Applying Human traits to wildlife.

[paulchandler6]

Is it right to apply Human traits to wildlife? I have seen Birds of Prey described as lazy because they make a kill and sit around until the next meal.
Rabbits and Pheasants as stupid because they don’t get out of the way of vehicles on the road.

What is the primary role of a BOP, to further their species and survive to carry this out?

Rabbits and Pheasants are not aware that a vehicle can kill as they do not perceive it as a predator?

Interesting to see what the rest of you folks out there think.

Paul

[Susie]

We are all animals (yes, okay, I use the term loosely ) so I don't see why some traits won't apply across species although I am sure that in some cases over simplification or misinterpretation occurs.

[hannahpanda]

Our lecturers have warned us to be careful of Anthropomorphism when describing species.

It depends in what context. Using our traits to describe animals ensures that people understand what we say, but saying they are "lazy" and "stupid" because people dont understand why they act the way they do then.. they need to do some reasearch

[naturelover]

if you want my opinion they are the ones that are stupid.

[mrs fish]

I don't blame bop's for sitting about after a kill, it takes alot of energy and skill to catch their meal

I think it is interesting that a woodpigeon that eats and eats only has a life span of 3 years whereas a gull that doesn't seem to hardly eat anything to me(a few worms in the morning and the odd chip) has a life span of 30 years!

That seems to be the case with humans too at the moment

[Gill Catton]

Interesting thread

I think 'lazyness' is actually a human invented critisim (sp?) of a very sucessful resting behaviour that probably helped us to survive as it does birds of prey and other species.

People assume animals need to roam miles and miles in their life to feel happy and for some animals (particualrly those that need to migrate) this may be true but for others if food or mates are always within reach of their shelter they won't wander far at all.....

With regard to Rabbits and pheasants I think we are just being unfair in our judgement. If you have ever been on a railway line looking head on at a train approaching at 125 miles an hour it often looks like its hardly moving its certainly very difficult to percieve the actual speed people often get killed on rail lines for this reason, because it looks like they have time to get out of the way when they don't. This I think may be how it is for Rabbits and pheasants. The most road kill happens on roads with virtually no verge just a hedge then road or on quiet roads where there's only periodic traffic so animals either can only see the traffic head on or are unused to traffic at all.

I think also you're right that animals don't recognise cars as a 'predator' because they don't exhibit any predator type behaviours they don't chase animals off into the field, their 'eyes' (headlights) are often 'looking' away from the animal and I think this is why cars work so well as a hide....

I think even even with recognised predators an animal like a Rabbit won't run as an initial behaviour unless a Fox has appeared unexpectedly. Often if they see a Fox coming they stand up and indicate to the Fox that it has been spotted - older foxes frequently then don't bother because they know they stand little chance of a catch, and the Rabbits continue grazing with one or two keeping an eye on the Fox, the Rabbits then only run if the Fox continues to get close.

Hmmmm I've gone off on a tangent here haven't I !

er yes we definately project human emotions onto animals but I think sometimes we are right but just misinterpreting or reassessing under modern environs the behaviours in ourselves.....

[coasty]

As regards the animals ability to recognise a car as danger.. The lack of a learning opportunity surely is the factor,,,, Hard to learn any lessons when you are spread along the tarmac?

[The Black Rabbit]

This could turn into a very interesting thread indeed. (With luck).

Some of us have mentioned this topic before - making direct comparisons between humans and (other) animals, especially in terms of behaviour / emotions / feelings etc...

Whilst I am pretty much against the anthropomorphism of other animals, (sometimes even to the point of giving wild animals names on tv shows - though I certainly understand why they do that - I did the same with "Scargill and Anne", our nesting Blue Tits last year), and the disneyfication of wildlife in general, especially amongst us Brits, there are some interesting anomalies I think.

You mentioned birds of prey Paul.
I could present to you half a dozen falconers now, who think, or indeed KNOW, their birds are very individual, in terms of human behaviour, I suppose.
Some they would describe as pig-headed, some as arrogant and superior, some as lazy, some as bone-idle, some as show-offs, some as mercurial - the list would go on and on.

Ah... but these are kept birds eh? So thats not a fair example?
Maybe.
Maybe not...

Doug

[zan]

I'm not generally a fan of anthropomorphisms because I think it often takes something away from the animal itself. I think it can help remind people that animals aren't just unfeeling objects and I think it's fair enough that people do it when teaching or to convey a point, but it's also dangerous if we assume animals feel the same way about a situation as we would.

It's something that has big implications in the welfare of e.g. domestic food animals or in designing zoo enclosures. I haev a friend who works in an aquarium, and she is always saying how many complaints they get that their (rescued, non-releasable) turtle must be lonely. Doesn't matter taht it's a naturally solitary species...

the only way to really work out the animal's 'feelings' are to get to know it intimately, whether through research or owning a captive animal. As long as that's done carefully and well, it shouldn't be a problem.

[coasty]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

This could turn into a very interesting thread indeed. (With luck).

Some of us have mentioned this topic before - making direct comparisons between humans and (other) animals, especially in terms of behaviour / emotions / feelings etc...

Whilst I am pretty much against the anthropomorphism of other animals, (sometimes even to the point of giving wild animals names on tv shows - though I certainly understand why they do that - I did the same with "Scargill and Anne", our nesting Blue Tits last year), and the disneyfication of wildlife in general, especially amongst us Brits, there are some interesting anomalies I think.


Doug

I agree Doug , However I suggest we should start by agreeing if we feel non humans are capable of emotional responses. I for one beleive many animals feel fear, uneasiness, loss ie bereavment, loneliness and they are capable of interaction with others of their species and humans, But importantly should these traits be described as human in the first place?.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by coasty

I agree Doug , However I suggest we should start by agreeing if we feel non humans are capable of emotional responses. I for one beleive many animals feel fear, uneasiness, loss ie bereavment, loneliness and they are capable of interaction with others of their species and humans, But importantly should these traits be described as human in the first place?.

good post, I believe these things too - particularly for sociable animals as I think it is what drives them to stay in groups....

and no I don't think they are human behaviours I think they are behaviours that numerous species experiance......

[zan]

It's a difficult question to answer; it's hard enough working out what other people are feeling sometimes! I don't know how or if you could ever prove that animals could 'feel' in the same way as we do, but I don't see why they shouldn't. We all evolved along similar lines and it would be awfully strange if we were teh only species in the world to develop emotional responses to things.

[coasty]

As for animals having a different character.... Anyone who has owned cats or dogs will agree that they have their own individual personality...

[Run rabbit]

Very interesting thread.

I suppose that inactivity is often called laziness because it assumes that something good/useful could be achieved with the time.

In many animals I guess that it could be described as intelligent or thrifty because it conserves energy. No doubt we could think or other explanations too.

Jo

[Adam Cheeseman]

I think we need to differentiate between behaviour and perceived traits.
As primates we share many similar behavioural characteristics with other primates particularly the great apes because of our close genetic link.
Perceived traits (and anthropomorphism) on the other hand are quite different. Really gets under my skin to hear magpies and foxes, for example, described as murderous, and animals described as dumb because they can't communicate with us by talking - they don't need to.

Cheers,

Adam

[naturelover]

how true that is coasty,all the animals i have had have all had different personalitys,you can never get two animals of the same species with the same feelings,they are no different to us,lets face it we are all animals no matter if you like it or not we are,we have got the bigger brain so we are the goveners of the world,like i said in an earlyer post,if ants were bigger they would be the goveners they are brainyer than any human,and we would be the underdogs dont you agree.

[paulchandler6]

Interesting to see all the responses so far.

Gill made a good point regarding speed. For a start animals do not percieve roads as roads and how many of us can judge speed accurately?

Do all the so called higher species (Mammals, Birds etc)have a basic personality? Then some as they have evolved have developed this further. Maybe some for instance, species in captivity or domestication have been influenced in some way by Humans either directly or indirectly.

Yes Humans are animals but we have made the so called great leap of evolution and taken it to another level.
Being an arrogant species we tend to view behaviour of other species in our terms. Also we have language and describe certain behaviours with the closest word in our vocabulary.

Animals do have feelings, pain, hunger, fear and maybe even loss. but are they governed by instinct? rather than conscious or emotional thought/response.
Some species even appear to grieve.

I know this is a bit off the gist of the initial thread but fascinating none the less.

By the way naturelover the Sperm Whale has the largest brain.
and ant society is rather disciplined and lacks expression and creativity. However they fill a niche and do what they do to survive.

Sorry I do waffle.

Paul

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by paulchandler6

Interesting to see all the responses so far.

Gill made a good point regarding speed. For a start animals do not percieve roads as roads and how many of us can judge speed accurately?

Do all the so called higher species (Mammals, Birds etc)have a basic personality? Then some as they have evolved have developed this further. Maybe some for instance, species in captivity or domestication have been influenced in some way by Humans either directly or indirectly.

Yes Humans are animals but we have made the so called great leap of evolution and taken it to another level.
Being an arrogant species we tend to view behaviour of other species in our terms. Also we have language and describe certain behaviours with the closest word in our vocabulary.

Animals do have feelings, pain, hunger, fear and maybe even loss. but are they governed by instinct? rather than conscious or emotional thought/response.
Some species even appear to grieve.

I know this is a bit off the gist of the initial thread but fascinating none the less.

By the way naturelover the Sperm Whale has the largest brain.
and ant society is rather disciplined and lacks expression and creativity. However they fill a niche and do what they do to survive.

Sorry I do waffle.

Paul

Thats a nice cliche Paul. I'm not sure what you mean by that though.
Would you care to clarify for me please?

I assume you meant our human behaviours, and indeed emotions and traits, have an emergent, revolutionary quality about them, brought on by an evolutionary leap, or "evolution by jerks", rather than being (temporary?) characteristics that have come about as a continual extrapolation of minute, gradual evolutionary processes?
Did you?

If you did, thats something Ian Tattersall et.al. might say.
Many of his contemparies think he's lost the plot though, and one could strongly argue that they are right with their disparaging criticism.

If you don't mean that - then what do you mean by "the so-called great leap of evolution..."?

Apologies if this is briefly off topic. I think its relevant though.

Thanks
Doug

[zan]

there was an event in human history known as 'the great leap forward', and while it wasn't an evolutionary leap, it was more a leap in understanding (like a eureka moment I suppose). This apparently happened about 40000-50000 years ago and was signified by rapid cultural advancement. The 'leap' was characterised largely by the advent of abstract thought (and the language to describe it). Evidence of early symbolic behaviour (e.g. burying the dead) also dates from around this time.

While this leap was obviously a result of human evolution (brain development etc) bringing teh species to the point where such realisations were possible, there was no evolutionary jump. Evolution happens extremely slowly, relying on the propagation of tiny mutations in a species' genome and doesn't stop and start in this way.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by zan

there was an event in human history known as 'the great leap forward', and while it wasn't an evolutionary leap, it was more a leap in understanding (like a eureka moment I suppose). This apparently happened about 40000-50000 years ago and was signified by rapid cultural advancement. The 'leap' was characterised largely by the advent of abstract thought (and the language to describe it). Evidence of early symbolic behaviour (e.g. burying the dead) also dates from around this time.

While this leap was obviously a result of human evolution (brain development etc) bringing teh species to the point where such realisations were possible, there was no evolutionary jump. Evolution happens extremely slowly, relying on the propagation of tiny mutations in a species' genome and doesn't stop and start in this way.

Better put than me, Zan, but thats Tattersall too isnt it?
Is it better put "A great leap because of evolution"? (rather than just "of")?! I'm confusing myself now.
I'll look up that book he wrote on the subject when I get a chance... I think it was about 10 years ago.
Cheers
Doug

[PMG]

Well no - it isn't right to say something is lazy cos it sits about a lot (tho in my case today that would be true) Birds of prey in captivity are more than capable of working out that they don't have to do a lot - and can't do a lot in order to get fed. Maybe they are sitting still and are very depressed? Maybe they are sitting there and thinking 'this is the life' Maybe they're not thinking anything like that at all - in fact nothing like?

The thing is we don't know - we can only guess - as soon as we try to interpret some behaviour we are using human thought process and language and altho we are supposed to be the most evolved race - it seems to me we can be quite ignorant as a race - and occassionally held back by our apparent thoughts, emotions and language...........

Pauline

[zan]

the Black Rabbit: You could well be right. I haven't read tattersall's book, (though I have just familiarised myself with an online review from new scientist) and it looks like the same point. I read about teh theory in Richard Dawkins' 'the Ancestors Tale' which was a fascinating book. I may well have confused the details, but I think the point is not to confuse adaptation and evolution (as was pointed out in another thread here recently!).

the theory I think he's talking about is called 'punctuated equilibrium' and suggests that evolution proceeds in fits and starts. I suppose the argument is whether the 'great leap forward' was a moment of evolutionary leaping, or a eureka moment, when some early human realised he could talk\paint things that were not immediately present (i.e. there is a herd of buffalo in a valley 3 hills away as opposed to, 'look, there's a buffalo). i'm not sure how widely held this view is at the moment, but I think a quick wikipedia search will probably provide a deluge of information on the whole subject

I think a leap 'because of evolution' is a better way of putting it. For example, we evolved the ability to develop language (vocal chords, a brain capable of processing meaningful sounds), but took it further into the realms of abstract thought. I think this is where we differ from other animals (e.g. dolphins) which can communicate (language?) but can't necessarily use abstract concepts - they appear to be very much in the here and now.

Language may have therefore vastly improved our ability to adapt and learn from each other, but i would be surprised if we have evolved much in those 40-50000 years. Evolutionarily speaking, it's just not long enough for serious changes to occur.

Anyway, this is starting to turn in to a bit of a ramble from me, so I'll stop before it gets worse!

zan

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by zan

the Black Rabbit: You could well be right. I haven't read tattersall's book, (though I have just familiarised myself with an online review from new scientist) and it looks like the same point. I read about teh theory in Richard Dawkins' 'the Ancestors Tale' which was a fascinating book. I may well have confused the details, but I think the point is not to confuse adaptation and evolution (as was pointed out in another thread here recently!).

the theory I think he's talking about is called 'punctuated equilibrium' and suggests that evolution proceeds in fits and starts. I suppose the argument is whether the 'great leap forward' was a moment of evolutionary leaping, or a eureka moment, when some early human realised he could talk\paint things that were not immediately present (i.e. there is a herd of buffalo in a valley 3 hills away as opposed to, 'look, there's a buffalo). i'm not sure how widely held this view is at the moment, but I think a quick wikipedia search will probably provide a deluge of information on the whole subject

I think a leap 'because of evolution' is a better way of putting it. For example, we evolved the ability to develop language (vocal chords, a brain capable of processing meaningful sounds), but took it further into the realms of abstract thought. I think this is where we differ from other animals (e.g. dolphins) which can communicate (language?) but can't necessarily use abstract concepts - they appear to be very much in the here and now.

Language may have therefore vastly improved our ability to adapt and learn from each other, but i would be surprised if we have evolved much in those 40-50000 years. Evolutionarily speaking, it's just not long enough for serious changes to occur.

Anyway, this is starting to turn in to a bit of a ramble from me, so I'll stop before it gets worse!

zan

Thanks Zan.
Yes, it was "Becoming Human" wasn't it.
I should point out here I suppose that I'm not exactly Ian Tattersall's biggest fan, nor for that matter Richard Dawkins either.
Both have their creationist enemies, but thats not where I'm coming from.
Dawkins penned a brilliant book in "The Selfish Gene" (amongst others), but his brilliant mind has permanently gone awol it would seem these days.
Tattersall's work, also is incredibly opinionated (in my opinion), and he's based many of his (well argued, admittedly) theories on his opinions, with a distinct lack of documented, coherent evidence (some cave paintings etc...) and an inability to even consider any other theory (ies).
Ironic really, when he is the first to pour scorn on many of his contemporaries, for their poor scientific methods.
Anyway - I'd better leave it there also, as I'm rambling like a goodun here too.