Are Bonobos Animals?

[goingtothedogs]

OK, I'm biased. Anyone who knows me knows that I have a pretty relaxed view on inter-species barriers - I tend to treat dogs as "people" and a lot of the time they come through.

But this TED talk (linked below) blew my brains out.

It's also interesting to think about this one against a background of e.g. Jared Diamonds view that humans are simply "The third chimpanzee"


I'd be interested to see what anyone else makes of this

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_r ... write.html

[Paralith]

A caveat: a lot of passionate animal researchers tend, in my experience, to over-emphasize the most human-like attributes of their study species, and to cry out "Everyone thinks humans are special! Well, look, these animals can do a lot of what we can do. Humans are not nearly so special as we think we are." Now for the most part, I think it's true - humans are not so special as most humans think they are. But to let this fact blind us to the very significant differences between humans and other animals is just as much of a mistake. There is no doubt a continuum of traits on which humans and other animals lie - but humans are, also without a doubt, on the extreme end of that continuum, and most other animals are not.

Her emphasis on bipedal walking in the beginning is something of a strawman. Though bipedalism was one of the first things to show up in human evolution, it's not necessarily connected to any significant advances in behavior. Gibbons walk bipedally very often as well - but it's because their arms are so long compared to their legs that it's nearly impossible for them to walk quadrupedally. And no one is pointing out how human-like gibbons are. =)

Kanzi knows about 200 words. (Some smart herding dogs can learn comparable numbers of words.) Kanzi has been known to combine two or three words into new combinations, but never has he been seen to learn more than that. Compare this to how many words a human 10 year old knows - 30 to 40,000 - and they can combine them to create full sentences of infinite varieties. Are bonobos approaching human language ability? Sure. Are bonobos capable of achieving full human language capacity with human help? No.

Kanzi is the only bonobo or chimpanzee that has been successfully taught to make stone tools. This video didn't mention how long it took Kanzi to figure this out, and that in the first experiments Kanzi got frustrated, threw the stone onto the cement floor, and then used the shards that came off. And yes, the tools Kanzi can make now are similar to the most primitive stone tools we have discovered, the Oldowan tool types. But hominid species that existed long before humans were able to invent more advanced and more complex tool strategies. Sue has time to work more with Kanzi, sure, but I have high doubts that Kanzi will achieve that level of precision.

Many of the other things Kanzi and the other bonobos do in that video can be taught not only to chimpanzees but also to other primates and birds and dogs. Bonobos are remarkable animals, no doubt, but so are many other animals, and even given how remarkable they are, they cannot simply be taught how to be human.

[Eclogite]

Bonobos are remarkable animals, no doubt, but so are many other animals, and even given how remarkable they are, they cannot simply be taught how to be human.

For that we should be infinitely grateful. If they became more human they would likely start to feel guilty about all that sex.

[Paralith]

Bonobos are remarkable animals, no doubt, but so are many other animals, and even given how remarkable they are, they cannot simply be taught how to be human.

For that we should be infinitely grateful. If they became more human they would likely start to feel guilty about all that sex.

Bonobo sex in the context of social bonding is extremely short, and more equivalent to a handshake or a hug in human terms. Why should you feel guilty about handshakes and hugs?

[DrCloud]

^ That sounds like what I've read about"hookups" among college students and the twenty-something set. And to think I missed out on all the, um, social-ness. Rats.

In any case, of course bonobos are animals -- so are humans. HPH

[goingtothedogs]

^

In any case, of course bonobos are animals -- so are humans. HPH

Yes of course - the question does not arise in that sense. At least, i did not intend it so.

Perhaps I should have rephrased my original question, but I'm unsure how to do it gracefully...

Perhaps it should be "Are bonobos sentient?"

Or "Should we treat bonobos at the same level as, say, rats?"

Or maybe "At what point in an "animal's" behaviour, do we concede that such behaviour is essentially human?"

I just think that when I see something like that movie, we are well into the area of moral dilemma with the way the species is treated.

Still, many Homo sapiens get the same treatment e.g. tribes living in similar rainforests to the bonobos' natural habitat - so perhaps I'm harping on a bit.

[Paralith]

Ah - gttd, it sounds like you're almost wondering about ethical/moral lines and where they should be drawn. Certainly an animal with the intelligence and sensitivity of a bonobo is probably capable of much more human-like suffering at the hands of cruelty than many other animals. Whether or not that seriously effects your ideas of the ethical ways to treat apes, well, I guess that's more of a conversation for PCF.

But I will note that humans have a long history of eating other primates, and yes eating other apes. Orangutans, for example, used to live all across southeastern Asia, but now they are limited to only two islands in Indonesia - and it's probably because they were hunted and eaten by humans are other early Homo species and found refuge on those heavily forested, mountainous islands - places humans don't do quite as well in. In various regions in Africa bushmeat traders will chop up and sell anything they can catch, and often people end up eating apes if only because bushmeat is one of the few meats they can afford. In other areas, especially Western Africa, a lot of cultures think gorilla is a delicacy. Getting them to stop eating other endangered animals hasn't been so difficult, but they dislike being told they can't eat gorilla.

I'm not trying to say this makes eating apes ok - again, that's a discussion of ethics that could probably get a thread of its own. I'm just saying, throughout our history a lot of people have thought it's ok.

[goingtothedogs]

Can't say I disagree with anything you said there...

....doesn't mean I have to like it though.....

[Marshall]

I'd be interested to see what anyone else makes of this

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_r ... write.html

I watched it with interest and it made an impression on me.

I realized from your thread title that the film raised moral issues, but I have not got those in focus.

Perhaps I should have rephrased my original question...

... "Are bonobos sentient?"

Or "Should we treat bonobos at the same level as...?"

Or maybe "At what point ... concede that such behaviour is essentially human?"

I just think that when I see something like that movie, we are well into the area of moral dilemma with the way the species is treated.
...

The way I see it, we shouldn't have to determine that another species' behavior is "essentially human" in order to make us want to protect and respect creatures of that species.

That is just where we are now in our ethical development. There is a kind of gap in our moral system. Or in mine at least. I'm not sure how to sort this all out. In order to argue for granting rights and protection to various creatures we apparently have to establish that they are "like us". Because the only animals to whom respect is unquestioningly enforced are animals "like us". We shouldn't have to establish the "like us" criterion. It's constricting. There should be some broader criterion.

I'm not a vegetarian, or an animal-rights-advocate. I take a mild satisfaction in buying "cage-free" chicken eggs, but I will buy the other kind in a minute if the store runs out of the affordable cage-free brand. I acknowledge that much agriculture and fishing involves inflicting pain as well as death on other animals. I simply do not think about this.

I guess I would support a general moral and legal injunction protecting wild Primates and Parrots, not because they are "like us" but because they are both like and different. Because they are *interesting*. They represent irreplaceable knowledge about ourselves, about the mind and about life. There is too much that we can learn from them.
I'm all for giving scientists special privileges to take individuals from the wild, as long as the breeding stock and gene pool is ample.

My problem is I can't think of what the political and ethical grounds are. I can't figure out how one could argue for that kind of general protective ordinance. *Interesting* is a subjective evaluation.

So I get stuck at this point. What is any moral system based on? How would you want an alien species to treat us? Sometimes I think it is a matter of HONOR. The honor of the human species. One reason our species is worth saving is that we are capable of empathizing with other creatures and being interested and learning from other creatures. It is to our honor that we aren't totally self-absorbed, concerned with our own comfort, and damn the rest.

I also think we should find a some nice habitable exoplanets and establish colonies of Bonobos and Parrots on them. It would tend to show we are not complete jerks and ****.

Also its always possible that their genes might be useful to us for doing something or other that we didn't think of yet.

[Marshall]

I'd like to hear more on the science side, ways that bonobo behavior resembles but also differs from ours and other primates. Sorry about the long philosophizing post. Don't want that to prevail over the behavioral science content. Fascinating TED lecture movie by Susan Savage-Rumbaugh

[Paralith]

Marshall - how humans are different and similar to apes is sort of my current focus in school. There's a lot that could be said on the topic, and perhaps I can work on a more comprehensive post to put in the Experts forum. But for the purposes of this thread, I've already described some of the ways in which we differ, especially in regards to specific points raised by the TED talk. Were there any traits in particular that you had in mind to compare between humans and extant non-human apes?

[Marshall]

Were there any traits in particular that you had in mind to compare between humans and extant non-human apes?

No particular traits. Perhaps things like visual memory, auditory memory, idea of future, ability to plan ahead, characteristics of mind (whatever that is). The mirror test (self-recognition) intrigued me when I heard about it. I hadn't thought of that. I like hearing about things animals do that surprise me---partly because these things exhibit and illuminate dimensions of the mind.
Other species' minds are interesting.

I think that GTTD was really trying to ask not the question "Are Bonobos Animals?" but rather
"ARE BONOBOS PEOPLE?"

Maybe the idea of people will eventually become more inclusive---won't be limited to a single species.

[goingtothedogs]

I think that GTTD was really trying to ask not the question "Are Bonobos Animals?" but rather
"ARE BONOBOS PEOPLE?"

Maybe the idea of people will eventually become more inclusive---won't be limited to a single species.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Without going right through the detail of your previous posts, yes you have my thinking right on. It should not be necessary to prove an animal is "like us" to prevent its suffering or abuse. However, there are many who don't see it that way.

I'll cry "guilty" to a charge of anthropomorphism, but to me, the presence of a complex nervous system is telling us that here is a creature possessed of the ability to feel, fear, plear and pain - what else are nervous systems for?

I don't have a problem with the idea of eating meat - that's life - I have a huge problem with the idea that on the basis that it is destined to be dinner, an animal should be condemned to a miserable life.

And when that "animal" is demonstrably walking along the pathways of humanity, the argument is even stronger. Dawkins eloquently made the point when he pointed out that a fully adult ape, have less legal protection that a day old fetus. Which of the two is more human?


As an aside to the above: there is well established data showing that many murderers, child abusers, and psycopaths, although they may end up in prison because of assault on humans, actually have a historical record of abuse of and cruelty to animals. This is taken seriously enough that in the UK the RSPCA (Royal society for the Protection of Animals) and the RSPCC (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) have a department devoted to pooling their resources and thus helping each to "predict" where individuals who are likely to abuse in the future.

[Paralith]

As an aside to the above: there is well established data showing that many murderers, child abusers, and psycopaths, although they may end up in prison because of assault on humans, actually have a historical record of abuse of and cruelty to animals. This is taken seriously enough that in the UK the RSPCA (Royal society for the Protection of Animals) and the RSPCC (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) have a department devoted to pooling their resources and thus helping each to "predict" where individuals who are likely to abuse in the future.

I am aware of this pattern as well. Certainly, a disregard for life is a disregard for life. Children who are true psycho/sociopaths are probably limited by their physical size and strength to acting out their desires on animals that are smaller/weaker/stupider than they are. But if this says anything about morals or ethics, it says that true human empathy extends not just to other humans but to other forms of life as well. This is much more of a test of what a normally functioning human being would do than a guideline for animal treatment.

That being said, though the data is largely anecdotal, it seems pretty clear that many members of living ape species are capable of empathizing, at least to a certain degree, with other animals that are distinctly different from themselves. Off the top of my head I can think of at least six examples of apes treating other non-primate species with apparent kindness and concern. Mostly dogs and cats, but one case involving a bird.

[Marshall]

That being said, though the data is largely anecdotal, it seems pretty clear that many members of living ape species are capable of empathizing, at least to a certain degree, with other animals that are distinctly different from themselves. Off the top of my head I can think of at least six examples of apes treating other non-primate species with apparent kindness and concern. Mostly dogs and cats, but one case involving a bird.

That is an extremely interesting line of thought.
We should have more and better tests of empathic awareness that could be given to primates, and also to highly evolved birds IMHO.

Here in my computer cubicle I have a photograph of a mother baboon teaching a kitten (! not an infant baboon) to sit up on its haunches the way baboons do. The kitten looks happy and alert. The baboon looks serious and patient. She is "shaking hands", her right and holding the kittens left front paw. And her left hand steadying the kitten on its right shoulder.
The kitten has its ears perked up, indicating some surprise. But also its eyes half closed as cats do when stroked, indicating pleasure or friendliness.
The kitten is successfully sitting vertical on haunches, for the moment.

Of course I am interpreting freely and you can't really tell anything from a photograph but it is a nice interspecific snapshot.

Well it occurs to me that the MIRROR TEST is a test of something that might CORRELATE with empathy.
To recognize one's self in a mirror might take some of the same brain connections as being able to see one's self in some other creature, or to sense how the other might be feeling.

There may be measurable behaviors that one could classify as proto-empathy. Behaviors that might not even be associated with emotion, but are things like showing awareness of what the other animal is seeing, what the world looks like to them. Maybe behavior that show ability to predict the other animal's actions, or to consider things from the other's point of view.

In that photo, it could be that the mother baboon is being very UN empathic because there is no way that the kitten is going to learn to sit up on its haunches. However both of them seem to be having a good time. So I don't know.

[Paralith]

Marshall, I've attached to this post an excellent review article written by some of the top chimpanzee cognition specialists in the field right now. It reviews the evidence for whether or not chimpanzees have a "theory of mind," that is, do they understand that the knowledge and beliefs of other individuals is different from their own knowledge and beliefs? It is closely tied to many related cognitive abilities like empathy and self awareness. Long story short is that chimpanzees certainly possess some aspects of a theory of mind, though it does not appear to be as fully developed as it is in humans. There is a great deal of research done on many different primate species exploring this and other questions on their cognition, and for a very nice overview I would suggest reading the book Baboon Metaphysics by Cheney and Seyfarth.

It is interesting you bring up the baboon and the kitten example, because it is fairly well accepted that non-human primates, even non-human apes, do not actively teach each other skills the way humans do. If a baby chimp wants to learn to termite-fish like his mother does, it's up to him to pay attention to her when she's termite-fishing for herself. No evidence suggests that she'll termite-fish more often when he's watching, or that she'll correct any of the (many) mistakes he makes when he starts trying it out for himself. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the baboon in your picture was playing with the kitten, and wasn't really attempting to teach it anything.

[Marshall]

Marshall, I've attached to this post an excellent review article written by some of the top chimpanzee cognition specialists in the field right now. It reviews the evidence for whether or not chimpanzees have a "theory of mind," that is, do they understand that the knowledge and beliefs of other individuals is different from their own knowledge and beliefs?...

Indeed that Call Tomasello article is excellent. It's interesting how the experimenters finally constructed experiments that tap into chimp awareness of what the other person can see and what their state of knowledge is (and in some cases seemed aware of goal---intent versus accident). It seemed significant that chimp was able to analyze a situation in order to out-maneuver rival in the grab-the-food game.

Thanks for the article.

I still suspect that some birds like magpies might also have a theory of mind.

Elephants too.

"Theory of mind" is a good concept.

[Paralith]

Yes, there's a lot of theory of mind research on a lot of other animals besides primates. I'm just most familiar with the primate data is all. =)

[goingtothedogs]

On the subject of ape empathy.....

Although this interaction is strictly between primates, it's worth including here - and it was famous a few years ago as it happned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A

[Eclogite]

Bonobo sex in the context of social bonding is extremely short, and more equivalent to a handshake or a hug in human terms. Why should you feel guilty about handshakes and hugs?

I wouldn't, but then I don't feel guilty about sex either. However, I generally find myself in a minority. Perhaps it's because I'm British. (We have to keep a stiff upper lip about a stiff lower member.)

[goingtothedogs]

Well it occurs to me that the MIRROR TEST is a test of something that might CORRELATE with empathy.
To recognize one's self in a mirror might take some of the same brain connections as being able to see one's self in some other creature, or to sense how the other might be feeling.

There may be measurable behaviors that one could classify as proto-empathy. Behaviors that might not even be associated with emotion, but are things like showing awareness of what the other animal is seeing, what the world looks like to them. Maybe behavior that show ability to predict the other animal's actions, or to consider things from the other's point of view.

Now that's an interesting thought. Magpies can pass the mirror test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXk17vpYYgA


And so can parrots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALhDJYu-sGU


I can testify from experience as a kid that african grey parrots (i.e. the species in the video have an awarenes of the state of iind of others. When I was six and my sister foiur, our african grey would chase my (terrifeid) sister round the floor, chasing her and laughing - it not only knew how to laugh (he had a wide repertoir of imitated noises - whislting, kettles, dogs barking etc), but when to do it.
.