
Why can’t we talk to the animals? - czr80
http://wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/why-cant-we-talk-to-the-animals/
======
scrumper
As a sci-fi nut, I've often thought that we're unlikely to be able to talk to
aliens if we can't even manage a crude dialogue with intelligent animals on
earth (not even our closest relatives in the ape family.) Sure, we can
instruct a dolphin to put a ball through a hoop, but we've made almost no
progress in understanding their speech. Stuff like this[1] suggests that some
information is being conveyed between whales, but does it qualify as language?

And what about our definition of 'language'? It's not the same as it was a a
millennium ago. James Gleick's book "The Information" talks about the
fundamental changes in human thought that came about after the development of
writing. We think completely differently now that we have a concept of stored
ideas. Could it be that writing has made it impossible for us to communicate
with animals that don't have it?

But a lack of altruism as a possible reason, though? Fascinating. Chimpanzees
have developed tool use and even a way of 'teaching' other chimps what they've
learned[2]. Is this contradictory?

[1][http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9457000/945...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9457000/9457855.stm)
[2]<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/688904/posts>

~~~
lawtguy
My previous understanding was that chimps imitate, but don't teach:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/ape-genius.html>

The article you linked said the chimps were teaching, but was rather vague
about how. It seemed to be more focused on the nut cracking behavior, so it's
hard to tell if they are actually teaching or just learning by example.

As with most other traits, it may be that it's not that other animals don't
teach. Instead maybe it's matter of degrees: chimps don't teach much, humans
teach a lot. The lack of altruism might explain why chimps mostly don't bother
to teach other chimps, even though they have the ability.

~~~
scrumper
> As with most other traits, ...

Interesting point, thanks. What's 'teaching', though? Kindergarten is largely
imitative. "Play" in the broad sense is imitative.

------
btilly
I don't buy it.

Look at a pack of lions or African dogs hunting. They engage in lots of kinds
of cooperative behavior. But, you say, they only do so because there is
something in it for themselves? Well the same is true for most humans.

If you want something more than idle speculation, I'd suggest reading up on
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2> for a gene that we KNOW is needed for
speech in us, which differs in close relatives.

~~~
StavrosK
I'm also skeptical. My dog has shown me things many times, in a "hey, come
look at this, it's interesting" way (e.g. a hedgehog). This theory doesn't
explain that, and, from what I gather, precludes it.

------
asadotzler
This article seems very narrow and at least a bit wrong. I talk with a Gorilla
on occasion (yeah, literally,) and she talks back. Her name is Koko. She
understands much spoken English and uses a variant of ASL to speak back. She
talks about her life and what's going on with her on that particular day. She
wants to know about my life and what's going on with me. She talks about other
people and her mate Ndume. She's self conscious at times and gregarious and
fun at times. She enjoys watching television and even has favorite movies.

And Koko isn't the only one. There are other apes that speak with humans
regularly and richly. But beyond that, we also know from decades of research
on gorillas in their native habitat that they have a very rich gestural
language that they depend on for survival. It's that native gestural language,
it's thought, which makes it so easy for apes to pick up sign language as a
means to talk with humans.

------
tomjen3
Interesting research, although it seems like it has a very narrow view of what
talking means. I can't speak chicken, but I have been around them enough to
know that they have several different sounds that can be combined to mean
different things, such as predator approaching, behave, etc.

------
gpvos
This seems to contradict results that show animals have a sense of fairness,
like
[http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_moral...](http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html)
.

------
hnruss
I think the idea that animals don't have altruistic abilities is incorrect.
Besides the occasional news stories of animals doing seemingly altruistic
things (sometimes even for other species), the common act of an animal raising
it's young is inherently altruistic.

~~~
KingMob
It's necessary to distinguish between kin and non-kin altruism in these cases.

Kin altruism follows easily from the perspective of gene replication. Genes
that lead parents to ignore infants that require care tend not to get
replicated; genes that encourage nurturing helpless infants tend to survive on
to subsequent generations.

Non-kin altruism is much rarer, but not impossible. There's a lot of cool math
and game theory revolving around reciprocality rates and cost-benefit analyses
in demonstrating rates of non-kin altruism in non-human species. (E.g.,
vampire bat blood-sharing, prey warning calls.)

Of course, humans are the major outlier, since we will frequently hold a door
open for a complete stranger with no realistic expectation of reciprocation.

Lastly, some cases of cross-species altruism represent, not real altruism, but
instinctive nurturing and bonding activities that have been "hijacked" by
circumstances. E.g., a lioness whose cubs died will allow piglets to feed,
which will placate motherly instincts.

------
hnriot
"virtually all of mankind’s greatest achievements, such as science, religion
and government, are based fundamentally on cooperation"

Science isn't based on cooperation at all, maybe some scientific
accomplishments have been the result if cooperation, there's an awful lot of
that has been done by individuals.

And listing religion as one of mankind's greatest achievements is ludicrous,
and cooperation had nothing to do with it.

~~~
bunderbunder
While there's a whole lot of small cases of individual achievement in science,
the enterprise as a whole depends heavily on cooperation.

Newton didn't work on a team. But he did share his work with others, and the
ones who thought he was doing interesting things shared his insights with
still more people, until his discoveries were widely disseminated. In return,
he's widely recognized and credited as the founder of modern physics. And that
kind of arrangement is frequently what cooperation looks like on a grand
scale.

~~~
klenwell
The same point from a slightly different angle:

In The Information, James Gleick notes that Cambridge was a mathematical
backwater after Newton -- due to its uncritical reverence for Newton and
ignorance of subsequent advancements on the continent -- until Babbage came
around in the 19th c. to shake things up.

