Other: Art Made Together with Non-Human Animals
Thoughts About Chapters 1 and 4 from The Man Who Talks to Whales
By Rachel Fleming (04/19/14 23:44:16)
Chapter 1

I can relate to the author in several ways:

1. I also had a great affinity for animals at a young age. I would catch animals and bring them inside. I had a similar response from my mom toward bringing in a wild animal—for me, an injured mouse.
2. It was easy for me and my friends to pretend to be another animal during playtime. No explanations were required.
3. I wanted to work with animals for my career.
4. I disliked how humans seemed to only want to help themselves.

There was an error I caught in the definition of anthropomorphism. In current dictionaries, it is defined as giving human attributes to anything, not just an animal.

I felt quite a bit of frustration and anger from reading this passage…

I disagree with his observation that zoologists, etc “look down on” the animals they are studying. They don’t choose to, they have to in order to have their science taken seriously and so that human biases do not influence results or conclusions. It’s easy to assume that an animal does something for a certain reason sometimes because that’s what it looks like to us. Sometimes this is a valid assumption. However, it isn’t always true. When killer whales open their mouths they are not smiling, but rather giving a threat. The same goes for chimpanzees. Smiles for chimps are closed-mouth, whereas anything showing teeth, such as what we would consider a wide grin, might be taken as a threat.

I strongly dislike his attitude toward animals being used for science and human endeavors. He must not see the big picture when it comes to studying animals. Progress from animal experimentation has saved not only uncountable human lives, but also the lives of many other kinds of animals and of species as a whole. Also, dissecting a dead leopard frog is not cruelty.

Yes, animals ARE biological machines. And so are humans. However, there doesn't have to be anything wrong with that. Just because something is understood scientifically or thought of as being chemical doesn't mean it doesn't get or deserve respect and wonder from those studying it,

He seems to have this view that science is only to help humans, which isn't true. I was also frustrated by humans only helping humans in high school, but never did I blame science or scientists for this. I knew that there were many scientists working hard to help save species through environmental studies, biochemistry, zoology, toxicology, etc. He obviously doesn't understand science or didn't meet passionate scientists…or any at all. This is a huge shame. I wonder how he got these ideas. Somehow science needs to build a better public reputation.

It seems as though, even though the author loves animals, there is a certain kind of respect missing for them. The author, in a sense, disturbs the animals with his curiosity and will to get close to the wild animals. A scientist such as a zoologist better understands the evolutionary boundaries between species. A person might feel like they are “playing” with an animal when really the animal is either fighting for its life or being severely stressed out. To me, it is more respectful to not assume that the animal interprets things the same way we do, just like it’s not polite to assume that other people have the same food preference as you at a restaurant, for example.

Also, the author seems unaware of the work of some kinds of behavioral sociologists, who treat human subjects the same way that zoologists treat their subjects. Scientists do NOT endorse a “dumb animal” concept. We approach everything systematically not to take the life, fun, or sentimentality out of things, but to be precise and accurate and draw truthful conclusions that we can use to make a positive change in the world, and not just for humans.

Chapter 4

I don’t believe in an “Interspecies Protocol.” The lions and Bushmen simply did not cross paths at the waterhole. If they did, one or the other wouldn't have survived or one of them would have moved. The Bushmen probably had their own protocol for not being killed by lions. The lions I’m sure had plenty of prey to eat and so humans were off the menu. Once the ranchers came in, I highly doubt that the lions saw cows as an “extension of humans.” They probably just weren't used to seeing cows. As an example, Orcas didn't start eating sea otters around California until they started catching on about the idea of using them as a food source. Once the lions figured they could eat the cows, or once the cows had driven off their usual prey, the lions had fewer options and went for the slower, easier prey. The presence of the ranchers likely drove off many grazers and left the lions hungrier and more desperate than usual, which probably drove them to killing the Bushmen. I highly doubt that it was because some sort of unspoken pact was broken.

I think there are instincts that animals have. The boundaries are set by evolution, not by a mutual understanding. Perhaps the effect of evolution can be interpreted as a protocol and understanding between species, but it will never be understood by animals on the same level as humans understand a written or spoken agreement of customs.


The Man Who Talks to Whales: the Art of Interspecies Communication (Book) [Write Comment]