What the grieving mother orca tells us about how animals experience death

https://theconversation.com/what-the-grieving-mother-orca-tells-us-about-how-animals-experience-death-101230

by pseudolus • 8 years ago

52 80 8 years ago

The idea that beings which are grossly anatomically and physiologically similar to ourselves somehow don't experience similar emotions as ourselves is objectively the most backward, bizarre, and anthrocentric biological idea I can imagine.

The default rational -- and scientific -- position should be that animals' inner lives are roughly similar to our own, at least in proportion to the similarity of their observable experience, and until proven otherwise. To assume otherwise -- that animals are dead inside, because they look different, or -- forgive the cynicism -- because they challenge some misplaced idea of human exceptionalism -- that is "faith", and not science.

adventured• 8 years ago

Humans are clearly exceptional in numerous positive ways. There is no real debate to be had there.

Let me know when the whales, monkeys and dolphins put a telescope into orbit. And let me know what the grieving orca thinks about generational knowledge transference or the afterlife.

Human exceptionalism isn't simultaneously a degradation of the amazing traits of other species. Just because humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas, that doesn't actually take anything away from gorillas.

projektir• 8 years ago

Neither of those things indicate that humans have wildly different inner lives, though. A lot of these may perhaps be attributed to a combination of language development and tools usage, neither of which is really relevant to the parent's point in any way, so I don't really understand your digression.

Humans DO have a history of degrading the inner lives of animals and it's a problem. We don't even know for sure that humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas in an objective sense, we're just deriving that from the aforementioned telescope example which is not scientific in the slightest.

Humans have plenty to be proud of but with things like "we're more intelligent" or "we're more emotionally developed" as opposed to "we got a lucky combination of things" I'd rather be really careful.

36bydesign• 8 years ago

Things human value (exploration, science) aren’t necessarily things other species would value. We tend to destroy the planet in our pursuits, so I’m not as confident as you are in our own species’ intellectual superiority.

Many species have better memories than humans, including most monkey/ape species. We have exceptional dexterity while dolphins don’t, so is it a fair fight to judge intelligence by putting a telescope into orbit? Do dolphins have as high a rate of depression in their species as humans? Do they have as many wars as us? Again, are we really that much more intelligent than these other species? Measuring intelligence is hard because we don’t have a rigorous definition.

JoshTko• 8 years ago

So did humans 20,000 years ago lack emotional depth since they had yet to invent complex technology?

hprotagonist• 8 years ago

To assume otherwise -- that animals are dead inside, because they look different, or -- forgive the cynicism -- because they challenge some misplaced idea of human exceptionalism -- that is "faith", and not science.

How about "has 302 neurons"? Where along this list ought we draw one or more partitions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

colanderman4• 8 years ago

Like I said, our idea – that is, our presumption, short of scientific evidence – of what inner experiences an animal might share with us should be informed by our knowledge of what physiology and behavior that animal shares with us. Orcas are mammals with complex social structures who form extremely close bonds with their mothers [1]. Hence my suggestion that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that an orca would not feel grief should her child die.

Roundworms? Not so much.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure

monetus• 8 years ago

I'm curious how much of our 'soul' is a product of the relationship between the bacterial biomes in our bodies, rather than just our neurons by themselves.

Even more, how do we know all neurons are equal?

edit: not arguing against your point, just woolgathering.

MrQuincle2• 8 years ago

That you have to draw a line somewhere is obvious. Speciecism however draws the line at exactly our own species. We can do better than that. To use a physiological line seems indeed a better approach. It would also be good if we would know where there is a line of feeling pain. Good luck establishing a line. It's one of the things we can do, where we can collectively become more reasonable and emphatic than we were before.

laretluval3• 8 years ago

On the other hand, many of our emotions and emotional displays appear to be social in nature, and we are much more social than the average mammal.

colanderman4• 8 years ago

Orcas aren't the "average" mammal. They have one of the most complex known social structures. [1]

Should we assume that solitary mammals – say, tigers – feel grief? Maybe not – they do not share the social structure humans have in which grief plays a part. Though we might assume they experience emotions related to maintaining a territory, such as pride and anger.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure

toomanybeersies4• 8 years ago

I've been struggling with this myself recently, about the ethics of eating meat and whether animals have a "soul".

My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego, therefore death is insignificant to them. Animals are incapable of forming abstract concepts, of thinking about the future or the past in concrete terms, of forming feelings and emotions.

However, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the more intelligent mammals, such as whales and dolphins, as well as apes, do have an ego. Plenty of people argue that it's unethical to kill whales and dolphins because they do have an ego and can form abstract thoughts.

So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine? Where is that line drawn? I don't have that answer, so I've gone off eating meat in general. The concept of killing a living, possibly thinking being in order to eat it seems a bit fucked up to me these days. I can't say with certainty if/what animals do have an ego, or if they are capable of abstract thoughts, but it for me it seems safer to assume they do and avoid eating them.

ddingus2• 8 years ago

I have settled on the definition of a soul being, "that which makes us unique."

Animals souls do not burn as bright, or as complex as ours do, and perhaps the higher order animals do, but they are there.

I had a special cat once. Deep bond with my wife and I. When my wife was sick, that cat attended to her. She reported the caring touch, done for the same reasons any of us would.

When she died, it was powerful.

She wanted to be with us, and she communicated basic affection, fear, the need to be close, pain, and more.

It was remarkably like the passing of a person. Simpler, but not less, just simpler.

It is hard to justify a lot of what we do, given these kinds if experiences.

One other thing: Animals do vary. Widely. But, when we invest in them, seek mutual understanding, they respond. The more capable ones can respond more than I belueve we realize.

dotancohen• 8 years ago

Nature is rough my friend. Dogs and bears (which are closely related to dogs) have emotion and form bonds, but they ruthlessly prey one on the other. You and I might live a comfortable life now, but without society you would put any sentient being on the plate in order to feed your own sentient offspring.

Just as you believe that animals are no different from man, you should realize that man is no different from animals and that our physiology requires us to eat them just as they must eat each other. Of course with modern nutritional knowledge and preparation techniques you _could_ live off flora, but human physiology in the absence of technology requires meat no matter how cute or emotional the prey.

ssijak• 8 years ago

Problem is that by not eating meat you are still killing animals indirectly. You just can`t avoid it. How many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and other *cides are thrown at your GMO soy crops? How many smaller animals are killed by cultivating that land for the crops? And who are we to say that little mouse is worth less than a cow?

People usually favor bigger animals in their animal empathy pyramid. On top are smart or endangered animals and pets that we do not usually eat. Then come bigger animals that we grow to like because we can see their nuanced expressions because of their size. And then on the bottom are insects, pests and "gross" animals.

But who am I to egotistically judge from a human point of view that a dog's life is more important than pig`s. Or that 1 cow deserves to live more than million of flies.

Life is rough. Animals and people die in many different ways, not just for food. My view now is that that fact is inevitable, but that does not mean that you can be a jerk and disrespect life and do as you please. Eat animals, but respect them. Eat them, but in as humane way as possible. Don`t support industrial farming and production of animals. Don`t throw food. Don`t be mindless about it. Care for the environment. Don`t kill without purpose, even the smallest animals.

TheSpiceIsLife3• 8 years ago

Do dogs, cows, whales, sheep, pigs, etc. etc. have emotions and internal lives that matter, at least to them?

This is another one of those things we don’t need yet another PhD, and yet another tomb of books, and yet more decades and centuries, to discuss and probe.

One has only to watch these animals for five minute to see the answer is clearly yes.

It would seem to me the only reason I don’t eat dogs and whales and dolphins is purely my cultural upbringing.

But, in my opinion, all of this is irrelevant. We don’t need to feel for these creatures.

Rather, what we need to do, en mass, is realise the jury is in: for our own health, and the overall sustainability of human life: we ought significantly reduce our meat consumption.

vikiomega9• 8 years ago

My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego

I think the problem with a train of thought like this one is that it assume there are certain fixed properties that makes a human "special". That is perhaps not so considering how we build abstractions on base instincts[1]

So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine?

I hate how people do this for dogs and not pigs either, literally makes no sense how morals are peddled sometimes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine

puranjay4• 8 years ago

I've long resigned to the fact that eating meat is not justifiable, and that I continue to do it solely because of the taste. I haven't seen a single convincing argument to prove otherwise.

Buldak• 8 years ago

People are thoroughly capable of believing this about other people, never mind non-human animals.

eaenki• 8 years ago

Exactly.

TheSpiceIsLife3• 8 years ago

Ha! Reading that actually have me a little shock. So true!

Where I live, if you were to palliatively medicate a dog or cat, or cow or pig or sheep, for ten years, in an effort to keep it alive despite obvious suffering, you would likely be servely reprimanded, if caught.

Meanwhile, humans have turned this treatment toward each other in to an industry.

We shouldn’t be at all surprised that we factory farm animals for our culinary pleasures.

TangoTrotFox4• 8 years ago

I find your comment ironic. Consider that you are stating that everything must, at some level, be like humans. This is the most clear cut example of anthrocentric thinking I can imagine! This view is also contradicted by experiment which shows that creatures that are extremely genetically similar to us, still respond very differently to various stimuli thus making the logical view that they indeed do experience the same stimuli in different ways.

Beyond experiment I think it also fails through basic logic as well. Evolution dictates what we become, and we can see the vast variety of changes that evolution has forked among us. Go back far enough and even humans and plants share a common ancestor. To this day a banana shares about 60% of its DNA with a human! But of course it's not just what's on the outside the evolution changes. The way things act, behave, perceive, think, and so on is also controlled by evolution. To assume that somehow everything must, at some level, have internal mechanisms similar to a human is also just not very logical. It'd be like suggesting that everything must have opposable thumbs, because we do. Of course we know that to be very false, but the only reason your statement is not immediately similarly absurd is because you're referencing things that cannot be directly observed.

gepi795• 8 years ago

To assume that animals that behave as if they had emotions actually have emotions is not anthrocentric but intelligent thinking. This not like the question whether Earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits Earth in case you do not know the mass of the objects.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...

It is absurd and unscientific to think that animals have no emotional awareness despite the emotional reptilian complex and the limbic system and a different neocortex for unemotional intelligence.

Besides the problem of consciousness is far from being solved.

https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-223...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs

agumonkey3• 8 years ago

I often compare animals and humans to old and new video games, same principles, just a shift in resolution.

emodendroket10• 8 years ago

Anthropomorphization is tempting but wrong https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02iht-02angi.15827...

Everywhere in nature, biologists say, are examples of animals behaving as though they were at least vaguely aware of death's brutal supremacy and yet unpersuaded that it had anything to do with them. Michael Wilson, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota who has studied chimpanzees at Jane Goodall's research site in Gombe, said chimps were "very different from us in terms of what they understand about death and the difference between the living and the dead." The Hallmark hanky moment alternates with the Roald Dahl macabre. A mother will try to nurse her dead baby back to life, Wilson said, "but when the infant becomes quite decayed, she'll carry it by just one leg or sling it over her back in a casual way."

clay_the_ripper• 8 years ago

Whether they actually have similar internal experience or not I think still does not justify the way humans treat animals. If a developmentally disabled human was not able comprehend life, death or suffering, that would not excuse mistreatment of that person.

Whether animals understand life or not isn’t really the point, and I think these arguments are misused to justify explotation and mistreatment.

emodendroket10• 8 years ago

This whole discussion is about whether they understand it. But I think it's revealing that multiple people have shifted the discussion to the treatment of animals -- it seems to me like some of us, rather than thinking animals deserve better treatment because of their sentience, think animals must be sentient because they deserve better treatment. Personally, I do not find the evidence that humans have anything approaching a human internal life persuasive.

aaron695• 8 years ago

The entire article is stupid

This is perhaps because most humans failed to even entertain the possibility that animals might care about the death of those they love.

Ever person with two pets who hung out and had one die has looked to see if the other showed grief. A really stupid strawperson premise. And you'll see it, but the question as a layperson is, is it real or imagined.

Also dogs mourning their dead owners have multiple fucking movies made about them. It's pop culture for dams sake. Hachikō was re-made into an American movie from a Japanese movie made off multiple news articles.

But at the end of the day if animals show grief why are they using this current cliche of J35. Why not the billions of animals that interact with us every day. Why are they using famous cases of grief that we've all heard before?

Johnny555• 8 years ago

Or, could the behavior just show that that whales don't understand death at all and the whale was just instinctively trying to aid her "sick" calf until he recovered?

agumonkey3• 8 years ago

in a similar way, there's a story about octopussies: they will heat their offsprings nest to near death and then leave as far as possible so predators aren't attracted by her corpse.. If true that's a deep conceptual step

bklaasen• 8 years ago

That's just evolution. The offspring of octopus mothers that died next to the nest also got eaten so didn't survive to reproduce and pass on that trait.

agumonkey3• 8 years ago

evolution also made a path for mothers to heat the nest

still it's a interesting common point

What the grieving mother orca tells us about how animals experience death

Related Stories