I might have worked out how to frame this dissertation idea.
Animals have an interest in being able to make sense of their environment so that they can survive. For many complex creatures, this demands learning (often social learning) as well as the unimpeded collection of sensory information. They have to learn how to be what they are – how to feed and what to feed upon, where to sleep and who with, how to escape from predation, what the social structure is, who to mate with, how to raise young.
While octopi and baby turtles have to do all this on their own, birds and mammals – and certain fish – develop in a social group. There is communication and teaching. Without this, survival is compromised if not impossible.
In addition, learning continues through life for long-lived mammals like elephants and cetaceans as well as for smart birds like corvids and parrots.
Where circumstances change – habitat lost or compromised, changing climate and so on – learning is even more important.
If we are to acknowledge the importance of making sense of a (changing) environment, then there is reason to support: large enough populations for variable strategies to arise; old enough members as repositories of knowledge; ability to communicate with conspecifics – and occasionally other species; maintenance of social groups; maintenance of species specific behaviour; maintenance of habitat; not having chronic stress or trauma that impacts cognition and the ability to respond optimally.
This is relevant as it changes the focus from individuals or species to social groups embedded in an environment with other animals.
Through communicating information, animals fare better.
Now, I think this works even taking the most basic view of animal cognition. For example, emotional contagion. An animal freezes, the fear is communicated to others who also freeze, become alert, flee, whatever. Even something like 'witness response' - an animal suffers at witnessing another's suffering. This can motivate help, but at the least it presumably increases general awareness and thus may decrease the chances of more harm to another.
Or, successful use of information suggests that the information has been absorbed. By this I mean that an animal that catches prey using sonar is seen to be successfully using the information about where the prey is.
So I don't need animals to know that they know or to intend to communicate or to think about what they are sensing. I just need them to be able to attain information and act on it effectively.
Other thoughts coming up:
Witness response suggests that it is not ethical to have animals witness another's suffering. This has implications for abattoirs and labs as well as transportation.
That humans communicate far more about their emotional state and intentions than they realise - and that this facilitates social co-operation as well as making angry mobs like a tinder box.
Inter species stuff - ravens lead wolves to a kill, deliberately, so the wolves break up the carcass; groupers encourage eels to hunt with them; honey guides lead humans to bee hives; humans are helped to fish by wild dolphins.
That humans and wild animals communicate surely puts ethical pressure on humans to work on better communication with domestic animals - so that both sides can learn socially how to interact to their mutual benefit.
Non social information gathering is also impeded by humans - those air guns in the sea; glass windows; noise pollution; light pollution - though worth noting that night lights benefit crows at the expense of owls!
Comments