I wonder what is the role of « otherness », of difference in our relation to the non-human animals. Many studies and research from this summer school tend to find similarities between us and the non-human animals, connecting us with them in this particular manner. Even if we try avoiding anthropomorphism, public education seems to focus on how non-human animals are not as different as we think, possessing the same traits, activities, social life…etc. What I find dangerous in this way of studying and talking about other living beings is that the differences, the otherness (what isn’t us or like us) becomes suspect. By searching for ourselves everywhere, we are less receptive/inclusive for difference.
I would like to hear your opinion about the place of anthropomorphism in science and in the general public education. Should we try staying even more neutral while doing this kind of science and should we try to teach earlier not to be afraid and mostly to respect what is different, what we don’t find ourselves in?
I totally agree with your thought about the danger of being less receptive or less inclusive to differences when trying to find human like characteristics in non-human animals. I think anthropomorphism could be used as a source of intuition to build hypothesis, but we should not restrain ourself with anthropomorphic inquiry of otherness.
About education, I think we should first try to make people accept differences in human rather than deny it or judge it.
This panel got out of his main intented topic but was nevertheless very interesting. Firstly, I would like to thank the panelists for raising, even briefly, the issue of the urban raccoons and the trapping. I have myself on the familial property a colony of more or less 19 of these amazingly intelligent and innovative individuals, and have almost every month to intervene and educate some neighbours about them. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/11/raccoon.aspx https://www.livescience.com/60784-raccoons-cheat-to-ace-cognition-test.html https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-017-1129-z I also very much appreciated Dr Harnad's pertinent and objective comments, and I would like to share a very interesting article suggested by Dr Harnad about the cognitive distortions we (as human beings) use to maintain more or less consciously: https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Loughnan_2010_The_role_of_meat_consumption_.._denial_of_moral_status.pdf Even if some of us are vegans, we cannot avoid the natural fact of predation in the nature and the fact some species could not, according to what we hear from the veterinarians, live on a diet totally devoid of animal proteins, for ex. the cats. So we are caught in the conflict of trying to apply pure ethics or to find a deontology avoiding any over-consummation and searching for organic and free range farming.
My question is for Professor Pravosudov. During the discussion with the other panelist, you mentioned that from an evolutionary perspective, flatworms were better adapted than human beings. But isn’t the capacity to adapt and innovate one of the hallmark of humans that would make us more evolutionary fit than a flatworm? For example, the innovations in medicine over the few past century almost doubled life expectancy, often times bringing back individuals that were the brink of death. Can you elaborate on why you would say a flatworm is more fit than humans?
We have five senses, but my understanding is that animal might have another one that we don’t, like when they sense natural disasters and flea before it happens. Maybe they have a sense that we lost, and we may be displaying a higher level of feeling than they have.
- Anyone aware if this natural disaster “sensing” as been studied?
I wonder what is the role of « otherness », of difference in our relation to the non-human animals. Many studies and research from this summer school tend to find similarities between us and the non-human animals, connecting us with them in this particular manner. Even if we try avoiding anthropomorphism, public education seems to focus on how non-human animals are not as different as we think, possessing the same traits, activities, social life…etc. What I find dangerous in this way of studying and talking about other living beings is that the differences, the otherness (what isn’t us or like us) becomes suspect. By searching for ourselves everywhere, we are less receptive/inclusive for difference.
ReplyDeleteI would like to hear your opinion about the place of anthropomorphism in science and in the general public education. Should we try staying even more neutral while doing this kind of science and should we try to teach earlier not to be afraid and mostly to respect what is different, what we don’t find ourselves in?
I totally agree with your thought about the danger of being less receptive or less inclusive to differences when trying to find human like characteristics in non-human animals. I think anthropomorphism could be used as a source of intuition to build hypothesis, but we should not restrain ourself with anthropomorphic inquiry of otherness.
DeleteAbout education, I think we should first try to make people accept differences in human rather than deny it or judge it.
This panel got out of his main intented topic but was nevertheless very interesting. Firstly, I would like to thank the panelists for raising, even briefly, the issue of the urban raccoons and the trapping. I have myself on the familial property a colony of more or less 19 of these amazingly intelligent and innovative individuals, and have almost every month to intervene and educate some neighbours about them.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/11/raccoon.aspx
https://www.livescience.com/60784-raccoons-cheat-to-ace-cognition-test.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-017-1129-z
I also very much appreciated Dr Harnad's pertinent and objective comments, and I would like to share a very interesting article suggested by Dr Harnad about the cognitive distortions we (as human beings) use to maintain more or less consciously: https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Loughnan_2010_The_role_of_meat_consumption_.._denial_of_moral_status.pdf
Even if some of us are vegans, we cannot avoid the natural fact of predation in the nature and the fact some species could not, according to what we hear from the veterinarians, live on a diet totally devoid of animal proteins, for ex. the cats. So we are caught in the conflict of trying to apply pure ethics or to find a deontology avoiding any over-consummation and searching for organic and free range farming.
My question is for Professor Pravosudov. During the discussion with the other panelist, you mentioned that from an evolutionary perspective, flatworms were better adapted than human beings. But isn’t the capacity to adapt and innovate one of the hallmark of humans that would make us more evolutionary fit than a flatworm? For example, the innovations in medicine over the few past century almost doubled life expectancy, often times bringing back individuals that were the brink of death. Can you elaborate on why you would say a flatworm is more fit than humans?
ReplyDeleteWe have five senses, but my understanding is that animal might have another one that we don’t, like when they sense natural disasters and flea before it happens. Maybe they have a sense that we lost, and we may be displaying a higher level of feeling than they have.
ReplyDelete- Anyone aware if this natural disaster “sensing” as been studied?