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

~~~
toomanybeersies
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.

~~~
dotancohen
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.

~~~
forapurpose
I don't see the relevance. We do live in society and do have technology.
Without those things, we wouldn't have hospitals, cardboard, or Hacker News
either, but what does that mean?

There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world
'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion. It's portrayed
as 'realism' but I find it surreal: We don't live in a state of nature and we
have no desire to. Why are we talking about it? Why don't we aim for more, as
our ancestors who built this society did?

~~~
atlantic
> There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world
> 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion.

But on the other hand, compassion is not an absolute value either. Taken to
extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And,
on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.

That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts
of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory
instincts have a great deal of character-building value.

~~~
forapurpose
> Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity,
> emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime,
> mental disease, etc.

I disagree. What is that based on? Compassion fosters crime? The experts I
know, and my experience in the world, say compassion fosters emotional
strength, reduces behavioral problems, and increases resilience.

> That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts
> of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory
> instincts have a great deal of character-building value.

Again, is there any basis for this? It's bizarre. Even if it's true of
"ancient societies" (what time period? which ones?), I have no desire to live
in one - and neither would you. We've moved far beyond their bizarre, archaic
beliefs and practices. Should we return to human sacrifice, illiteracy, and
constant war too?

I'm guessing that fostering "predatory instincts" fosters crime, mental
disease, not to mention war and violence.

------
emodendroket
Anthropomorphization is tempting but wrong
[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02iht-02angi.15827...](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02iht-02angi.15827535.html)

> 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
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.

~~~
emodendroket
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.

------
Johnny555
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?

------
agumonkey
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
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.

~~~
agumonkey
evolution also made a path for mothers to heat the nest

still it's a interesting common point

------
aaron695
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?

