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus. If these habits and attitudes remain in place, SARS 3.0 will certainly happen in a matter of a decade or so.

以上翻譯來自：
一個窮科學家移民美國的夢幻故事

外媒報道：
https://www.nytimes.com/…/19reuters-health-coronavirus-hong…

https://www.nasdaq.com/…/adviser-to-hong-kong-on-coronaviru…

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

朋友Billy郊遊，目睹這件日光日白的屠殺事件；告訴我後，我連日不安。

教育界的朋友，我想問問，這是現時香港中學課程的一部分嗎？我記得中學時的生物課field trip，我們只是到紅樹林看看小動物，不需殺生。

還有，把野外的小動物放進75%酒精含量的液體，然後拿他們回去課室研究，真的有這個必要嗎？這是為科學和教育的犧牲，還是學界集體大屠殺呢？如果所有學校都是這樣做，為甚麼文中的老師不願透露學校的名字呢？請細心閱讀，一起想一想...

By Billy:
---------------------------------------------
Last Friday on 18 April 2014, at around 4:45PM, I was at Turtle Cove Beach with two companions. We walked along the tidal rock pools which are home to many small marine creatures. There we saw a group of around 40 teenagers supervised by one adult. They were catching fish, snails, sea cucumbers, crabs and other marine life and putting them in small transparent bottles. What they did next troubled me - they emptied the bottles of water and poured in another clear liquid from a larger container. Taking a closer look we saw that the larger container was labelled 75% alcohol - these animals were being doused with it, alive. We approached the adult and asked him why they were doing this. He said that they were on a science field trip and that the kids were taking specimens for ‘further examination’. I asked him if it was necessary and, in any case, why it was necessary to kill them in such an inhumane and cruel manner. He responded that the students had taken ‘only a few’ specimens and that it was for ‘scientific and educational purposes’. I asked one of his students the name of their school and he told me it was Lau Wong Fat, a secondary school in Tai Kok Tsui (http://www.lwfss.edu.hk/).

While I understand that science and education are important I can’t help but feel there is something wrong here. What further insight can these students gain by killing animals that they couldn’t by catching, observing, photographing, releasing and then googling them? Even if this can be justified, I’m not sure the cruel manner in which they killed their specimens can be. Of course scientific knowledge is important but should a high school teacher really be teaching kids to do this sort of thing? I think there is a larger lesson here - that all life, whether large or small, common or exotic, should be treated with respect. This teacher seems to have missed this point.
(4 photos)

Official Kento Bento Merch: https://standard.tv/kentobento
Patreon Video: The Curious Case of Neoteny in 'Asian Eyes': https://patreon.com/kentobento

Twitter: https://twitter.com/kentobento2015
Facebook: https://facebook.com/kentobento2015
Business Inquiries: kentobento@standard.tv

Other videos you may like:
These Events Will Happen in Asia in 2020: https://youtu.be/qrataK7FxRA
This Is The Greatest Bank Heist in Japanese History: https://youtu.be/gbeN-2ErxBw
What Kind of 'Asian Eyes' Do You Have? (Test Yourself): https://youtu.be/wsNaBwrL9hg
10 REASONS Why Asians Don't Get FAT: https://youtu.be/xIqJR6xfMro
Why Asians Are Yellow-Skinned: https://youtu.be/rVcNy7bJyww
'Asian Eyes' Are More Common Than You Think: https://youtu.be/WxTnVWgOGLc

EastMeetEast Dating App: https://EastMeetEast.com/kentobento

Music:
Funky Element by Bensound
In Case You Forgot by Otis McDonald
Backed Vibes Rollin at 5 by Kevin Macloed
Not for Nothing by Otis McDonald

Channel Description:
We do videos on intriguing & thought-provoking Asiany topics, including stereotypes, history, culture & geography.

Credits:
Researcher/Writer/Narrator/Video Editor: Kento Bento
Official Cheerleader: Nina Bento

————————————————————————————————————————

[WHY ASIANS ARE 'CUTER' (SCIENTIFIC BREAKDOWN)]

So, here’s a statement: ‘Asians are cuter’.

If you were offended by that, this video is probably not what you think. Everyone has their own opinions of what constitutes as attractive.

But I’m not necessarily talking about ‘attractiveness’ here; I’m talking about ‘cuteness’. Cuteness is a term describing a type of attractiveness commonly associated with youth and appearance. It’s also a scientific concept. So when I say ‘Asians are cuter’, well, they arguably are; and that’s including males, not just females.

Now, compared to adults, common features for infants across all ethnic groups include larger heads, flatter faces, reduction of the brow ridge, hairlessness, thinner bones, reduced muscle mass, smaller physical size, shorter arms, shorter legs, just to name a few - and of course this is largely why people find babies cute. If they didn’t have these features and proportions, they’d more so resemble miniature adults and that’s kind of creepy.

The video covers:
- Neoteny in East Asians
- How retention of neotenous, childlike traits relate to ethnicity
- Neoteny in humans in general
- Sexual attraction to neotenous traits
- Asian fever vs Cuteness fever
- Neotenous features vs Non-neotenous features
- Gene Mutations that gave East Asians their distinctive appearance
- Neoteny's role in sexual selection
- Are small and slanted stereotypical 'Asian Eyes' neotenous?
- Japan's kawaii culture (South Korea & China as well)
- Psychological neoteny
- Logan Paul's immature antics
- & more!

The Pacific geoduck, scientific name Panopea generosa, is a species of very large, edible saltwater clam in the family Hiatellidae. The common name is derived from a Lushootseed (Nisqually) word gʷídəq.

The geoduck is native to the west coast of North America. The shell of the clam ranges from 15 centimetres (5.9 in) to over 20 centimetres (7.9 in) in length, but the extremely long siphons make the clam itself much longer than this: the "neck" or siphons alone can be 1 metre (3.3 ft) in length. The geoduck is the largest burrowing clam in the world. It is also one of the longest-living animals of any type, with a lifespan of up to 140 years; the oldest has been recorded at 168 years old.

The large, meaty siphon is prized for its savory flavor and crunchy texture. Geoduck is regarded by some as an aphrodisiac because of its phallic shape. It is very popular in China, where it is considered a delicacy, mostly eaten cooked in a fondue-style Chinese hot pot. In Korean cuisine, geoducks are eaten raw with spicy chili sauce, sautéed, or in soups and stews. In Japan, geoduck is prepared as raw sashimi, dipped in soy sauce and wasabi. On Japanese menus in cheaper sushi restaurants, geoduck is sometimes substituted for Tresus keenae, a species of horse clam, and labeled mirugai or mirukuigai. It is considered to have a texture similar to an ark shell (known in Japanese as akagai). Mirugai is sometimes translated into English as "giant clam", and it is distinguished from himejako sushi, which is made from Tridacna gigas.