Patrick J Battuello

Archive for the ‘Intelligence/Emotions’ Category

Can Animals Be Slaves?

In Intelligence/Emotions, Marine Parks, Philosophy on February 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm

“The SeaWorld system is the best of all seaquaria in the world, but if I was an orca, that would be the last place I’d want to live.” (former SeaWorld trainer and current medical doctor, Jeffrey Ventre)

On February 8, 2012, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller ruled that five wild-captive orcas (Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Corky, and Ulises) owned by SeaWorld and represented by PETA et al. had no standing to sue for protection under the 13th Amendment. Miller wrote: “As ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans.”

While it is absolutely certain that the 1865 Congress intended to protect only human beings with the 13th Amendment, making Judge Miller’s literal reading correct, it is equally true that mid-19th Century knowledge and appreciation of the animal mind was virtually nonexistent. So, an animal’s interests needn’t have been respected because, quite simply, he had no interests. In addition, the nascent animal advocacy movement was narrowly focused on the welfare (not liberation) of dogs and horses. Today, however, there is a burgeoning animal ethology field providing new insights across the species spectrum. Capacities and abilities once considered exclusively human are now regularly attached to other sentient beings. And the majestic cetaceans (orcas, or killer whales, are cetaceans in the dolphin family) are head of the class.

Exploring the Cognitive World of the Bottlenose Dolphin
Dolphin Whistles Offer Signs of Language Ability
Cultural Transmission of Tool Use in Bottlenose Dolphins
The Structure of the Cerebral Cortex of the Humpback Whale
Mirror Self-Recognition in the Bottlenose Dolphin
Deep Thinkers
Marine Mammals Master Math
Joy, Grief, Altruism…
A Humpback Whale Thanking His Rescuers

Armed with this information, which was mostly not available when SeaWorld first opened in 1964, should it be that difficult for us to imagine the psychological suffering of cetaceans in captivity? In The Orca Project, two former SeaWorld trainers, Professor John Jett and Dr. Jeffrey Ventre, share indications of that suffering: excessive surface resting, self-mutilation, random (and unnatural) attacks on trainers and fellow orcas, etc.. In short, “…captivity kills orcas, usually at a young age… and… stresses, social tensions and poor health are chronic issues in marine park facilities.”

With still much to learn, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that at least some cetaceans (killer whales among them) are more cognitively aware than some humans, including, but not necessarily limited to, the very young, the senile, and the mentally enfeebled. These humans are, of course, protected from being enslaved; indeed, because of their raw vulnerability, they are the ones most in need of protection. Considered in this context, then, why should such a person, one decidedly unable to understand or participate in a court proceeding initiated in his behalf, be afforded legal recourse while an orca is not? The answer, whether offered by 21st Century SeaWorld (Ringling Bros.) or the 19th Century Plantation Class (see Dred Scott), has no place in an enlightened society: because they are not us. To exploit others – races, ethnicities, genders, and, yes, species – simply because we can renders hollow the ideals of reason and justice.

SeaWorld, of course, dismissed the lawsuit as a mere publicity stunt. To cynics and fans alike, they proudly proclaim themselves educators and conservationists, and would-be liberators are marginalized as sentimental anthropomorphists. Whether SeaWorld genuinely believes this or is intentionally deceptive is quite beside the point. With large amounts of money at stake (SeaWorld remains immensely profitable; the “Shamu Stadium” is still the main attraction), ethical lines become blurred and fluid, and revenue streams must be defended to the last. In the SeaWorld boardroom, then, it matters not a bit what science reveals about cetacean intelligence and depth of suffering. Change, if it is to come, must begin and end with the consumer.

Finally, there are some (law professor David Steinberg among them) who are offended, even outraged, by PETA’s use of the word slavery, calling it demeaning to the memory of those human beings once held as property. But like those humans, each of the 42 killer whales in captivity has an intrinsic worth all her own, a nature to pursue. And no matter how well they are supposedly treated (remember, some slave-owners were once referred to as “benevolent”), it is precisely their nature that is being so utterly negated in these “small, acoustically-dead, concrete enclosures.” Although their relative intelligence is far from definitive, we are sure that wild orcas are autonomous. And if owning and completely controlling an innately autonomous being does not define slavery, what does?

Tho’ Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw

In Intelligence/Emotions, Philosophy on July 30, 2011 at 7:14 pm

Overly sentimental, too emotional, naive, given to anthropomorphism, misanthropic, ignorant. This, says the critic, is the animal advocate. The women are simply being women. And the men, well, are simply being women. In a word, we are weak, unwilling to confront nature’s harshness and blind to violent predation. There is a Darwinian imperative governing survival and a natural order, a food chain if you will, to life. And man, as the most intelligent and only rational species, peers down from the top.

But, in truth, we advocates are not unworldly and are very much aware of Charles Darwin. We do not need to be reminded that suffering (injustice, death) is part of the condition, human and animal alike. And rather than offering up our advanced intelligence as justification for subjugating other species, we embrace this distinction (which, in fact, grows less profound with each new ethological study) as a (the) reason why human beings should be held to a higher standard. In other words, unlike true predators, we have a choice.

The vast majority of suffering that we cause is unnecessary: Vegetarians/vegans have flourished long enough to bear this out; we simply do not need their protein. And animal experimentation is unreliable, very often redundant, and increasingly easy to replace. Besides, until we are willing to cut up and psychologically torture nonconsenting human beings, we cannot rationally defend doing the same to the pig and primate subjects who are as intelligent and aware as some of us. It is speciesism defined.

While nature can be cruel, it isn’t always. And animals are not just perpetual foragers consumed with not dying. Like us, they have emotional experiences separate and distinct from a physical will to survive. They love and grieve and hurt and need. They seek comfort and find pleasure. And they care and bond, even across species. They also become friends. That is not anthropomorphism. Although the typical human life may involve greater depth or richness, is this reason alone to enslave others for our ends? Does not the rest of sentient creation share a common ground with us? At the very least, this should give us pause.

British psychologist Richard Ryder writes, “Pain [suffering] is the one and only true evil,” and “pain is pain regardless of its host.” When contemplating animal exploitation, Ryder concludes: “If we are going to care about the suffering of other humans then logically we should care about the suffering of non-humans too.” And, I would add, words and deeds should be aligned.

If Ryder is right, we are compelled, unless we wish to suffocate the better angels of our nature, to minimize suffering, not contribute with impunity. The obligate carnivore, killing (causing suffering) because he must, is excused. We who have options are not. Nature has bestowed upon us the capacity for moral reasoning and, as importantly, the tools to pursue a compassionate course. In the end, is there a more noble purpose than alleviating another being’s pain? Of course, nature will continue to be very often bloody, mean, and unfair. But our nature allows for mercy, and we can show this several times daily.

Elephant Flirting (and Why It Matters)

In Elephants, Intelligence/Emotions on July 29, 2011 at 10:39 am

A 40-year study at Kenya’s Amboseli National Park reveals that African Elephants have intricate social relationships (with advanced communication) and rich emotional lives not unlike our own. Whether it be a simple greeting (rubbing shoulders, shaking trunks), female flirting (an over-the-shoulder, wide-eyed glance), or a discussion on which route to take (Phyliss Lee, longtime researcher for the Amboseli Trust for Elephants, says, “It’s wonderful to watch and a real process of negotiation.” The Daily Mail, 6/6/11), elephant behavior (including the capacities for cooperation, grief, and empathy) continues to astound even the most seasoned of scientists.

Considered in a vacuum, an elephant flirting is probably not all that important. But each new ethological study should obligate us to reconsider our relationship with animals. The past two or three decades have produced more on the animal mind than the whole of human history prior. In this specific case, how can the exploitation of elephants as circus/zoo entertainers be countenanced any longer? That they are intelligent (and self-aware), sensitive creatures who suffer terribly in the course of their servitude is beyond reasonable debate. This is not to say that only the highest-functioning of species (like cetaceans, pachyderms, primates, and pigs) deserve our compassion, for the only relevant question remains, “Can they suffer?” But we need a starting point.

To patronize Ringling Bros., SeaWorld, and the like is to sentence these wonderful creatures to a lifetime of psychological and emotional abuse. Idle anthropomorphism? Well, facts, as the saying goes, are stubborn things. And they are readily available to all who are willing to receive them. Peering through iron bars, dragging heavy chains, and crying out with each bullhook blow, the noble elephant plaintively asks only this from her captors: autonomy. Let them be. Just let them be.

More Like Us…

In Chimpanzees, Intelligence/Emotions, Philosophy on July 26, 2011 at 1:08 pm

Rene Descartes, 17th Century philosopher, is a notorious figure in animal rights history. In brief, he asserted that animals, being mindless, could not truly experience pain and suffering (as we understand the words). In practice, this theory informed our treatment of animals (especially in the laboratory) for centuries. The animals’ plight improved only slightly through Immanuel Kant’s influence (though irrational animals are means and not ends, we should still treat them well in order to cultivate good behavior towards each other). It wasn’t until 1966′s Animal Welfare Act that our government acknowledged animal pain; that is, they are not just robots and need some protection (weak as it is) from scalpels and electric currents. But ever-changing knowledge (in this case, of animal intelligence) demands a reconsideration of the human-animal relationship.

Science (ethological and cognitive studies), irrepressible by nature, will continue to raze barriers (between us and them) by gleaning new insights into the animal mind. Capacities and depth heretofore thought exclusive to homo sapiens are being unearthed across the species spectrum. And only the willfully ignorant, entrenched in the dark past, choose to ignore.

Two recent studies of the chimpanzee offer prime examples of this movable bar. First, researchers from St. Andrews have identified 66 different communicative gestures for wild chimps, doubling the previous findings. In addition, they also believe that these communications are species-wide (and not simply learned customs within a group). In the second study (Kyoto University), researchers discovered that chimpanzees have a definitive sense of self (beyond the mirror test). Using a computer game, the scientists tested the chimps’ ability to determine which of two cursors they could control, and then identifying them later. They could, and did. The study concludes that “chimpanzees and humans share fundamental cognitive processes underlying the sense of being an independent agent.”

The chimpanzee, as man’s first cousin, is an easy object for sympathy. We care about their pain because the similarities are uncomfortable. But in the words of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, “What is it that should trace the insuperable line?” Is it underestimated intelligence (pigs), self-awareness (elephants, dolphins), intricate social orders and family relationships (chickens, turkeys), undeniable mother-child bonds (goats), or distinct personalities with broad emotional range (our pets)? No, none of these. Bentham simply asked, “Can they suffer?” In suffering, all sentient animals are our cousins. And, as cousins, they deserve a new place in our world. Not as tools, but rather as ends unto themselves.

Yes, Fish Can Suffer

In Fish, Intelligence/Emotions on July 11, 2011 at 10:41 am

Dr. James Rose (University of Wyoming) argues (2003) that fish do not have the necessary neurological hardware to process pain (or suffer, as we understand the word). Rose maintains that true pain is a psychological experience separate from the initial reaction to an injurious (nociceptive) stimulus. Nociception refers to the detection of actual (or potential) tissue damage by the nervous system. Rose grants that fish have nociceptors (sensory receptors), but mere detection is not the same as pain (even amoebas detect and react to dangerous stimuli by moving away from the source). In vertebrates (fish included), an automatic, coordinated response (withdrawal, struggling, locomotion, and perhaps vocalization) is generated by the brainstem and spinal cord.

Fish have less-developed brains than mammals and birds (according to Rose, the simplest brains of all vertebrates). Mammals, especially, have enlarged cerebral hemispheres with a dominant neocortex that functions as control center for sensations, emotions, and pain. It is here that awareness of pain occurs. Because fish lack a neocortex (and frontal lobe regions), Dr. Rose concludes that they don’t “appear to have the neurological capacity to experience the unpleasant psychological aspect of pain.”

Although fish and human brains have a similar general structure, Dr. Rose likens the fish brain to a ’49 Volkswagen (simple and efficient), while ours are more like a modern luxury car with the capacity for many bells and whistles. He notes that if the cerebral hemispheres are destroyed, humans become comatose, while fish appear to behave normally; fish life is dominated by the brainstem, not the cerebral hemispheres.

Rose does allow for other possibilities: “It might be argued that fish have the capacity to generate the psychological experience of pain by a different process than that occurring in the frontal lobes of the human brain, but such an argument is insupportable.” But in acknowledging the release of stress hormones (“it’s important when practicing catch-and-release fishing to observe the usually recommended procedures of landing a fish before it is exhausted and returning it to the water quickly”), he appears to be hedging his bets, saying the hormones “can have undesirable [italics added] health effects on fish.”

Researchers from the Roslin Institute and University of Edinburgh, however, found that fish do indeed feel pain. Bee venom or acetic acid was injected into the lips of trout (the control group received saline). Those injected with the noxious substances demonstrated rocking motions, rubbed their lips on the gravel, and took three times as long to resume normal feeding. The researchers did not view these behaviors as simple reflexes, or as Dr. Lynne Sneddon said, (BBC News, 4/30/03) it “fulfils the criteria for animal pain.”

In another experiment from 2009, a Purdue University researcher (Joseph Garner) attached foil heaters to two groups (morphine and saline) of goldfish. Both groups exhibited a reflexive response to the stimulus, but those given saline would later demonstrate behavioral changes. Garner said: (Purdue website, 4/29/09) “They [saline group] acted with defensive behaviors, indicating wariness, or fear and anxiety.” Because the fish changed their behavior after the adverse event, this indicates cognitive pain (what Rose denies). Garner: “The goldfish that did not get morphine experienced this painful, stressful event. Then two hours later, they turned that pain into fear like we do. To me, it sounds an awful lot like how we experience pain.”

Dr. Victoria Braithwaite (Edinburgh University) concedes that the absence of a neocortex suggests that fish pain is not the same as human pain but still concludes (Fish Pain Perception): “Recent suggestions that fish cannot experience pain or suffering do not appear to be supported by the current research. The evidence I have presented suggests that fish do have the capacity to experience pain and fear, and therefore we need to consider how to minimise their potential suffering.”

Fish do have central nervous systems and similarly constructed (to mammals) brains. Their reactions (wriggling, flopping, hormone-release) would seem to indicate unpleasant feelings (suffering). Their brains may lack certain refinements, but perhaps we do not fully understand their physiology yet (indeed, we still have much to learn about our own neurological functions). If it is at all possible that fish can suffer (and it seems likely that they can), unnecessary human activities involving them (whether catch-and-release or catch-and-mount/eat) should be considered in a moral context.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.