Animal Behavior of Chimps, Dogs, and Human - Research Paper Example

Animal Behavior: Chimps, Dogs, and Humans In the Shadow of Man Goodall (2000) mentioned several examples by which chimpanzees and humans were similar, one superior to the other, or where each was in a league of its own and, therefore, incomparable. Based on the observations recounted in her book, chimpanzees and humans were similar because, among other characteristics, they used and modified tools, hunted, and ate meat. Her discovery (p. 32-34) was based on the behavior of David Graybeard, the name she gave to a dominant chimpanzee who was obviously a leader. For many years, scientists never thought that chimpanzees, like all the other animals other than humans, knew how to use tools, but Goodall's findings that David used grass stalks to fish for termites was a scientific revelation. The other breakthrough discovery was that chimpanzees ate meat, when for many years scientists thought they just ate plants and insects. In what ways were chimpanzees superior to humans Goodall observed (p. 232) that unlike humans, a chimpanzee is not inhibited by any fear of making a fool of him/herself. What this means is that chimpanzees may not exhibit in their adulthood the effects of any traumatic experiences in their childhood. They instinctively learn from their experience and move on is what she seemed to imply, although such a conclusion may be doubtful scientifically because it was not possible at the time of her observation to have any properly documented childhood histories of the adult chimpanzees she observed. And, of course, what we may consider foolish behavior may be for a chimpanzee just an ordinary show of animal happiness. At the least, we can admit that chimpanzees are superior in a way because they do not go around rampaging in the forest just because they were bullied by others of their kind, as Goodall observed. Goodall also made some observations where humans were "better" than chimpanzees, and this is in caring for their young (p. 185). Unlike humans where the male of the species get involved (emotionally and physically) from pregnancy to adulthood, male chimpanzees do not do so, leaving the task and troubles of pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing to the female. This form of behavior Goodall marks as one of the main differences between human and chimpanzee societies. This leads us to ask whether this difference has something to do with the malaise in human society today, and whether leaving child-rearing to human mothers would be better. There were other instances when Goodall found chimpanzees in a league of their own and incomparable to humans, such as in the way they trust the others, especially humans, or in the tolerant and kind behavior they show towards their young (p. 74; p. 178). They do not turn traitor, friendly one moment and then aggressive the next, or harm others for no reason. This did not mean that chimpanzees do not express aggressive behavior when threatened, but once they accept someone as their own, everyone is expected to follow the established social order or get out of the group (perhaps, start a new one). In a sense, these chimpanzees were exhibiting animal behavior but devoid of the evil and bad intentions that abound among humans. Personally, Goodall's account shows the many similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees, and leads me to question the advantages and disadvantages of rational behavior, or whether chimpanzees can teach us lessons that would help us make this world a better place. Looking at the world as it is now, I disagree with Goodall's observation (p. 34) that we accept the chimpanzee as Man, because I think it would be an insult to the chimpanzee. Perhaps later, when we humans learn to use our "superior" mental and spiritual capacities to do what is good and to avoid evil, it would be an honor for us to be accepted by the chimpanzees as their biological and genomic kin. The Truth about Dogs Budiansky (2001) presented a genomic dimension of man's best friend, a "gene's eye" view to show how dogs evolved from their wolverine ancestors in tandem with humans (obviously pre-Homo sapiens) in the last 400,000 years or so (p. 20). Dogs have evolved through both natural and artificial selection into the myriad forms we know them today, a thesis also proposed by Coppinger and Coppinger (2002). Natural selection made dogs cooperate and able to live with humans, as their intermediate ancestors "developed" a preference for scavenging in village dumps instead of remaining in the wild facing an uncertain and tragic future. The breeds that preferred to live in the wild fell prey to other animals that made them a part of their food chain. In more recent years, artificial selection by dog breeders led to the many varieties that exhibit certain desirable characteristics favored by human owners: such as ferocity (Dobermans), looks (poodles or spaniels), or specific functions (Labrador Retrievers and St. Bernard). Like designer fashion, dogs are now bred through artificial selection to exhibit desirable traits and to suppress undesirable ones, with fatal consequences on the species. The dog's close association with humans has turned them from scavengers to pets that perform a useful social function (p. 17-20). Unlike in the past when dogs, like wolves, foraged or hunted for food, the present-day dog is a happy and faithful slave to a master who provides food and shelter. Having been domesticated, dogs have shown a willingness to do what is expected of them, whether it is to run after the neighborhood cat, bark when intruders show up, or to fetch slippers for their human master. The instinctive ability of dogs to form associations between their actions and the response of their masters has been their main contribution to their own evolution (p. 178-180). Having learned that their masters reward them for doing certain actions, they just repeat it, a form of consistent behavior that humans interpret as friendship. This may be anthropomorphism at its finest, but it works both ways: the dog gets his food and humans have someone who looks happy just being there. Dogs therefore inherited the hunting behavior of their wolf ancestors and attempted with varying degrees of success to overlay these upon human society (p. 51). Inbreeding among dogs, just as it happens with other animals, results in some serious genetic disorders because it drains the gene pool, especially now that they have become domesticated, a finding supported by the work of geneticists Ostrander and Giniger (1997). Unlike in the past when they cavorted in the wild, dogs face the danger of recessive traits being transmitted by both parents to their puppies, resulting in so-called inbreeding depression as observed by certain physical disorders like epilepsy in poodles, deafness in Dalmatians, and congestive heart failure in boxers (p. 218-221), or psychological disorders such as aggressive behavior (p. 187). Having these parallel sicknesses between dogs and humans can help us better understand human behavior because dogs, like humans, are social animals, and humans, like dogs, are affected in their behavior by their genetics. However, due to basic differences in genetic and psychological make-up and in the effects of the environment, upbringing, and training on dogs and humans, it does not necessarily follow that dog behavioral training can successfully work with humans who exhibit parallel psychological problems (p. 238). Dogs with behavioral problems and with rich owners are certainly a good object of scientific study by canine psychiatrists who think they can help these dogs (or their owners) behave more normally. Csanyi (2005) made similar observations but warned against the anthropomorphic risk that getting canines to behave more like humans may not necessarily be a good development of benefit to civilization. Would it be better, perhaps, to let dogs stay as the loyal pets they are The Biological Basis of Morality Wilson (1998) explores two dominant theories on moral behavior. Transcendentalists think moral guidelines and values are independent and exist outside the human mind, whether or not these come from a transcendental God. Empiricists see human guidelines as "contrivances of the mind' and that moral values come from biological factors alone, whether or not God exists (p. 53). The transcendentalists claim the existence of a natural law, a "set of principles so powerful and self-evident" that could be discovered by humans using their reason alone. While the creation of the U.S. and the civil rights movement may be traced to reasoning based on this view, the same could be said of so much evil in the world such as bloody wars, slavery, and genocide. The empiricists claim that moral behavior is based on objective knowledge from the normal thinking process of the human mind. Collective experience built up through centuries resulted in ethical codes that helped societies predict the consequences of particular actions. This code is mapped into our genes and transmitted through generations. Transcendentalists cite a source of ethics beyond man, while empiricists cite a biological source rooted in the brain. Wilson used the Prisoner's Dilemma to show that "the primary origin of moral instincts is the dynamic relation between cooperation and defection" and that the "essential ingredient for the molding of the instincts during genetic evolution in any species is intelligence high enough to judge and manipulate the tension generated by the dynamism" (p. 58). Survival depends on sticking to an "honorable" agreement, reinforcing the need to cooperate (with the other prisoner, not with the authorities) and suffer together. The lessons learned from managing the tensions generated by such situations are what Wilson theorized to be the source of moral instincts. He backs this up with empirical evidence that cooperative humans live longer and leave more offspring, and that this quality was passed on to future generations (p. 59). What this leads to is that humans who learn to cooperate dominate the world, while those who defect never survived due to their perceived moral weakness. Wilson (p. 60) cited this as the basis for the importance that different human cultures place on universal moral codes such as honor and patriotism. The dark side to moral behavior is xenophobia, a fear of others caused by our inborn propensity to trust only those closest to us and to be cautious with strangers. This brings about the human tendency to "belong" to a tribe - a church or country club - where we feel comfortable with others who share our moral code and whom we "assume" would not harm us. This is an assumption that has unfortunately been proven wrong as sibling rivalries over parental inheritance and sorority murders over boyfriends have shown. People do take advantage of this dark side of moral behavior, especially those who rule. Thus, general standards of conduct among groups are transformed by rulers into structured codes and laws, in exchange for material advantages members of the 'tribe' enjoy. Through the years, as rulers segregated themselves into classes, cultural superstructures (codes and 'deeper' wellsprings of moral values) were formed and passed heritably and maintained via symbols and rituals (p. 60). Do animals exhibit morality When a mother bird dies defending her chick, is this a sign of the bird's moral values If free choice is non-existent, then such behavior would not be moral but instinctive. The same holds true with the issue as to whether animals have culture and as Laland and Hoppitt (2003) opined, it is transmitted by other means different from that used by humans. If animals consistently show behavior perceived as moral, this means their "moral code" is instinctive and not free. According to Western thinking, without freedom there can be no moral action; therefore, animals cannot be moral, and morality cannot have a purely biological basis as much of human behavior is the result of free choice, not genetics. Our justice system in the West rests on the principles of freedom, morality, and personal responsibility Superior Intelligence of Chimpanzees Goodall observed chimpanzees improvising the use of tools and modifying them to catch termites or honeybees (p. 28-30). Another example was the behavior of the other chimpanzees in the Flo family who knew that Fifi and Figan knew how (by unscrewing the hinges instead of removing the pin) and when (if no bigger chimpanzees are around) to open the chest of bananas (p. 142). Since the others could not figure out how to open the chest, they stayed and tested the patience of Fifi and Figan until these got hungry and decided to share the goodies with the rest. When Goodall's team constructed a Trench so they could feed chimpanzees but not baboons, and the mechanism (a box that opened from either side) broke and it was not possible to bring out the bananas, a chimpanzee named Goblin learned to squeeze himself in through the slit and get out with lots of bananas for everyone (p. 144). A third example that showed superior intelligence was Mike's ability to get to the top of the social order by creating noise using kerosene cans to intimidate other males, and using his own courage to stay there (p. 114-118); just like politics. Goodall considers the development of verbal language as a "gigantic breakthrough in human evolution" (p. 248). Chimpanzees had a language of their own that consisted of repetitive gestures, facial expressions, and hooting sounds. What made her confident that chimpanzees are capable of language is her observation that chimpanzees could recognize and associate symbols with their emotions and what they wanted, and that they exhibited a higher degree of self-awareness than other animals because they somehow "recognize" themselves (p. 250). Personally, I agree that chimpanzees like most animals have a language of their own, but that it would take many more years (millions) of evolution before they learn to speak our language, just like our ancestors did. However, unlike human babies who started learning to speak (feeling the vibrations of their mothers talking) even when they were still in their mother's womb, the brain of chimpanzees may be wired differently and may not develop the facility for language as we did. Nevertheless, years of training inside well-funded laboratories may do the trick, as Dr. Rumbaugh's experiments showed, where chimpanzees learned to express their emotions by pressing symbols (Hoffman, 1996). Dennet, in his lecture on the role of language in intelligence (1994), pointed out that language has a dual benefit: one is to the group, and another is to the individual. If one benefit is absent (i.e., the first talking chimpanzee may well be killed as an intruder on her first day back in the jungle), then the development of language would take some more time. Perhaps, the same happened to the first human who found out she could verbalize what she wanted but had no one to talk to. As Budiansky warned (p. 127-130), one of these days, all the intensive training of chimpanzees and the publicity may bear some fruit, but we may not be around long enough to witness this event taking place. Who knows All it needs are two chimpanzees to break out of their cognitive closure and start comparing notes ("Hey, isn't Jane hot") to develop a language that may be similar to ours in structure (Dennet, 1994). Goodall and Dennet believe apes can do it, but Budiansky thinks that chimpanzees are over-rated and that dogs would get there first. Dogs are smarter and have been around us far longer, and humans speak to dogs all the time and dogs seem to understand what we tell them. Perhaps, Budiansky finds the misguided hope of developing chimpanzee language as a case of primal favoritism, where humans feel more comfortable conversing with creatures whose genome is closest to ours. Dogs, our best friends for centuries, are seen to be of a lower status than the forest-dwelling creatures studied by Goodall. I think Budiansky believes that dogs already know how to speak our language, but are smart enough not to tell us they do know. After all, dogs have solved the problem of survival by living in the human's "dog-eat-dog" world so they can eat, sleep and mate until the end of their lives. What more can an animal hope for Reference List Budiansky, S. (2001). The truth about dogs: An inquiry into ancestry, social conventions, mental habits, and moral fiber of Canis fami. New York: Penguin. Coppinger, R. & Coppinger, L. (2002). Dogs: A new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Csanyi, V. (2005). If dogs could talk: Exploring the canine mind (R.E. Quandt, Tr.). New York: North Point. Dennett, D.C. (1994). "The role of language in intelligence". in What is Intelligence The Darwin College Lectures, Jean Khalfa (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Goodall, J. (2000). In the shadow of man. New York: Mariner. Hoffman, P. (1996). "Can Bonzo go to college" Transcript from Discover Magazine, 6 May, p. 1-5. Laland, K. N. & Hoppitt, W. (2003). Do Animals Have Culture Evolutionary Anthropology, 12 (3), 150-159. Ostrander, E.A. & Giniger, E. (1997). Semper fidelis: What man's best friend can teach us about human biology and disease. American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 475-480. Wilson, E.O. (1998). The biological basis of morality. The Atlantic Monthly, 281 (4), 53-70. Read More