It's fairly obvious that it is very self-serving for humans to deny animals the possibility of "higher emotions" like grief.
And yet there is so much evidence that higher animals often do grieve. Not all of this is evidence is anecdotal. There have been controlled studies looking at the reactions of pets after the loss of their caregivers or companion animals. There were often signs of bereavement. The data showed this type of behavior was common. Pets often exhibited the same types of behavior grieving humans do; for example, they exhibited lessened appetite, slept more, refused to play, engaged in avoidance behavior, etc.
And yet many people seek to justify and perpetuate this inaccurate view of animals as pure automatons, to deny the possibility of an animal consciousness that might be able to symbolize reality to itself in the ways that we do with our various languages. A quintessential example of this ungenerous and,I think, unconvincing argument can be found in Alfred Russel Wallace's 1889 book Darwinism: “In the first place, we must remember that animals are entirely spared the pain we suffer in the anticipation of death—a pain far greater, in most cases, than the reality. This leads, probably, to an almost perpetual enjoyment of their lives; since their constant watchfulness against danger, and even their actual flight from an enemy, will be the enjoyable exercise of the powers and faculties they possess, unmixed with any serious dread."
This whole scenario espoused by Wallace is meant to be exculpatory: "Don't worry about the animals or their feelings." The animals live in a giddy and blank happiness. How could Wallace believe that there is not great stress in the struggle for survival, especially for those higher animals which are potential prey? And that paragraph conveniently omits any discussion of how physical pain, obviously experienced by all animals, might shade into mental anguish. If consciousness can perceive experience as duration, an interior state that endures, cannot pain be experienced as mental anguish? Wallace's naivete (or disingenuousness) is ridiculous science. It's not science at all, since there is no evidence to back up this viewpoint, for we have no way (then or now) to observe the interiority of animal mental processes. We can only attempt to intuit this from their behavior. I don't see animals in the Pollyanna way Wallace did. I think there is ample evidence that higher animals can suffer in consciousness as well as body, just as we do, and often for the same reasons. I think there is ample evidence that the higher animals can even experience mental anguish. Life is a continuum. It seems counterintuitive to believe that consciousness itself is not also a continuum or that animals are not on that continuum of consciousness (developed mental processes including the apperception of one's own emotions) with us. We species certainly vary in the degree to which we can think abstractly. But I see much evidence that many higher animals do exhibit an ability to think abstractly to varying degrees and to generalize from memory. But it's so clearly in our "species interest" to continue to treat so many of these sentient species as food or product fodder only and to refuse to attempt to empathize with their own existential plights, which are not all that different from ours.
And yet there is so much evidence that higher animals often do grieve. Not all of this is evidence is anecdotal. There have been controlled studies looking at the reactions of pets after the loss of their caregivers or companion animals. There were often signs of bereavement. The data showed this type of behavior was common. Pets often exhibited the same types of behavior grieving humans do; for example, they exhibited lessened appetite, slept more, refused to play, engaged in avoidance behavior, etc.
And yet many people seek to justify and perpetuate this inaccurate view of animals as pure automatons, to deny the possibility of an animal consciousness that might be able to symbolize reality to itself in the ways that we do with our various languages. A quintessential example of this ungenerous and,I think, unconvincing argument can be found in Alfred Russel Wallace's 1889 book Darwinism: “In the first place, we must remember that animals are entirely spared the pain we suffer in the anticipation of death—a pain far greater, in most cases, than the reality. This leads, probably, to an almost perpetual enjoyment of their lives; since their constant watchfulness against danger, and even their actual flight from an enemy, will be the enjoyable exercise of the powers and faculties they possess, unmixed with any serious dread."
This whole scenario espoused by Wallace is meant to be exculpatory: "Don't worry about the animals or their feelings." The animals live in a giddy and blank happiness. How could Wallace believe that there is not great stress in the struggle for survival, especially for those higher animals which are potential prey? And that paragraph conveniently omits any discussion of how physical pain, obviously experienced by all animals, might shade into mental anguish. If consciousness can perceive experience as duration, an interior state that endures, cannot pain be experienced as mental anguish? Wallace's naivete (or disingenuousness) is ridiculous science. It's not science at all, since there is no evidence to back up this viewpoint, for we have no way (then or now) to observe the interiority of animal mental processes. We can only attempt to intuit this from their behavior. I don't see animals in the Pollyanna way Wallace did. I think there is ample evidence that higher animals can suffer in consciousness as well as body, just as we do, and often for the same reasons. I think there is ample evidence that the higher animals can even experience mental anguish. Life is a continuum. It seems counterintuitive to believe that consciousness itself is not also a continuum or that animals are not on that continuum of consciousness (developed mental processes including the apperception of one's own emotions) with us. We species certainly vary in the degree to which we can think abstractly. But I see much evidence that many higher animals do exhibit an ability to think abstractly to varying degrees and to generalize from memory. But it's so clearly in our "species interest" to continue to treat so many of these sentient species as food or product fodder only and to refuse to attempt to empathize with their own existential plights, which are not all that different from ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment