Communicating without words

In the book Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley gives a quote from R.C. Frey, “Animals cannot have rights because they cannot have interests. They cannot have interests because they cannot have desires or emotions. They cannot have desires or emotions because they cannot have the thoughts required for them. And they cannot have those thoughts because they cannot speak. From my point of view, I disagree with Frey and believe it does not make sense. Frey is only basing rights and interests on speech. He makes it feel like the only way to have rights and interests is to communicate with words. In contrast, a human or even animals do not have to always use words to communicate. They can use gestures or emotions to communicate as well. For example, babies do not use speech to communicate their interest or emotion. Does that mean they have no rights? Society considers babies to have rights, so what is the difference between a baby that cannot talk and an animal that cannot talk? It is clear that animals have interests and emotions. A dog shows emotion of excitement by wagging its tail. Also, a dog shows interest in wanting to go on a walk by holding his leash and standing by the door. Doesn’t this give prove that animals, dogs, have interests even though they do not use words to communicate?

Animal language

Mary Midgley makes a very interesting point when she says that animals would live in utter disorder if they lacked both emotion and some form of communication. Just a few moment before I wrote this blog I was playing with my dog and I signaled to my dog that I wanted to play with a specific toy by merely pointing to it. Language is meant to truly represent ideas and the world around us in a cohesive fashion. Such communication is done in many ways such as my pointing for my dog. Whether my dog understood what I meant from actually understanding what I wanted or through a trained response, like Pavlov’s dogs, does not matter. The fact remains that my dog understood what I meant without any form of formal language at all. My ability to communicate with my dog came out of a mutual understanding of the objective world around us. I may perceive the world slightly differently than my dog, but all the laws of nature apply to us both equally. The ability to communicate with animals is not the preserve of Dr. Doolittle, but shared by all beings that can sense things in the same manner. My dog feels the pain caused by fire in much the same manner as I would. Dogs can clearly map out ideas in their mind, admittedly, these ideas are few and severely limited by their inability to properly communicate and understand abstract ideas. A dog might not understand the concept of justice, but it certainly understands what it senses. No animal starves because it’s too stupid to know what food is; it knows it is hungry and it wants to eat. It is purely preposterous to claim that because animals lack formal language that they lack the ability to understand the world around them and likewise emotion. I know precisely what emotion my dog was feeling because he was wagging his tail as well as other body language.

Animals Have "no interests"

Animals can't have rights because they can't have interests. They can't have interests because they don't have desires and emotions. They can't have desires or emotions because they can't have thoughts required for them. They can't have thoughts because they can't speak. I thought it was interesting to compare animals to senile people and babies because I think it is completely true. Babies have rights and show emotion, but they cannot speak. Senile and handicapped people have rights even though they may not be able to speak or reason. I think that animals do have emotions and desires. When I walk in the door, my dog comes running wagging his tail. When he gets to go on a walk or get a treat he wags his tail too. When dogs wag their tail is means that they are happy or excited. When an animal has been abused, many times they are scared of humans and very cautious of them. This shows fear. Just because animals can't speak words doesn't mean they don't have feelings. Most animals have their own language and way of communicating with each other that we cannot understand. We have a langauge that they may not be able to understand. I think that animals have moral value and are able to have feelings and feel emotion.

Emotions

I agree that Animals have emotions, feelings, and desires. Just because we can not communicate with them does not mean they are emotionless. You can tell animals have emotions by their actions. When a dog is happy it wags it's tail. Just the look on their face shows how it feels. I feel that animals try to communicate with us in their own ways. For example when a dog wants out it scratches on the door or stands by it. When a dog is angry or defensive it growls. KoKo is a great example that shows us that animals have emotions just like us. I feel that animals communicate with each other and just because we can not understand them does not mean they do not communicate. When it comes to desires animals may have different desire than we have. Humans have a duty towards animals. We should respect and not abuse them.

Man's Best Friend

Today in class, we talked about how animals may or may not have emotions. In Mary Midgley's book, it says that a dog can get excited when its master comes home, but doesn't know if the same will happen the next day. I can personally relate to this statement. I have a 9 year old dog at home (Maggie) and she loves my dad. There is not one time where she doesn't freak out when he gets home from being out somewhere. The way that this relates to the statement in our book is that, when my dad goes out of town and doesn't come home for a couple of days, my dog gets very depressed. She normally sleeps in the bed and she will sleep on the stairs all night. She won't eat and rarely gets up from sleeping. If this isn't an animal with emotions then I don't know what is. There is no way that my dog doesn't have emotions with the actions she displays when my dad leaves. Even though she can't verbally tell how she is feeling, her actions tell the whole story. In class we also talked about how if you can't speak then you don't have emotions. So I could put my dog in the same group with babies, mute people, and others who cannot speak. This concept does not make sense to me. I love animals, but there is no way I would classify my dog in the same grouping as a baby. Even though these beings can't speak, does not mean that they have no emotions. I think that actions speak louder than words at some points and this is why I believe animals can have emotions.

'O Lord God' Bird watching

Bird watching has at it’s the core, the desire to know all birds. Bird watchers log all their sights in their life journal. The goal of bird watching is quite obvious, but why people start doing it is entirely different and their reasons are myriad. Birds are quite beautiful, complex, and numerous creatures. They traverse the skies with enviable freedom. Man has always had a fascination with birds; in fact the Eagle has been a revered creature since Rome.
One of the reasons why people watch birds, or go ‘birding’ not to be confused with the sport of fowling, is to observe the beauty of nature on nature’s terms.
Bird watching has spurred a massive growth in a modern phenomenon of ecotourism. Many people travel to Guyana or Costa Rica merely to experience the ecosystem. These eco-tourists go into the brush and view the birds. They see wildly exotic birds that are far more interesting than the garden variety Robin. To these people the idea of E-birdwatching, which is the practice of watching birds online, would be problematic to say the least. To watch a bird from a computer would entirely defeat the purpose of going all the way to the rainforest to physically see the birds. E-birdwatching fits in well with, perhaps the largest group of birdwatchers, the recreational crowd.
These are the people who put seed out and watch the beauty of nature for purely its aesthetic value. The beauty of the bird, not its symbolism for nature, is the primary purpose for their casual watching. These people would be happy to see the same simple Finch over and over again merely for its nascent beauty. Birdwatching is also very relaxing, much like fishing without all the nasty pain caused to the fish.

The last group of birdwatchers, and the most intriguing, is the competitors. These people treat birds as though they were something analogous to trading cards. They create arbitrary rules for viewing the simplest thing, nature. They stage large scale timed competitions with set goals like a sport. Man’s competitive nature could not stay out of even looking at birds. They compete over seeing the most exotic and rare birds. The most prized of which, and also by the science community, is the supposedly extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker. There are entirely festivals devoted to the bird. This bird has inspired waves of inquisitive tourists into the south. Apparently the reports of this bird’s demise have been greatly exaggerated because there are claims of recent sightings.
Nevertheless, birdwatching is a very popular, relaxing, and useful pastime. It inspires interest in nature as well as endangered birds. It is a very relaxing pastime which clearly could help reduce stress. Birdwatching has also helped the world economy through its tourism. However, like all human endeavors some take it too far. What should be a simple relaxing pastime has been turned, by some, into a hectic, arbitrary, and fanatical competition.

... because they can't speak

"Animals cannot have rights because they do not have interests. They cannot have interests because they cannot have desires or emotions. They cannot have desires or emotions because they cannot have the thoughts required for them. And they cannot have those thoughts because they cannot speak."
Okay, you made sense until that last part there. They cannot have thoughts because they cannot speak? Like speech is a prerequisite to thinking? No way. I totally agree with Midgley when she says that this statement is complete rubbish. She acknowledges that infants cannot speak, and yet we don't say that they cannot have thoughts. And then what happens when they are taught to speak? Do they magically just start having thoughts to voice? And what about people who are never taught to speak, like feral children, or something? Or the mute who simply can't speak for whatever reason, such as physically lacking the capacities to do so? No, I don't think that the argument that animals can't feel or think because they can't speak really holds up. Midgley notes that animals have to have some capacity to think and feel and plan, because there are cycles they must catch onto (migration cycles, seasons, even taking their owner for a walk every Friday). In addition, Koko the gorrila proves a prime example of an animal's ability to think, thus feel, thus have interests. Not being able to vocalize as humans do, Koko was taught to spak through sign language. I doubt that she didn't have thoughts or feelings before she learned to sign. And what about the progress of her language? She has learned more and more signs as the years have passed, so has she begun to think and feel more and more than she did before? I think not. I doubt an argument that humans with expansive vocabularies think or feel more than those without would be accepted either.
And besides, animals, though not communicating through vocalization, do communicate in a myriad of different ways. Shouldn't this indicate that they have interests? When one considers that somewhere up to 90% of human communication is nonverbal or paralanguage, rather than verbal communication, one can't help but acknowlege the letitimacy of other animals' nonverbal forms of communication. Just because they can't speak, doesn't mean they don't communicate.

e-BirdWatching?!

Birdwatching, why do people do it? I'm not sure why people bird watch, I've never really tried it. My guess would have something to do with the fact people enjoy being out in nature, and those outdoors men that happen to enjoy birds, find themselves bird watching. It would be an adventure to keep track of all the different species you have seen, and always be kept on edge wondering what the next rare species will be. I'm not sure if setting a bird feeder in your yard should count as a 100% sighting, because is that not about the same as seeing a bird in a zoo? Either way, the birds are not in their natural environments, and human intervention has occurred. In my opinion virtual bird watching is less impressive than getting out and driving to a zoo. At least at the zoo, you might have to search your eyes through the trees to see a particular species. Not only has human influences put the feeder in the Brazilian forest, but its not even the bird watcher doing it. At least if you see a bird feeding on your yard bird feeder, you are the one that placed it there. In my opinion, online birdwatching would in no way be as impressive, exciting, or rewarding as actually getting away from the computer monitor, walking outside, and looking at a bird with your own two eyes and not through a web cam. People might do it to avoid travel, but travel should be half the fun. After all, birdwatchers should enjoy the outdoors.

Save the Buffalos

The video we watched last week on the buffalo in Yellowstone National Park was very thought provoking. One of the driving forces to save particular animals is based on that animals charismatic appeal to us as humans. We often overlook an animals importance to a particular group of people. When a species' significance is narrowed down to speak to a particular group of humans, such as Native Americans, the beliefs toward that animal become stronger. In other words, the American Buffalo are significantly more important to Native Americans than to the general public. This obvious fact was taken advantage of by the film makers. The film contained several Native Americans that were able to show much more sincere sadness towards the buffalo than anyone randomly chosen from the acting guild might have been able to. This brought a whole new feeling to the film. Having the particular group of people affected by the loss of Buffalo, introduced a very strong emotional appeal to the film.

Buffalo

The short film we watched about the American Buffalo in class was a little disturbing. First off, I didn't realize that the only place they lived was in Yellowstone. It shows how much that we should be protecting these animals since they used to be much more abundant until the human population began to increase. I forget exactly who it was that allowed people to hunt the buffalo for a short period of time, but it was a bad idea. The hunt definately got out of hand, and many more buffalo were killed than expected. Although these people may need to pay fines, it should have never occurred in the first place, and maybe the person who allowed it should have to pay some fines, as well. Watching the buffalo be killed was hard to watch. They were being killed right out in the open with many involuntary people who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. They are being vicously killed, and it is a very sad thing. Something should be protecting the buffalo from people who want to kill them for sport.

Buffalo Movie

The video that we watched in the last class was very depressing. The movie "Hear the Buffalo" was about the killing of wild buffalo on Yellowstone National Park. It was hard for me to watch the animals being shot and then struggling to even stand. The fact that someone would video something like this is one thing, but the fact that people are killing these animals who are disappearing faster than we can keep track of is horrible. The buffalo are very unique animals. I did not realize that Yellowstone was one of the only places that they live. I also didn't know about one of the top figures in Montana let people hunt the American Buffalo. The fact that people killed more than they expected is stupid to me. The hunters who killed all of those buffalo were wrong, but the head figures were the ones who were at fault for this massive destruction of these poor animals. When people are given permission to do something, they are going to do the action until they feel that it is complete. I don't think these hunters cared that the buffalo are going extinct, they just wanted to do what they loved whether it hurt another being or not. This video showed me the cruelty and stupidity that people show in certain times. It opened my eyes to things that are being done right here in my own country.

Buffalo

The short film we watched in class today was about the yellowstone buffalo. I felt it was a very powerful film, it really got its message of protecting these amazing animals across. As shown in the film, the Yellowstone Buffalo are the only free ranging buffalo in the country. Stated on the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) website, "the yellowstone herd comprises the largest remaining population of genetically pure bison." The NRDC website also states that one of the reasons the buffalo were being killed was to protect cattle from diseases being spread from the bison. The NRDC states that there is no record of the disease being passed. Even if this is true or not I feel that the slaughtering of the buffalo needs to end. It was horrible watching these marvelous creatures being killed like they were nothing.

Yellowstone Buffalo

The clip about the Yellowstone Buffalo illustrated Megedly's point about why emotion is needed to get people to act.  The clip about the buffalo did a great job illustrating the horrors of hunting.  However, I do believe that the clip was more of a piece of propaganda.  It is this reason why the clip should also be viewed with the side of the hunters.  The Yellowstone Buffalo are one of the only free ranging buffalo in the country.  That fact alone means that the Buffalo should be protected.  However, the film failed to bring up the fact that in order to maintain the free range that they were becoming over populated because of conservation efforts.  The clip did point out that they were over hunted and this is the failings of the government. However, I believe that while the film was effected in portraying the idea that buffalo need to be saved it failed at when giving all the facts.  Thus, it is a great example of Megedly's idea that there needs to both emotion and rational.  The situation with the Yellowstone Buffalo also supports Leopolds idea of a harmony in life because it supports the idea that killing is necessary to support the lively hood of some of the heard. 

Blog 8

Midgley + Life Boat Ethics

Lifeboat ethics says that when there is a struggle for existence its not possible to save all species. However Midgley disagrees she feels that we don't have to live in a life boat because resources are changing everyday. I disagree with both theories. We can not save all species. Some species were not meant to survive. Humans should not play God and decide which species will survive. If humans start conserving their resources and creating new ones more species will survive. I feel that many people forget that humans out number many species. Humans use more resource than animals. We are a dominate specie. And if it came down to it humans will save themselves over animals. We need to live in harmony with other species. When we use our resources we need to think how it is going to affect other species. Midgley does make a good point if we were using other resources. Until humans make the switch to other resources I feel many species will die out.

Koko

I really enjoyed watching the movie about Koko. I thought it was interesting on how they taught her to sign and understand what she was saying. Since Penny and Koko have been together since she was one, I think she thinks of herself as a human. I never thought about Penny not letting Koko fulfill her life as a gorilla with the idea of reverence for life until someone mentioned it in class. Penny thinks she is doing a great thing by civilizing Koko, when in reality it makes her feel different from other gorillas, and she doesn't completely fit in with humans either. I don't think she necessarily belongs in a zoo, but where does she belong? I think the reason Koko is having trouble finding a mate and having children is due to the fact that she has trouble communicating with her own kind. She is much more advanced than other gorillas so they may not see her as one of them. I think it would be very interesting to see if Koko would teach her offspring how to communicate using sign language. It is a very impressive experiment that Penny has devoted pretty much her whole life to doing. The things Penny did with Koko probably wouldn't be allowed today, but it has allowed people to learn a lot about gorillas and their language capabilities.

Response to Koko

I really enjoyed the movie Koko: A Talking Gorilla. I thought it was very interesting how she learned so much sign language. I first thought that she would only be able to sign what she wanted to say and that would be it. After seeing the movie, I was amazed at how much we are like gorillas.
Throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be just like a little child. When she was riding in the car and playing on the jungle gym, she acted just as a small child would act except for having the long leash. Even some humans put their small children on leashes. I am not sure what they are called, but I have seen them. She was also potty trained just like a child. I thought it was funny when she always wanted to be tickled. When my sister was little, she always wanted to be tickled. Also, she plays with a baby doll. All of these similarities in behavior are amazing.
I think the opinions of the zoo keeper were ignorant. He knows nothing about what she has done or learned and is forming his opinion. He said that gorillas are only safe in zoo, but I thought Koko looked pretty safe with Penny. He also said that gorillas don’t know good from bad, but I also thought that the movie showed that she knew she was bad after ripping up the book.
As far as the question of does Koko have rights, I think she does. I think gorillas have their natural rights like not to be killed for no reason and be allowed to live their own life, but Koko is different. Koko has been taught how to communicate with people, and is almost the equivalent of a human child of the same age. She has been raised like a human and knows sign language so she can communicate just like humans. The last difference between humans and chimps is that humans had a language. Now that Koko can communicate with humans using our sign language, I think she has a slightly higher rank than normal gorillas. This may be a kind of noble being view of it, but I think many people would agree with me.
Koko should not just be considered a gorilla who is merely copying what we do. As we saw in the video, she knows what she wants and can communicate that to humans. She even understands what people are saying to her. She is basically just like a person. If she couldn’t communicate and didn’t know right from wrong, then I wouldn’t think that she would have more rights than a regular gorilla. Even though I think she should have more rights than a wild gorilla, I don’t think that she should have as many rights at humans do. She is still a wild animal at heart, and she can go back to behaving like one because it is her natural instinct.

KOKO

Do animals have rights? Do we have an obligation to treat animals a certain way? Some may say that we have the right to do what we want to animals. Others may say that as humans we have some moral obligations but that animals are secondary still to human concerns. Descartes saw animals as objects. Now though it is quite clear that animals are able to feel, express emotions, learn, and even communicate. In Koko’s case some may believe that she should be put back into the wild where she “belongs.” Others might say that this would be cruel because she is now used to a certain way of life and does not of have the capabilities to survive on her own. Even, if put back into a zoo setting, Koko so used to her human acquaintances would most likely become depressed and withdrawn. Must every animal show such advanced capabilities in learning and communicating in order to be seen as deserving some kind of rights?

Elephant Case

In class we talked about the elephant case in the book "Animals and Why They Matter." I thought it was very sad how the hunter treated this elephant. I think that killing animals for the fun of it is wrong. Unless the action is used for something useful, the killing of animals is wrong. Along with this, we discussed in class that it depends on which type of animal that is being killed to tell whether it is a right or wrong action. Killing and elephant is horrible, or killing a polar bear is bad because they are almost extinct, but is killing a deer just as bad? This is a hard question to answer and difficult situation to handle. Some people kill deer for the meat. I personally think that this is sad, but if the hunter is making good use of what he has done then it can be acceptable. Some families rely on meat and food like this to survive. If you think about killing a dog or a pig, it is a whole other story. Dogs are looked at in our society as pets, but in others they are looked as food. I have a dog and I think that eating it would be absolutely wrong. Another animal to think about is a pig. In my home a pig is an animal, but it will eventually be eaten. Again, it is an animal and is sad that it is killed, but it is being used for something important. In other homes, such as farms or any home that has a pig as a pet, the owners of the animal would be disgusted in eating bacon or ham. It all depends on personal opinions. I think that killing animals is sad, but if there are good reasons in doing so, then it may be acceptable.

The "Gaia Hypothesis"

When we discussed the Gaia hypothesis, it was explained that it had an objective: the Earth is a system, super organism and can regulate its own internal state. Also, we discussed that its spiritual meaning was Greek and that it is a caretaker. I think that something that can seriously be thought about. I am not sure I agree with Lovelock and his hypothesis. If the Earth was self regulating, then it would not be dealing with global warming and all the problems that global warming is bringing. The polar bears would not be losing places to live and becoming extinct. It would also not have to deal with the threat of the three C's. Cars, cows and chainsaws are having a lasting impression on the Earth and if it was self regulating, then it would be able to fix itself after the destruction of these three things. I agree with Kohak when he says that the Gaia Hypothesis seems pointless, and agree with his flannel psychology.

Powder

Kohak uses Karen J. Warren's account of how a Sioux learns to hunt to help support Ecofeminism.  The Sioux story states, "Shoot your four-legged brother in the hind area, slowing it down but not killing it. Then, take the four legged's head in your hands, and look into his eyes.  The eyes are where all the suffering is. Look into your brother's eyes and feel his pain." Ecofeminism is the idea that male oppression of nature is similar to that over the female and that if this oppression can be stopped then women can gain freedom.  While I am not sure I agree with this theory I do believe that the Sioux hunting story does have its benefits.  The hunting story reminds me a lot of a scene from the movie "Powder." There is one scene where the main character, Powder, connects the emotions of a wounded deer and to the hunter.  He forces the hunter to feel what the deer is feeling.  After, this the hunter can no longer hunter.  I believe that this shows that humans need to be more connected with the world around them.  While, I am not advocating vegeterianism I do believe that a deeper connection with the animal world would help humans have a deeper connection with other humans. 

Talking Gorillas

I think what was done to koko was unethical on many grounds. first of all Koko was raised to be a human and not a gorilla. Koko wasnt allowed to live as her nature intended. Instead she was forced into a very closed world of which she couldnt possibly understand. Koko's contact with her own kind was also minimal and her whole life became an incessant school lesson. Koko's life was dominated by experiments. Whether you believe in animal experimentation or not, to make an animal's life one long and frustrating experiment is unethical. Even if there might have been a connection between Penny Paterson and Koko, she nevertheless, did not have the life of a gorialla. Also the researchers were unethical on legal grounds. It is debatably whether or not someone can own an animal, nevertheless, you can definately decided that someone has the ability to make decisions for an animal. In this case the Zoo had the privilage of deciding what was best for Koko, not the researchers who kept Koko against the Zoo's will.

Koko

Today's movie was very interesting. One things that intrigued me was Koko's personality. For some reason I felt that Koko was sad, mad, or frustrated more than she was happy. I got this vibe that she was trying to please her owners but she didn't know what they wanted from her and the owners were just guessing what Koko wanted. It was very interesting to watch Koko's daily life and how much she can learn. However how should humans intervene in Animal's life? Yes Koko is an exception but what about other Animals. If a specie is going extinct should we humans intervene or should we let nature control the species fate? Part of me wants to intervene and save all the animals, but the other part of me thinks that we should let nature decide who or what lives. Nature is a powerful force and I feel that humans should not mess with nature.

Respect for Nature

The things we learned about Paul Taylor and his thoughts on Respect for Nature are somewhat difficult for me to understand because the biocentrism he talks about is supposed to have nothing to do with emotion or sentimentalism or any attachment to animals. I believe our ability to become attached to animals is something that shouldn't be shunned because it isn't reflecting arguments made for biocentrism, but rather embraced and used to do what we can for nature. I agree with the thought, "other beings besides ourselves have goods and we have a duty to respect those goods" but, as my last blog mentions, i wish it didn't have such an anthropocentric weight on it. If someone finds themselves attached emotionally to a particular animal or wildlife movement to save different species then so be it. I guess this is where I come to really appreciate the idea of flannel ethics and doing what you can in order to make some kind of difference.

Ethics of Noble Humanity?

Our in class discussion on anthropocentrism vs. biocentrism was very intriguing. Thinking about the human way of life and our way of thinking in these terms really shed new light on exactly what Kohak is trying to convey throughout The Green Halo. For humans to think that all value is only human value and things and animals are only important because we feel that to be true is almost disgusting. This ethics of noble humanity is far from noble in my opinion and the "indirect duty" is merely a notch in our totem pole rather than a sincere acceptance and appreciation for nature. Based on this duty, humans aren't cruel to animals and non human/aesthetic aspects of nature because it is inconsistent with their dignity as human beings to be cruel - it is a duty to ourselves and about us rather more than anything. Based on what we have been reading, the animals and plants aren't included in the kingdom of ends so it can't be a direct duty...but it needs to be.

Sociobiology

I thought that the idea of sociobiology was very interesting. Trying to interpret human behavior in terms of our genetic past and who we evolved from can cause some conflict. I never really considered that we act like wolves. When wolves go out and hunt, they bring food back for the entire pack. They have high family values, as most human beings do with only having one mate. The experts say that humans get their tendencies toward infidelity and divorce from chimps. Chimps get food for themselves and do not have a single partner. Humans are in conflict with how we live in contrast with our genetic past, our wolf culture and chimp past. They both have different tendencies. We need to understand our natural inclinations and avoid their temptations. These inclinations do not justify our behavior and it is unecessary. We should understand the tendencies of chimps, which may be some of our own tendencies, and strive to be better than them. Someone can't justify infidelity, by saying it is a genetic tendency that they have. Human beings need to overcome their chimp past and rely more on their wolf culture.