Our fellow creatures have feelings - so we should give them rights
too
By Jeremy Rifkin
The Guardian - Saturday August 16, 2003
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1019899,00.html
While much of the talk in big science this past year has
centered on new breakthroughs in biotechnology, nanotechnology,
computers and more esoteric questions such as the age of our universe, a
quieter story has been unfolding behind the scenes in laboratories
around the world - one whose impact on human perception and our
understanding of the world is likely to be even more profound. And,
strangely, the companies sponsoring the research are McDonald's, Burger
King, KFC and other fast food purveyors.
Pressured by animal rights activists and by growing
public support for the humane treatment of animals, these companies have
financed research into, among other things, the emotional, mental and
behavioural states of our fellow creatures. What the researchers are
finding is unsettling. It appears that many of our fellow creatures are
more like us than we had ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer,
experience stress, affection, excitement - and even love.
Studies on pigs' social behaviour at Purdue University
in the US, for example, have found that they crave affection and are
easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The
lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of
health and increased incidence of diseases. The EU has taken such
studies to heart and has outlawed the use of isolating pig stalls by
2012, and mandated their replacement with open-air stalls. In Germany,
the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of
human contact every day and to provide them with two or three toys to
prevent them fighting.
The pig study only scratches the surface of what is
going on in the field of research into animal emotions and cognitive
abilities. Researchers were stunned recently by the publication of an
article in the prestigious journal Science reporting on the conceptual
abilities of New Caledonian crows. In controlled experiments, scientists
at Oxford University reported that two birds named Betty and Abel were
given a choice between using two tools, one a straight wire, the other a
hooked wire, to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube. Both chose the
hooked wire. But then, unexpectedly, Abel, the more dominant male, stole
Betty's hook, leaving her only with a straight wire. Un-phased, Betty
used her beak to wedge the wire in a crack and then bent it with her
beak to produce a hook, like the one stolen from her. She then snagged
the food from inside the tube. Researchers repeated the experiment 10
more times giving her straight wires, and she fashioned a hook out of
the wire nine times, demonstrating a sophisticated ability to create
tools.
Then there is the story of Alex the African grey parrot,
who was able to master tasks previously thought to be the preserve of
human beings. Alex can identify more than 40 objects and seven colours,
and can add and separate objects into categories.
Equally impressive is Koko, a gorilla who was taught
sign language, has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands
several thousand English words. On human IQ tests, she scores between 70
and 95, putting her in the slow learner - but not retarded - category.
Tool-making and developing language skills are just two
of the many attributes we thought were exclusive to our species.
Self-awareness is another. Philosophers and animal behaviourists have
long argued that other animals are not capable of self-awareness because
they lack a sense of individualism. Not so, according to a spate of new
studies. At the Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors
explore parts of their bodies they can't see otherwise, showing a sense
of self. An orangutan
named Chantek at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and
adjust his sunglasses, says his trainer.
When it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes
humans from the other creatures, scientists have long believed that
mourning for the dead represents the real divide. Other animals have no
sense of their mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of
their own death. But animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants
will often stand next to their dead kin for days, in silence,
occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks. Kenyan biologist
Joyce Poole, who has studied African elephants for 25 years, says that
elephant behaviour towards their dead "leaves me with little doubt that
they experience deep emotion and have some understanding of death."
We also know that virtually all animals play, especially
when young. Anyone who has ever observed the antics of puppies, kittens
or bear cubs cannot help but notice the similarities in the way they
play and our own children. Recent studies in the brain chemistry of rats
show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of
dopamine, a neurochemical associated with pleasure and excitement in
human beings.
Noting the striking similarities in brain anatomy and
chemistry of humans and other animals, Steven Siviy, a behavioural
scientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, asks a question
increasingly on the minds of other researchers: "If you believe in
evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings
suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?"
The new findings of researchers are a far cry from the
conceptions espoused by orthodox science. Until very recently,
scientists were still advancing the idea that most creatures behaved by
sheer instinct, and that what appeared to be learned behaviour was
merely genetically wired activity. Now we know that geese have to teach
their goslings their migration routes. In fact, we are finding out that
learning is passed on from parent to offspring far more often than not
and that most animals engage in learned experience brought on by
continued experimentation and trial-and-error problem-solving.
So what does all of this portend for the way we treat
our fellow creatures? What about the thousands of animals subjected each
year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic
animals raised under inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and
human consumption. Should we ban leg-hold traps and discourage the sale
and purchase of fur coats? And what about killing animals for sport? Fox
hunting in England, bull-fighting in Spain, cock-fighting in Mexico?
What about entertainment? Should lions be caged in zoos, should
elephants be made to perform in circuses?
These questions are beginning to be raised in courtrooms
and in legislation around the world. Today, Harvard and 25 other law
schools in the US have introduced law courses on animal rights, and an
increasing number of cases representing the rights of animals are
entering the court system. Germany recently became the first government
in the world to guarantee animal rights in its constitution.
The human journey is, at its core, about the extension
of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains. At first, the empathy
extended only to kin and tribe. Eventually it was extended to people of
like-minded values - a common religion, nationality or ideology. In the
19th century, the first humane societies were established, extending the
empathy to include our fellow creatures. Today, millions of people,
under the banner of the animal rights movement, are continuing to deepen
and to expand human concern for, and empathy toward, our fellow
creatures.
The current studies into animals' emotions, cognition
and behaviour open up a new phase in the human journey, allowing us to
both expand and deepen our empathy - this time, to include the broader
community of creatures who live alongside us.
** Jeremy Rifkin is the author of Beyond Beef: The Rise
and Fall of the Cattle Culture (Plume, 1992), and The Biotech Century
(Victor Gollancz, 1998). He is also the president of the Foundation on
Economic Trends in Washington DC
Go on to NRDC Wins Landmark Case Against Navy Sonar
Return to 31 August 2003 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.