AR-News: Measuring animal self-awareness

Mon Mar 22 03:14:35 EST 2004

>}  Letters to the Editor: openforum at dailycamera.com
>
>MEASURING ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS
>The Daily Camera, Marc Bekoff, March 13, 2004
>Marc Bekoff is professor of biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder 
>and the author of many books, including "The Ten Trusts: What We Must Do to 
>Care for the Animals We Love," with Jane Goodall.
>http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/guest_opinions/article/0,1713,BDC_2493_2725745,00.html
>
>
>Did David Graybeard, the chimpanzee who was first observed to use a tool by 
>Jane Goodall, have any idea of who he was? Do elephants, dolphins, cats, 
>magpies, mice, salmon, ants or bees know who they are? Was Jethro, my late 
>companion dog, a self-conscious being? Do any of these animals have a sense 
>of self? What do these animals make of themselves when they look in a 
>mirror, see their reflection in water, hear their own or another's song or 
>howl, or smell themselves and others? Is it possible that self-awareness - 
>"Wow that's me!" - is a uniquely human trait?
>
>Because there's much interest and much exciting work to be done concerning 
>what animals know about themselves, it's worth reflecting on what we do and 
>don't know about animal selves. There are academic and practical reasons to 
>do so.
>
>In his book, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," Charles 
>Darwin pondered what animals might know about themselves. He wrote: "It may 
>be freely admitted that no animal is self-conscious, if by this term it is 
>implied that he reflects on such points, as whence he comes or whither he 
>will go, or what is life and death, and so forth." Darwin also championed 
>the notion of evolutionary continuity and believed that animals had some 
>sense of self. In the same book, he wrote, "Nevertheless, the difference in 
>mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one 
>of degree and not of kind." Thus, there are shades of gray and not 
>black-and-white differences between humans and other animals in cognitive 
>abilities. So, while animals might not ponder life and death the way humans 
>do, they still may have some sense of self.
>
>After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves, 
>domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the 
>conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that there 
>are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my colleagues, it's 
>wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a sense of "mine-ness" 
>or "body-ness." So, for example, when an experimental treatment, an object, 
>or another individual affects an individual, he or she experiences that 
>"something is happening to this body." Many primates relax when being 
>groomed and individuals of many species actively seek pleasure and avoid 
>pain. There's no need to associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" 
>(or "I"). Many animals also know the placement in space of parts of their 
>body as they run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated 
>hunting unit or flock without running into one another. They know their 
>body isn't someone else's body.
>
>In my book, "Minding animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart," I argued 
>that a sense of body-ness is necessary and sufficient for most animals to 
>engage in social activities that are needed in the social milieus in which 
>they live. But, while a sense of body-ness is necessary for humans to get 
>along in many of the situations they encounter, it's often not sufficient 
>for them to function as they need to. A human typically knows who he or she 
>is, say by name, and knows that "this body" is his, Marc's, or him, Marc. 
>There's a sense of "I-ness" that's an extension of "body-ness" or 
>"mine-ness." So, my take on animal selves means that David Graybeard and 
>Jethro knew they weren't one of their buddies. Many animals know such facts 
>as "this is my tail," "this is my territory," "this is my bone or my piece 
>of elk," "this is my mate," and "this is my urine." Their sense of 
>"mine-ness" or "body-ness" is their sense of "self."
>
>How do animals differentiate themselves from others? Many studies of 
>self-awareness have used mirrors to assess how visual cues are used. 
>They've been effective for captive primates, dolphins and elephants. 
>Although mirror-like visual images are absent in most field situations, 
>it's possible that individuals learn something about themselves from their 
>reflections in water. But we also need to know more about the role of 
>senses other than vision in studies of self-awareness because some animals 
>- for example, rodents who can distinguish among individuals - don't seem 
>to respond to visual images. Odors and sounds are very important in the 
>worlds of many animals. Many mammals differentiate between their own and 
>others' urine and glandular secretions, and many birds know their own and 
>others' songs. Moving Jethro's "yellow snow" from place to place allowed me 
>to learn that Jethro made fine discriminations between his own and others' 
>urine. Perhaps a sense of self relies on a composite signal that results 
>from integrating information from different senses .
>
>While there are "academic" questions about animal self-awareness, there 
>also are some very important practical reasons to learn about animal 
>selves. Achieving reliable answers to questions about animal selves is very 
>important because they're often used to defend the sorts of treatment to 
>which individuals can be ethically subjected. However, even if an animal 
>doesn't know "who" she is, this doesn't mean she can't feel that something 
>painful is happening to her body. Self-awareness may not be a reliable test 
>for an objective assessment of well-being.
>
>So, do any animals, when looking at themselves, hearing themselves, or 
>smelling themselves, exclaim "Wow, that's me"? Do they have a sense of 
>"I-ness?" We really don't know, especially for wild animals. It's time to 
>get out of the armchair and into the field. Speculation doesn't substitute 
>for careful studies of behavior.
>
>Some people don't want to acknowledge the possibility of self-awareness in 
>animals because if they do, the borders between humans and other animals 
>become blurred and their narrow, hierarchical, anthropocentric view of the 
>world would be toppled. But Darwin's ideas about continuity, along with 
>empirical data and common sense, caution against the unyielding claim that 
>humans and perhaps a few other animals such as other great apes and 
>cetaceans are the only species in which some sense of self has evolved.
>
>
>
>{3}  Letters to the Editor: http://www.thenation.com/contact/lett
>
>
>THE JUNK SCIENCE OF GEORGE W. BUSH
>The Nation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., March 8, 2004
>
>
>As Jesuit schoolboys studying world history we learned that Copernicus and 
>Galileo self-censored for many decades their proofs that the earth revolved 
>around the sun and that a less restrained heliocentrist, Giordano Bruno, 
>was burned alive in 1600 for the crime of sound science. With the 
>encouragement of our professor, Father Joyce, we marveled at the capacity 
>of human leaders to corrupt noble institutions. Lust for power had caused 
>the Catholic hierarchy to subvert the church's most central purpose--the 
>search for existential truths.
>
>Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing 
>allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks 
>to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that 
>is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. 
>Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their 
>own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting 
>scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the 
>Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological 
>underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so 
>extreme is this campaign that more than sixty scientists, including Nobel 
>laureates and medical experts, released a statement on February 18 that 
>accuses the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact 
>"for partisan political ends" [see note below re Union of Concerned 
>Scientists].
>
>I've had my own experiences with Torquemada's modern successors, both 
>personal and related to my work as an environmental lawyer and advocate 
>working for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Waterkeeper 
>Alliance. At the time of the World Trade Center catastrophe on September 
>11, 2001, I had just opened an office at 115 Broadway, cater-corner from 
>the World Trade Center and within the official security zone to which 
>access was, afterward, restricted for several months. Upon returning to the 
>office in October my partner, Kevin Madonna, suffered a burning throat, 
>nausea and a headache that was still pounding twenty-four hours after he 
>left the building. Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's claims 
>that air quality was safe, Kevin refused to return and we closed the 
>office. Many workers did not have that option; their employers relied on 
>the EPA's nine press releases between September and December of 2001 
>reassuring the public about the wholesome air quality downtown. We have 
>since learned that the government was lying to us. An Inspector General's 
>report released last August revealed that the EPA's data did not support 
>those assurances and that its press releases were being drafted or doctored 
>by White House officials intent on reopening Wall Street. On September 13, 
>just two days after the terror attack, the EPA announced that asbestos dust 
>in the area was "very low" or entirely absent. On September 18 the agency 
>said the air was "safe to breathe." In fact, more than 25 percent of the 
>samples collected by the EPA before September 18 showed presence of 
>asbestos above the 1 percent safety benchmark. Among outside studies, one 
>performed by scientists at the University of California, Davis, found 
>particulates at levels never before seen in more than 7,000 similar tests 
>worldwide. A study being performed by Mt. Sinai School of Medicine has 
>found that 78 percent of rescue workers suffered lung ailments and 88 
>percent had ear, nose and throat problems in the months following the 
>attack and that about half still had persistent lung and respiratory 
>illnesses nine months to a year later. Dan Tishman, whose company was 
>involved in the reconstruction at 140 West Street, required his crews to 
>wear respirators but recalls seeing many rescue and construction workers 
>laboring unprotected--no doubt relying on the government's assurances. "The 
>frustrating thing is that everyone just counts on the EPA to be the 
>watchdog of public health," he says. "When that role is compromised, people 
>can get hurt."
>
>I also recall the case of Dr. James Zahn, a nationally respected 
>microbiologist with the Agriculture Department's research service, who 
>accepted my invitation to speak to an April 2002 conference of more than 
>1,000 family farm advocates and environmental and civic leaders in Clear 
>Lake, Iowa. In a rigorous taxpayer-funded study, Zahn had identified 
>bacteria that can make people sick--and that are resistant to 
>antibiotics--in the air surrounding industrial-style hog farms. His studies 
>proved that billions of these "superbugs" were traveling across property 
>lines daily, endangering the health of neighbors and their herds. I was 
>shocked when Zahn canceled his appearance on the day of the conference 
>under orders from the Agriculture Department in Washington. I later 
>uncovered a fax trail proving the order was prompted by lobbyists from the 
>National Pork Producers Council. Zahn told me that his supervisor at the 
>USDA, under pressure from the hog industry, had ordered him not to publish 
>his study and that he had been forced to cancel more than a dozen public 
>appearances at local planning boards and county health commissions seeking 
>information about health impacts of industry mega-farms. Soon after my 
>conference, Zahn resigned from the government in disgust.
>
>
>
>This is the main mention of animal agriculture. The complete article is at:
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy
>
>
>See also: THEY BLINDED ME WITH PSEUDO SCIENCE
>The Bush Administration is Jettisoning Real Scientists in Favor of Yes-Men
>Grist, Amanda Griscom, Nov. 12, 2003
>http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck111203.asp
>
>
>and: Restoring Scientific Integrity
>Union of Concerned Scientists
>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
>

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/