It's a mistake to think animals are so different from us. They don't all have the same nuanced emotions, for instance cats seem to lack guilt, they're not nearly as wired to be social, but dogs, being pack animals have it in abundance.
Exactly. We and gorillas share much more behavior than most realize. Everything from desire for friendship and love to desire for social status and achievement work pretty much EXACTLY the same. A book which made me realize this is "Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World". Title seems a bit unrelated to this topic, but this book basically shows that pretty much all our motivations are inherited from our great ape ancestors (and are shared by chimps – out closest living specie in terms of behavior).
These are just hints to similar behaviour, _no definite proof_ is available and impossible to obtain.
Which is why behavioural biologists don't even go down that path of "humanizing" animals - all they do is link certain behaviour to certain actions (famous example: anal-sniffing as sexual behaviour in guinea-pigs or dogs). Looking at animals through the "human glass" can lead to some insights, but can certainly lead to terribly wrong results, too:
It's like overfitting a statistical model, you'll get noise where you expect results.
Could some animals have some richer emotions which we don't have? For example, some animals with Tetrachromacy can have a reacher color space than us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy
Many birds can see ultraviolet, it's fairly common since it seems to allow them to differentiate flowers the same way many insects do. Some flowers look completely different in the UV spectrum (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473897/A-bees...). This is why it's important that many types of pet birds have some natural daylight.
As for emotions, that's a harder thing to prove. Dolphins are intelligent enough they should be classified as sentient non-human persons according to more progressive scientists. They have the richest range of emotions we've seen outside of chimpanzees, and to be honest, chimpanzees are so very nearly human it's quite amazing. They don't seem to lack any faculties that humans have, but some of their emotions are just less pronounced or developed.
Sometimes it seems the only reason that chimpanzees aren't affected more emotionally is that they don't understand the implications of what's happening. It's just ignorance more than a lack of emotion.
What might exist in the way of emotions humans don't have is things that are bio-chemical. Nature has a way of "rewarding" behaviors that are productive with a positive feeling. Do cuttlefish feel something other than love when doing their dances? What does an octopus, which has a nervous system entirely unlike a mammal or fish, feel when going about their day?
I read "progressive" as an ethical statement. Unless you can demonstrate a "scientific default" ethical system that all scientists should adhere to, this seems like valid distinction
Progressive means the scientists advocate reform or "new, liberal ideas". All of which is fine in their private capacity, but if these scientists are influenced in their scientific output by being progressive then they're not doing their job.
Many animals, e.g. tropical fish, have a four-dimensional color perception, compared to our three-dimensional one; thus making them easily distinguish colors that appear identical to us.
Some animals can also see polarised light
http://larouchepac.com/node/17209
Mantis shrimp can see the four linear and two circular polarization so the complete polarization picture. Oh and they have 12 color components. Oh and trinocular vision
"cats seem to lack guilt, they're not nearly as wired to be social"
Our Burmese cats actually do seem to be a bit guilty after they do something bad, also they are very social. Having said that, Burmese cats do have a reputation for being amongst the most dog-like of cat breeds.
I would say it is a mistake to assume either way without good reason. In some respect humans are very much like other species, and in other respects very unlike those same species. When we are around animals we inevitably feel a closeness that can cloud our judgement and make us assume motives that may or may not be there. It is bad science to assume the motives are what we feel they must be.
I think what he meant is the "humanizing" and a bit cliché language of that article -
you can't say that animals are "impassionate" about anything because you have no clue how they actually think, or what they think, or what their motivations are.
Indeed, but they cry and mourn like humans... Do you really know what your fellow humans think and what their motivations are? The thing that separates us is structured language. I tend to trust the display of emotions more than a long discourse.
I'd also like to point that in the case of great apes and some other mammalians, the brain structure is not very different than a human brain. We can reasonably expect that a similar emotional state is acheived when a similar external display is observed. I mean that for instance, when they cry, we can assume that they are sad, because their brain is quite similar to ours.
Counter-example to show that your assumptions about animal behaviour plus human emotions can turn out horribly wrong:
You'd think that the act of "smiling" (twisting the corners of your mouths while baring your teeth) conveys a state of happiness, like it works in humans. You'd see a monkey "smile" and think: That monkey is happy.
But in most other primates, the act of "smiling" is an act that's likely to be followed by violence, so it's actually seen as a threat. So if you're in the wild, see a monkey smile and think "oh he's happy, I'd better smile back" he might assume you're "threatening back" and attack you.
I agree that emotions reading of primates can turn wrong when taken out of context (even the reading of human facial expression can be confusing out of context). But in context, you'll quickly (and sometimes painfully) learn the meaning of their facial expressions, and other affective displays.
Also, tears are not necessary to cry. In your source, scientists prefer to conservatively talk about "distress vocalizations" instead of crying. But that's necessary because they are so similar in the first place! That's my point: they express their distress! In everyday life (not writing a paper), I'd just say that "this ape is crying because her baby died". Heck, even my dog, I'd say that he's crying. I don't care that there are no tears. They have a mammalian limbic system, and the rewards it contextualizes have to be evolutionarily sensible!
Btw, and I know that's not a strong argument, but my eyes don't produce tears (following some medication). Does it downgrade my crying into a distress vocalization? If not, is it because you think that you know how I am feeling? How I am thinking? really? How do you know that?
PS: as a_bonobo yourself, you know that what I say makes sense ;).
Passion = “any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling”. It’s definitely possible to witness powerful emotions in non-human animals. Nothing inherently human about it.
How do you know that animals have emotions, or feelings? How do you know that they have something similar, or nothing like that?
Just because you use your knowledge of human emotions on your dog's behaviour doesn't mean that your dog is capable of fear (it's likely, but absolutely impossible to prove).
Can you back up that claim? It sounds like an argument based on group selection theory. Animals may have a desire to help out those that are genetically related to them. But to say they want to save any and all members of their own kind violates the thesis of Darwin's Selfish Gene.
You are right, the altruistic behavior is not indiscriminately directed to any member of the same specie. In fact, some within the grate ape family had developed a behavior to purposefully attack members of of the same "kind" in order to gain more resources for themselves. Chimpanzees and humans are two examples who exhibit this behavior (but not gorillas I believe). However, desire to help members of close kin is pretty universal.
Either way, this distinction is irrelevant. What I was trying to say was simply that you shouldn't assume that human emotions and motivations are very special. We won the genetic lottery by getting a lucky combination of traits which allowed us build civilization. Our ability to communicate using language and art seems to be our most distinguishing feature. But there's not much special about our emotions.
I wouldn't say it violates the premise of The Selfish Gene. The question is, can the animal easily distinguish between members of its somewhat close kin and one it isn't closely related to? Without this ability, any animal that looks similar enough would be subject to behavior attributed to kin-altruism. For a lot of animals in the wild I would wager that they lack the ability to discriminate between close and distant kin.
I agree, but the problem I think others are having is your use of the word "human". You really mean a subset of humans: the issue isn't so much that the gorillas are exhibiting human-like behavior but that the article writer is ascribing non-universal motivations to their behavior.
I can't help but read this with a pinch of salt. Yes, it's fascinating that these gorillas have learned this new behavior and are passing it down. And I think almost everyone wants to see endangered species protected. Yet I can't help but feel there is something quite pretentious about all this. We sit here cheering on the destruction of these traps, when in all likely-hood there are people who depend on them for sustenance. And really it's rather disingenuous to call the people setting these traps "poachers". Normally when you think of poachers you think of thuggish killers only in it for a profit. But even in this article, which to me appears quite biased, they admit that the traps are set by local bush-meat hunters. What they do might technically be illegal (though those laws likely only exist because of Western pressure), but to them it's just a way of life. I know Diane Fossey had trouble with the locals when she first showed up and started dismantling traps. I seem to remember from an Adam Curtis documentary that they even killed a couple gorillas just to spite her. But I don't think they have a complete disregard for the natural world that surrounds them. They just hold their own survival/advancement in higher regard. And who are we to really judge that, given that most Western affluence came at the expense of vast ecological destruction.
And imagine what it must be like for these people to see some foreigners come in and spend tons of money and energy on saving gorillas and basically treat you as the enemy. I'd probably be thinking, why the hell aren't they helping me instead, is my life worth less than a gorillas to them?
I don't have any great answers to all this. Like everything there is a lot of gray area to this story. But hopefully while we cheer on the survival of the gorillas, we should also spare a thought for the survival of the local humans as well. This article certainly didn't. In fact it pretty much cast them as the villains who were heroically thwarted by a couple brave young gorillas.
> I can't help but read this with a pinch of salt. Yes, it's fascinating that these gorillas have learned this new behavior and are passing it down. And I think almost everyone wants to see endangered species protected. Yet I can't help but feel there is something quite pretentious about all this. We sit here cheering on the destruction of these traps, when in all likely-hood there are people who depend on them for sustenance. And really it's rather disingenuous to call the people setting these traps "poachers". Normally when you think of poachers you think of thuggish killers only in it for a profit. But even in this article, which to me appears quite biased, they admit that the traps are set by local bush-meat hunters. What they do might technically be illegal (though those laws likely only exist because of Western pressure), but to them it's just a way of life. I know Diane Fossey had trouble with the locals when she first showed up and started dismantling traps. I seem to remember from an Adam Curtis documentary that they even killed a couple gorillas just to spite her. But I don't think they have a complete disregard for the natural world that surrounds them. They just hold their own survival/advancement in higher regard. And who are we to really judge that, given that most Western affluence came at the expense of vast ecological destruction.
Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences. Having grown up in Africa, let me hasten to assure you that there are enough Africans who care a lot about making sure that their beautiful flora and fauna is protected for future generations. Simultaneously it is Human nature that there will be people who either out of desperation or malice wish to kill and plunder wildlife. I don't buy the way of life argument when one gets to use sophisticated weaponry (guns may or may not be used in this case but there are enough cases where guns are used to wipe out wildlife) to plunder the wealth of the country. I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.
> And imagine what it must be like for these people to see some foreigners come in and spend tons of money and energy on saving gorillas and basically treat you as the enemy. I'd probably be thinking, why the hell aren't they helping me instead, is my life worth less than a gorillas to them?
> But hopefully while we cheer on the survival of the gorillas, we should also spare a thought for the survival of the local humans as well. This article certainly didn't. In fact it pretty much cast them as the villains who were heroically thwarted by a couple brave young gorillas.
You are arguing a false dichotomy here. Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid".
I think the point is that the traps are not intended to catch gorillas. Young gorillas sometimes get caught in them and die. It's not the fault of these people hunting bush-meat that gorillas are endangered. If it hadn't been for westerners coming over for generations and hunting gorillas to near the point of extinction, the few gorillas that accidentally get caught in these traps and die wouldn't be threatening the survival of the species. Unfortunately, that is the case, and in our efforts to undo the damage that was caused to the gorillas, we end up hurting people who are just trying to catch something to eat.
He is reacting to the implied (though I didn't think it was very strong) characterization of local hunters as poachers. They're hunting to eat and using (presumably) the same type of traps that they're used for generations. That fact makes gph feel some sympathy or solidarity with them and I think a lot of people agree.
I'm absolutely not a relativist. That said this is the extreme example were not looking at things relativistically at all is absurd. You're expecting people who haven't changed their lifestyle and environment in recent generations and live off the land to assign similar values to animal conservation as you do.
That is not too far from telling a remote indonesian tribeswoman to cover her breasts because she's been immorally immodest.
I agree with most of what you said but I'd like to add a couple follow-up comments.
>Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences.
I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.
>I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.
Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.
Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.
>Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid"
Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.
But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.
> I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.
It is complicated. Rwanda is still undeveloped and there are a lot of people who do depend on the land for subsistence. Having said that, the bushmeat issue has gone beyond subsistence farming, there is a systematic plundering of Gorilla families going on (most probably with the connivance of government forces) where the gorilla mothers are taken for bushmeat and the young ones are taken to become pets.
> Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your ethical standards. The reason I was pointing out that this is a false dichotomy is that it is not as if people are pouring all money into conservation at the cost of helping the local population. Money, believe me, is not the issue with Africa.
> Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.
I am rather unsympathetic to this viewpoint. Yes, admittedly regional issues 60 + years ago were exacerbated by colonial forces. I frankly think it is time to move on and start treating people like adults and expect them to grow up and solve their problems the mature way. We see the same issues in South Asia where people are engaging in Nuclear brinksmanship over a silly piece of scrap land.
> Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.
I think the "locals" are not a homogenous demographic. Sure there are starving people out there who are trying to get their next meal through hunting in forests. There also are several hungry armies using the forests as their pantry. We also have the "noble savage" (Pygmies) who spend most of the time in the forests and also get discriminated against (by fellow Africans, I might add). Another demographic is a group of poachers who systematically use sophisticated technology to hunt down endangered animals and transport the resultant products to markets in Asia. I think some of these groups definitely deserve sympathy, the others I could care zero fucks about. Also the discussion we are having is due to the complicated nature of the issue: It is extremely hard to try to get a macro perspective broadcast to the lowest common denominator (the Facebook commenter) in a way that easily understandable. Unfortunately, we kind of need to break it down so that conservationists can get money to fund their programs. The problem in doing such an approximation is that abstraction is rather leaky and leads to bike shedding.
> But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.
My personal opinion is that Africa would be fine if people didn't try to fix it every five years or so. Practically speaking, I know this to be a pipe dream considering the amount of weapons flowing in there and the next generation colonialism being perpetrated by China/India there.
Normally when I think of poachers, I think of the local problem of people taking game outside the legal season. Often for trophies, often for meat. I don't get much further than thinking that they are illegally killing wild animals.
Fair enough, but I'd hazard a guess that for the majority of people, especially the more urban ones, the only time they even hear about poachers is either in movies (Ace Ventura Pet Detective anyone?) or in articles about elephants/rhinos getting shot for Chinese medicine. You gotta admit the technical definition probably does not completely line up with what Joe Q Public imagines when he hears that word. Somebody shooting a deer out of season is probably not what most people would think of when hearing that word.
"But Vecellio said it would go against Karisoke center policies and ethos to actively instruct the apes. 'We try as much as we can to not interfere with the gorillas. We don’t want to affect their natural behavior.'"
Actually that analogy doesn't hold up all that well. In Star Trek, the Prime Directive applies to populations which have not yet invented the warp drive. Since the gorillas have already shown themselves capable of dismantling snares on their own, they've essentially demonstrated a development level that would make it OK to share "snare dismantling technology" with them.
(Wohoo, Star Trek discussion! On a completely unrelated note: Today sees the US release of Star Trek: TNG season 1 on Blu-ray, which is the result of a remastering effort of unprecedented scale, going back to the original film negatives of live action and VFX elements and essentially repeating most of the post-production process using modern technology - compositing, editing, the works. They've spent a double-digit amount of millions of US dollars remastering season 1 alone, and have dozens of people working in three shifts 24/7 to complete two seasons per year, including several veterans of the original crew. The effect is something as if you had to watch the show through a sheet of smoked, colored glass up to now, when someone has finally taken it away.)
There's a danger in taking Star Trek too literally; they often break their own rules in order to suit the needs of their plots. That said...
The warp drive rule was a threshold thing. Before a civilization reaches warp drive, they're not supposed to receive any help at all, even with technologies that they've discovered. Once they reach warp drive, then it's time to make first contact and start to tell them about the galactic birds and bees.
Warp drive is a beautifully natural threshold within the Star Trek universe. Unfortunately, in our world today, we don't always have nice boundaries like that. Is trap-disarming for gorillas a threshold event analogous to warp drive, or is it more like a significant but ultimately incremental step in a long journey? I don't think there are any easy answers.
There are ways to describe it that don't attribute human motivations to gorillas. I don't really believe this is a reputable source.
This is a bit more reliable: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120719-young...