We Are Not Alone: Listening to the 8.7 Million Other Animals Who Live on
Earth
Saturday, 01 October 2016 00:00 By JP Sottile, Truthout | Report
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout; Adapted: orangeacid, Reto Stöckli /
NASA )
Space. They say it's the final frontier.
And they've probably been saying it for a long, long time. According to a
recent study, active human exploration of space dates back at least 6,000
years. That's when our star-struck ancestors constructed the first known
"telescope" to assist them in their eager search of the observable universe.
We've certainly come -- and gone -- a long way since those early attempts to
understand the night sky. We've been to the moon and landed on a
surprisingly water-worn Mars. We've literally traveled time through the
awe-inspiring "Deep Field" images collected by the Hubble telescope. And now
the Kepler space observatory is bringing us tantalizingly closer to
answering one of our oldest and most profound questions: Are we alone in the
universe?"
So far, the orbiting telescope has found hundreds of potentially life-giving
exoplanets peppered around the galaxy. It also found a surprising data
anomaly that made big news as the beguilingly named "Alien Megastructure"
star. The oddity of its intermittent, possibly structured dips in brightness
sparked a truly earth-shattering hypothesis: What if an advanced
civilization built a "megastructure" around the distant sun in a bid to
harvest its energy? Or, even better, what if they placed a Jupiter-sized
thingamajig in front of the star to signal their presence to other beings
who, like them, longingly scan the universe in search of companionship?
Imagine how instantly gratified we'd be to find out we weren't the only
intelligent beings probing the deep, dark vacuum of space! It would be the
ultimate validation. But this faint new hope of finding new kinship on a new
planet is based on a fundamental fallacy. The fallacy is the notion that we
are alone in the first place.
The real news is that we're up to our necks in a "deep field" of 8.7 million
sentient life forms right here on planet Earth. And we don't need an
orbiting telescope to see:
Social spiders with personalities who sometimes selflessly share
food with their neighbors ... much to their own detriment.
Humpback whale vigilantes who go out of their way to stop orcas from
attacking other sea mammals ... despite the alluring presence of their own
main food source nearby.
New Caledonian crows who make tools like finely feathered craftsmen
and their brilliant cousins in the Corvid class of birds who have greater
neural density than comparable mammals.
African elephants who shed tears, bury and mourn their dead and
their Namibian desert kin who pass down crucial knowledge of how to survive
their harsh environment.
Capuchin monkeys who reject "unequal pay" and chimpanzees who work
together to achieve a communal goal.
Pigs who can reason where food is by looking at its reflection in a
mirror.
Baby chickens who acquire math skills and successfully play games
based on "object permanence" well before a proportionately-aged human baby.
There are even sharks who worry, goats who pleadingly stare at people and
snakes who, of course, deceptively act like "snakes in the grass."
That's right, folks. While the Search For Extraterrestrial Life (SETI) spent
the last three decades fruitlessly scanning the heavens in search of alien
signals ... we've actually been surrounded by a miraculous variety of
intelligence on the only planet we know for a fact sustains life.
It's not that space exploration isn't a good thing. Or that searching isn't
fundamental to being human. It might even be fundamental to being a primate.
No, the problem is that we've been living in self-imposed exile on a world
made artificially barren by science's three-centuries-long ban against
anthropomorphism. Ironically, this ban has helped validate the
anthropocentric idea that humans are so unique that we are, in effect, an
alien intelligence stranded here on Earth.
Anthropocentrically Speaking
Merriam-Webster defines anthropomorphism as "an interpretation of what is
not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics." For
scientists, it's long been a "four-letter word," meaning bad science based
on a faulty application of human paradigms onto non-human subjects of
research.
There are real scientific reasons to avoid unfounded inferences and personal
biases stemming from an uncritical anthropomorphism. And making humans the
measure of all things rarely, if ever, produces good results -- particularly
for nonhumans. But this methodological aversion to anthropomorphism meant
science not only rejected the implication that animals think, feel and
suffer "like humans," but it also cut off inquiry into whether or not
animals think, feel and suffer at all.
The issue seems bigger than just the supposed scientific impossibility of
measuring the "inner life" of animals. Instead, it may be that acknowledging
the existence of complex animal intelligence undermines our unique place
atop the natural order. A more "critical anthropomorphism" that modulates
human inference with testable data is producing strong arguments for knowing
animal consciousness, understanding their emotional lives and for accepting
the reality of animal suffering.
As comparative psychologist Jennifer Vonk told Discover magazine, "People
want to be special" and each time "a researcher finds that tool use or
theory of mind or language-like communication is not unique to humans,
somebody comes up with new categories that raise the bar."
It's a phenomenon leading primatologist Frans de Waal calls
"anthropodenial." It's the reflexive "rejection of humanlike traits in
animals and of animal-like traits in humans" and it still persists despite
mounting evidence to the contrary. De Waal collected much of that evidence
himself during years studying primates like bonobos. They are 98 percent
genetically similar to humans, they exhibit many of the hallmarks of
humanness and they are famous for the ribald complexity of their culture.
And yes, it is a culture.
But many of de Waal's colleagues simply won't go there. Instead, they claim
de Waal erroneously anthropomorphizes our cousins. And they explain away a
chimpanzee's laughter as nothing more than "vocalized panting." Years of
firsthand experience tickling apes has convinced de Waal otherwise.
Frankly, for anyone who's seen the viral video of an orangutan laughing at a
"missing ball" magic trick, this stubbornness in the face of an observable
truth is perplexing. It's particularly odd given orangutans' amazing range
of skills, including an ability to make sounds that seem strikingly similar
to those we make ourselves.
Yet, some remain unconvinced by Koko the gorilla's proficiency with sign
language and her unbridled love of kittens. Many initially criticized Jane
Goodall for imputing "individuality and emotion to nonhuman animals," in
spite of the fact that chimps share an amazing genetic similarity and a
warlike disposition with humans. Even Charles Darwin was ridiculed for
claiming the lowly earthworm showed intelligence. Darwin pointed out that
humans are animals over a century ago, but today he'd still face the same
anthropodenialism.
This outdated notion is based on a fundamental fallacy that assumes our
unique form of intelligence makes us this planet's only true beings. It's
right there in the name we've given ourselves and ourselves alone -- human
beings.
Being Versus Doing
So, why don't we say "dolphin beings" or "raven beings" and "octopus
beings"? Perhaps because "being" implies consciousness. If animals are not
conscious "beings," then they are merely "doing" by mechanical instinct. But
if animals are beings, that creates other complications: As beings, they
might have an existential right to "to be" beyond their usefulness to us as
a natural resource, a source of amusement or a subject of dissection.
We've conveniently squared that circle by believing only humans can truly
make conscious decisions. That's thanks in no small part to a 17th century
philosopher named Rene Descartes. He's often credited with building the
foundation of the modern scientific method. Even if you don't think you know
Descartes ... you do. He famously said "I think, therefore I am." He also
claimed that animals don't think and therefore they really aren't. How did
he know it for certain? Because animals cannot talk, you silly goose.
In fact, Descartes refused to believe that even the smartest Myna bird could
ever exhibit anything close to the "real" intelligence of a human being.
Sure, a Myna bird may be able to make word-like sounds. But unlike even the
"dumbest" human being, the brightest Myna bird has no real grasp of the
eternal concept that informs the word. Instead, the Myna bird is just a
soulless, instinct-driven automaton merely "parroting" something uttered by
a human. It's just a conditioned response to stimuli.
But imagine Descartes' surprise if he could've met Alex the Parrot, an
amazing African Grey who didn't seem to be parroting at all. Alex could add
Arabic numerals, identify shapes and colors and say "I love you" with the
kind of heart-warming sincerity we all crave. And, in an epic moment of
self-consciousness, Alex even looked in the mirror and asked, "What color am
I?"
Science Is Anthropomorphing
Alex was obviously thinking. And he talked about what was on his mind.
Therefore he was, right? Not if you're an anachronistic anthropodenialist.
Then you'd believe Alex was just giving a conditioned response and that Dr.
Irene Pepperberg made the cardinal error of foolishly anthropomorphizing
Alex's bird-brained behaviors.
But you'd also be increasingly behind the curve, because there is a new wave
of scientists at the leading edge of a polyphonic revolution that's finally
listening to the life all around us. So far, they've found:
Sperm whales who talk in regional dialects with distinct cultures
and use specialized sounds to delineate their own clans ... much like a
human surname.
Black Sea bottlenose dolphins engaged in a "human-like conversation"
recorded on a specially calibrated microphone that captured their back and
forth click-laden chit-chat.
Gorillas who "hum and sing" and Macaques who are learning to
communicate with computer touch screens.
Zebra finches who sing instructions to their young before they hatch
like a nesting hipster couple playing Bach to their gestating baby through a
"babybump" sound system.
Highly social meerkats who recognize each other as individuals by
their distinctive calls that basically function like names.
Dogs that know when you really mean "That's a good boy!" versus when
you're just peddling the kind of half-hearted praise that comes after a
hurried late night trip around the block at the end of a long, long day.
At long last, science is finally proving something millions of humans who
live with "pets" have known for years -- that animals are "people," too.
A recent Fortune Magazine survey found that 76 percent of Americans viewed
their dogs, cats, parakeets, hamsters and other pets as "beloved members of
the family." Just 19 percent of respondents said their pets were "well cared
for, but still considered animals" and less than 5 percent said "pets are
work animals that have a specific job to do."
And a Gallup poll conducted in 2015 found that 32 percent of Americans
"believe animals should be given the same rights as people." That's up from
25 percent in 2008. Still, a robust 62 percent say animals "deserve some
protection but can still be used for the benefit of humans." But only 3
percent believe they deserve no legal rights at all. The legal revolution is
moving slowly, but it is moving.
Four decades after Christopher Stone wrote his groundbreaking legal argument
"Should Trees Have Standing?" the push to expand rights has secured human
protections for orangutans in Argentina, classified dolphins as non-human
persons in India, acknowledged dogs and cats as non-human neighbors in a
small Spanish town, won personhood to an entire river in New Zealand and,
most notably, the Nonhuman Rights Project went into a New York courtroom and
almost secured two chimpanzees the same personhood rights enjoyed by
corporations.
Yes, this is progress. Yes, the scale of nonhuman animal suffering (at the
hands of humans) is still beyond comprehension. Yes, people still buy and
discard pets like so much patio furniture while so many millions languish
and die in pet shelters. And yes, the progress feels too slow or, even
worse, too late. But consider the fact that we are overturning centuries of
anthropodenialism.
This is a revolution in how we see animals.
More importantly, this is a much-needed evolution of the human condition.
And it's not just being driven by progressive scientists. It's also being
driven by clickbait. Every day, amazing animals fill our feeds on Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. And it's far more than the millions of cat
videos that may be the only thing actually holding the interwebs together.
People eagerly share videos of humans and cows snuggling, crows seeking
emergency first aid and whales thanking humans for freeing them from
callously abandoned fishing nets. We've obsessively watched and re-watched
that compelling conversation between two chatty cats over 61 million times.
And the laughing orangutan that anthropodenialists would prefer to dismiss
as "vocalized panting?" It was a big hit on dozens of mainstream news sites
and, as of today, it's heading toward 19 million views in just under a year.
And therein lies the rub.
The more we actively observe altruism and justice and pain and love and fear
and play and politics and romance and commitment all around us, the harder
it is to maintain a destructive distinction between us and them. And the
more we click, the more clearly we see the fundamental problems of the
Anthropocene Era and its rising seas, poisoned waters and mounting
extinction.
The Other Final Frontier
Our growing recognition of the "inner life" of animals is a direct challenge
to the idea that they -- and the ecosystems they depend upon -- are merely a
natural resource quite literally at the disposal of human beings. Of course,
if Descartes was right, then the troubling aspects of suffering, habitat
destruction and human-caused extinction are completely absolved. It also
means the problem of squandering or exhausting so-called "resources" is
solely a problem of human injustice to other humans.
But the animal-related cavalcade of consciousness we see every day -- like
the viral video of incredibly cute sea turtle babies scurrying to the sea --
forces us to consider the possibility that sea turtles are not simply
"resources" to be preserved so our grandkids can have a sea turtle
"experience" on some Costa Rican beach 20 years from now. Instead we might
accept that sea turtles shouldn't go extinct because sea turtles have an
inherent right to exist apart from whether or not future generations of
human beings will be able to "enjoy" the existence of sea turtles.
And if we finally start to listen to the other "twitter feed" here on Earth,
we might actually learn something about cohabitation from the amazing
interspecies conversations happening around us. Scientists are finding that
various species learn to heed the calls, track the cries and listen to the
songs of the other species who share their habitat. They actually learn from
each other because they listen. They are not alone.
This is the final frontier we should all be exploring with ever greater
urgency.
We'd better start soon because the messages filling our collective inbox
tell us loudly and clearly that we're all heading for a mass catastrophe.
And migrating animals are telling us with increasingly apparent non-verbal
communication that we're warming the planet faster than they can adapt to it
and faster than our collective home can reasonably absorb.
And like the Zebra finches singing preparatory lessons about climate change
to their still incubating chicks, our cohabitants are telling us loudly and
clearly that we're imperiling the only truly habitable planet the universe
has yet to offer to us. So, while SETI falsely excites us with our own
messages reverberating off our own satellites, we should be paying ever
closer attention to the good news that we are not alone after all ... at
least, not yet.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
JP SOTTILE
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, published historian, radio co-host and
documentary filmmaker (The Warning, 2008). His credits include a stint on
the Newshour news desk, C-SPAN and as newsmagazine producer for ABC
affiliate WJLA in Washington. His weekly show, "Inside the Headlines With
The Newsvandal," co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in
Fairfield, Iowa. He blogs under the pseudonym "the Newsvandal."
RELATED STORIES
Anthropocene Boosters and the Attack on Wilderness Conservation
By George Wuerthner, Independent Science News | News Analysis
Animal Rights: "A Very Noble Cause" or Terrorism? The State Just Can't
Decide
By Kelly Hayes, Truthout | Interview
Animals to Humans: Be Quiet, Already
By Elizabeth Grossman, Ensia | Report
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
We Are Not Alone: Listening to the 8.7 Million Other Animals Who Live on
Earth
Saturday, 01 October 2016 00:00 By JP Sottile, Truthout | Report
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout; Adapted: orangeacid, Reto
Stöckli / NASA )
Space. They say it's the final frontier.
And they've probably been saying it for a long, long time. According to a
recent study, active human exploration of space dates back at least 6,000
years. That's when our star-struck ancestors constructed the first known
"telescope" to assist them in their eager search of the observable universe.
We've certainly come -- and gone -- a long way since those early attempts to
understand the night sky. We've been to the moon and landed on a
surprisingly water-worn Mars. We've literally traveled time through the
awe-inspiring "Deep Field" images collected by the Hubble telescope. And now
the Kepler space observatory is bringing us tantalizingly closer to
answering one of our oldest and most profound questions: Are we alone in the
universe?"
So far, the orbiting telescope has found hundreds of potentially life-giving
exoplanets peppered around the galaxy. It also found a surprising data
anomaly that made big news as the beguilingly named "Alien Megastructure"
star. The oddity of its intermittent, possibly structured dips in brightness
sparked a truly earth-shattering hypothesis: What if an advanced
civilization built a "megastructure" around the distant sun in a bid to
harvest its energy? Or, even better, what if they placed a Jupiter-sized
thingamajig in front of the star to signal their presence to other beings
who, like them, longingly scan the universe in search of companionship?
Imagine how instantly gratified we'd be to find out we weren't the only
intelligent beings probing the deep, dark vacuum of space! It would be the
ultimate validation. But this faint new hope of finding new kinship on a new
planet is based on a fundamental fallacy. The fallacy is the notion that we
are alone in the first place.
The real news is that we're up to our necks in a "deep field" of 8.7 million
sentient life forms right here on planet Earth. And we don't need an
orbiting telescope to see:
Social spiders with personalities who sometimes selflessly share
food with their neighbors ... much to their own detriment.
Humpback whale vigilantes who go out of their way to stop orcas from
attacking other sea mammals ... despite the alluring presence of their own
main food source
nearby.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/humpback-whales-save-anima
ls-killer-whales-explained/
New Caledonian crows who make tools like finely feathered craftsmen
and their brilliant cousins in the Corvid class of birds who have greater
neural density than comparable mammals.
African elephants who shed tears, bury and mourn their dead and
their Namibian desert kin who pass down crucial knowledge of how to survive
their harsh environment.
Capuchin monkeys who reject "unequal pay" and chimpanzees who work
together to achieve a communal goal.
Pigs who can reason where food is by looking at its reflection in a
mirror.
Baby chickens who acquire math skills and successfully play games
based on "object permanence" well before a proportionately-aged human baby.
There are even sharks who worry, goats who pleadingly stare at people and
snakes who, of course, deceptively act like "snakes in the grass."
That's right, folks. While the Search For Extraterrestrial Life (SETI) spent
the last three decades fruitlessly scanning the heavens in search of alien
signals ... we've actually been surrounded by a miraculous variety of
intelligence on the only planet we know for a fact sustains life.
It's not that space exploration isn't a good thing. Or that searching isn't
fundamental to being human. It might even be fundamental to being a primate.
No, the problem is that we've been living in self-imposed exile on a world
made artificially barren by science's three-centuries-long ban against
anthropomorphism. Ironically, this ban has helped validate the
anthropocentric idea that humans are so unique that we are, in effect, an
alien intelligence stranded here on Earth.
Anthropocentrically Speaking
Merriam-Webster defines anthropomorphism as "an interpretation of what is
not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics." For
scientists, it's long been a "four-letter word," meaning bad science based
on a faulty application of human paradigms onto non-human subjects of
research.
There are real scientific reasons to avoid unfounded inferences and personal
biases stemming from an uncritical anthropomorphism. And making humans the
measure of all things rarely, if ever, produces good results -- particularly
for nonhumans. But this methodological aversion to anthropomorphism meant
science not only rejected the implication that animals think, feel and
suffer "like humans," but it also cut off inquiry into whether or not
animals think, feel and suffer at all.
The issue seems bigger than just the supposed scientific impossibility of
measuring the "inner life" of animals. Instead, it may be that acknowledging
the existence of complex animal intelligence undermines our unique place
atop the natural order. A more "critical anthropomorphism" that modulates
human inference with testable data is producing strong arguments for knowing
animal consciousness, understanding their emotional lives and for accepting
the reality of animal suffering.
As comparative psychologist Jennifer Vonk told Discover magazine, "People
want to be special" and each time "a researcher finds that tool use or
theory of mind or language-like communication is not unique to humans,
somebody comes up with new categories that raise the bar."
It's a phenomenon leading primatologist Frans de Waal calls
"anthropodenial." It's the reflexive "rejection of humanlike traits in
animals and of animal-like traits in humans" and it still persists despite
mounting evidence to the contrary. De Waal collected much of that evidence
himself during years studying primates like bonobos. They are 98 percent
genetically similar to humans, they exhibit many of the hallmarks of
humanness and they are famous for the ribald complexity of their culture.
And yes, it is a culture.
But many of de Waal's colleagues simply won't go there. Instead, they claim
de Waal erroneously anthropomorphizes our cousins. And they explain away a
chimpanzee's laughter as nothing more than "vocalized panting." Years of
firsthand experience tickling apes has convinced de Waal otherwise.
Frankly, for anyone who's seen the viral video of an orangutan laughing at a
"missing ball" magic trick, this stubbornness in the face of an observable
truth is perplexing. It's particularly odd given orangutans' amazing range
of skills, including an ability to make sounds that seem strikingly similar
to those we make ourselves.
Yet, some remain unconvinced by Koko the gorilla's proficiency with sign
language and her unbridled love of kittens. Many initially criticized Jane
Goodall for imputing "individuality and emotion to nonhuman animals," in
spite of the fact that chimps share an amazing genetic similarity and a
warlike disposition with humans. Even Charles Darwin was ridiculed for
claiming the lowly earthworm showed intelligence. Darwin pointed out that
humans are animals over a century ago, but today he'd still face the same
anthropodenialism.
This outdated notion is based on a fundamental fallacy that assumes our
unique form of intelligence makes us this planet's only true beings. It's
right there in the name we've given ourselves and ourselves alone -- human
beings.
Being Versus Doing
So, why don't we say "dolphin beings" or "raven beings" and "octopus
beings"? Perhaps because "being" implies consciousness. If animals are not
conscious "beings," then they are merely "doing" by mechanical instinct. But
if animals are beings, that creates other complications: As beings, they
might have an existential right to "to be" beyond their usefulness to us as
a natural resource, a source of amusement or a subject of dissection.
We've conveniently squared that circle by believing only humans can truly
make conscious decisions. That's thanks in no small part to a 17th century
philosopher named Rene Descartes. He's often credited with building the
foundation of the modern scientific method. Even if you don't think you know
Descartes ... you do. He famously said "I think, therefore I am." He also
claimed that animals don't think and therefore they really aren't. How did
he know it for certain? Because animals cannot talk, you silly goose.
In fact, Descartes refused to believe that even the smartest Myna bird could
ever exhibit anything close to the "real" intelligence of a human being.
Sure, a Myna bird may be able to make word-like sounds. But unlike even the
"dumbest" human being, the brightest Myna bird has no real grasp of the
eternal concept that informs the word. Instead, the Myna bird is just a
soulless, instinct-driven automaton merely "parroting" something uttered by
a human. It's just a conditioned response to stimuli.
But imagine Descartes' surprise if he could've met Alex the Parrot, an
amazing African Grey who didn't seem to be parroting at all. Alex could add
Arabic numerals, identify shapes and colors and say "I love you" with the
kind of heart-warming sincerity we all crave. And, in an epic moment of
self-consciousness, Alex even looked in the mirror and asked, "What color am
I?"
Science Is Anthropomorphing
Alex was obviously thinking. And he talked about what was on his mind.
Therefore he was, right? Not if you're an anachronistic anthropodenialist.
Then you'd believe Alex was just giving a conditioned response and that Dr.
Irene Pepperberg made the cardinal error of foolishly anthropomorphizing
Alex's bird-brained behaviors.
But you'd also be increasingly behind the curve, because there is a new wave
of scientists at the leading edge of a polyphonic revolution that's finally
listening to the life all around us. So far, they've found:
Sperm whales who talk in regional dialects with distinct cultures
and use specialized sounds to delineate their own clans ... much like a
human surname.
Black Sea bottlenose dolphins engaged in a "human-like conversation"
recorded on a specially calibrated microphone that captured their back and
forth click-laden chit-chat.
Gorillas who "hum and sing" and Macaques who are learning to
communicate with computer touch screens.
Zebra finches who sing instructions to their young before they hatch
like a nesting hipster couple playing Bach to their gestating baby through a
"babybump" sound system.
Highly social meerkats who recognize each other as individuals by
their distinctive calls that basically function like names.
Dogs that know when you really mean "That's a good boy!" versus when
you're just peddling the kind of half-hearted praise that comes after a
hurried late night trip around the block at the end of a long, long day.
At long last, science is finally proving something millions of humans who
live with "pets" have known for years -- that animals are "people," too.
A recent Fortune Magazine survey found that 76 percent of Americans viewed
their dogs, cats, parakeets, hamsters and other pets as "beloved members of
the family." Just 19 percent of respondents said their pets were "well cared
for, but still considered animals" and less than 5 percent said "pets are
work animals that have a specific job to do."
And a Gallup poll conducted in 2015 found that 32 percent of Americans
"believe animals should be given the same rights as people." That's up from
25 percent in 2008. Still, a robust 62 percent say animals "deserve some
protection but can still be used for the benefit of humans." But only 3
percent believe they deserve no legal rights at all. The legal revolution is
moving slowly, but it is moving.
Four decades after Christopher Stone wrote his groundbreaking legal argument
"Should Trees Have Standing?" the push to expand rights has secured human
protections for orangutans in Argentina, classified dolphins as non-human
persons in India, acknowledged dogs and cats as non-human neighbors in a
small Spanish town, won personhood to an entire river in New Zealand and,
most notably, the Nonhuman Rights Project went into a New York courtroom and
almost secured two chimpanzees the same personhood rights enjoyed by
corporations.
Yes, this is progress. Yes, the scale of nonhuman animal suffering (at the
hands of humans) is still beyond comprehension. Yes, people still buy and
discard pets like so much patio furniture while so many millions languish
and die in pet shelters. And yes, the progress feels too slow or, even
worse, too late. But consider the fact that we are overturning centuries of
anthropodenialism.
This is a revolution in how we see animals.
More importantly, this is a much-needed evolution of the human condition.
And it's not just being driven by progressive scientists. It's also being
driven by clickbait. Every day, amazing animals fill our feeds on Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. And it's far more than the millions of cat
videos that may be the only thing actually holding the interwebs together.
People eagerly share videos of humans and cows snuggling, crows seeking
emergency first aid and whales thanking humans for freeing them from
callously abandoned fishing nets. We've obsessively watched and re-watched
that compelling conversation between two chatty cats over 61 million times.
And the laughing orangutan that anthropodenialists would prefer to dismiss
as "vocalized panting?" It was a big hit on dozens of mainstream news sites
and, as of today, it's heading toward 19 million views in just under a year.
And therein lies the rub.
The more we actively observe altruism and justice and pain and love and fear
and play and politics and romance and commitment all around us, the harder
it is to maintain a destructive distinction between us and them. And the
more we click, the more clearly we see the fundamental problems of the
Anthropocene Era and its rising seas, poisoned waters and mounting
extinction.
The Other Final Frontier
Our growing recognition of the "inner life" of animals is a direct challenge
to the idea that they -- and the ecosystems they depend upon -- are merely a
natural resource quite literally at the disposal of human beings. Of course,
if Descartes was right, then the troubling aspects of suffering, habitat
destruction and human-caused extinction are completely absolved. It also
means the problem of squandering or exhausting so-called "resources" is
solely a problem of human injustice to other humans.
But the animal-related cavalcade of consciousness we see every day -- like
the viral video of incredibly cute sea turtle babies scurrying to the sea --
forces us to consider the possibility that sea turtles are not simply
"resources" to be preserved so our grandkids can have a sea turtle
"experience" on some Costa Rican beach 20 years from now. Instead we might
accept that sea turtles shouldn't go extinct because sea turtles have an
inherent right to exist apart from whether or not future generations of
human beings will be able to "enjoy" the existence of sea turtles.
And if we finally start to listen to the other "twitter feed" here on Earth,
we might actually learn something about cohabitation from the amazing
interspecies conversations happening around us. Scientists are finding that
various species learn to heed the calls, track the cries and listen to the
songs of the other species who share their habitat. They actually learn from
each other because they listen. They are not alone.
This is the final frontier we should all be exploring with ever greater
urgency.
We'd better start soon because the messages filling our collective inbox
tell us loudly and clearly that we're all heading for a mass catastrophe.
And migrating animals are telling us with increasingly apparent non-verbal
communication that we're warming the planet faster than they can adapt to it
and faster than our collective home can reasonably absorb.
And like the Zebra finches singing preparatory lessons about climate change
to their still incubating chicks, our cohabitants are telling us loudly and
clearly that we're imperiling the only truly habitable planet the universe
has yet to offer to us. So, while SETI falsely excites us with our own
messages reverberating off our own satellites, we should be paying ever
closer attention to the good news that we are not alone after all ... at
least, not yet.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
JP Sottile
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, published historian, radio co-host and
documentary filmmaker (The Warning, 2008). His credits include a stint on
the Newshour news desk, C-SPAN and as newsmagazine producer for ABC
affiliate WJLA in Washington. His weekly show, "Inside the Headlines With
The Newsvandal," co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in
Fairfield, Iowa. He blogs under the pseudonym "the Newsvandal."
Related Stories
Anthropocene Boosters and the Attack on Wilderness Conservation
By George Wuerthner, Independent Science News | News AnalysisAnimal Rights:
"A Very Noble Cause" or Terrorism? The State Just Can't Decide
By Kelly Hayes, Truthout | InterviewAnimals to Humans: Be Quiet, Already
By Elizabeth Grossman, Ensia | Report
Show Comments
