THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS

By Dr. Marc Bekoff

Excerpt from the book The Emotional Lives of Animals. Copyright © 2007 by Marc Bekoff. Reprinted with permission of New World Library, Novato, CA.

A Paradigm Shift:

Rethinking Our Assumptions and Revising Our Stereotypes

Questions about animal emotions and why they matter can generate a lot of heat. Our relationship with animals is complex, and how we treat animals often changes dramatically depending on the context. Many people can show tremendous love and devotion to animals who are their pets, but then, with little forethought, concern, or regret, they may go on to abuse animals in different settings in egregious ways. This is particularly true of scientists and the animals they keep at home and in the lab. My response to scientists (and others) who say they love animals and then, directly or indirectly, subject them to intentional pain and suffering is to say that I’m glad they don’t love me! Unfortunately for animals, the relationship with humans has been, and remains, strongly asymmetrical. Human interests almost always trump animal interests.

A few years ago while reading the prestigious journal Science, I came across the following sentence: “More than any other species, we are the beneficiaries and victims of a wealth of emotional experience.” The scientist who wrote this, Professor R. J. Dolan, cannot possibly know that this is true. Indeed, other animals might actually experience more vivid emotions than we do, both positive and negative. This sort of “humanocentrism” is what plagues the study of animal emotions, and it’s also a large reason why animals are treated by such varying standards. Why are we so special? Why are we such deeply feeling animals, whereas other animals aren’t? Looking at the state of the world today, I find it difficult to accept that we should be the standard against which other animals should be compared.

It’s my hope that the study of human-animal interactions will put an end to useless dualisms such as “we” versus “them,” the “laboratory” (where animals are often disposable objects) versus “the home” (where animals are highly valued friends), and “higher” animals versus “lower.” These dualisms aren’t accurate, and they surely do not foster the development and maintenance of deep, respectful, and symmetrical interrelationships between humans and other animals.

What I hope to foster is a paradigm shift in how we think about animals, how we study animal emotions and animal sentience, and what we do with the information we already have, “scientific” and otherwise. This paradigm shift involves revising our stereotypes about what the emotional lives of animals of different species are “supposed” to be like. Rather than presuming that fish feel less than mice and that mice feel less than chimpanzees, or that rats aren’t as emotional as dogs or wolves, or in general that animals feel less (and know less and suffer less) than humans, let’s assume that numerous animals do experience rich emotions and do suffer all sorts of pain, perhaps even to a greater degree than humans.

Such an assumption increasingly reflects the evidence. At the Rio conference I mention earlier, world-renowned scientist Ian Duncan pronounced with no hesitation that based on his and his students’ research (along with that of other scientists), fish experience pain and fear. They’re also cunning, deceitful, and display cultural traditions. Further, Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University in England, suggested the possibility that animals with more complex brains might deal more effectively with pain than animals with less complex brains because the former have more varied responses, more flexible behavior, to cope with aversive situations. Broom’s intriguing hypothesis is that perhaps fish cannot deal with pain as effectively as animals with more complex brains, and because of this fish actually suffer more. When deciding what and how much animals feel, it’s best to keep an open mind.

As I’ve said, when it comes to the sometimes unconscious double standard that people frequently have in the treatment of animals, I find the question “Would you do it to your dog?” to be a great leveler. If you wouldn’t do something to your dog, why would you do it to any other being?

This paradigm shift would also change how we do science — it would create revisions in methods and changes of heart. The burden of proof would permanently shift to the side of the skeptics, who would have to “prove” their claims that animals don’t experience emotions and don’t really feel pain. It would no longer be acceptable to say that “since we really don’t know what animals feel, let’s assume whatever they feel, if anything, doesn’t matter.” This would change how scientists conduct experiments and tests, creating a more humane environment for everyone. Respecting, protecting, and loving animals wouldn’t compromise science, nor would it mean we’d respect, protect, and love humans less. Does feeding your dog mean starving your children? No, with a little consideration and forethought, everyone can be cared for.

Most important, assuming that animals do experience rich emotions will never cause any harm. A lovely, unidentified quotation captures this well: “If I assume that animals have subjective feelings of pain, fear, hunger, and the like, and if I am mistaken in doing so, no harm will have been done; but if I assume the contrary, when in fact animals do have such feelings, then I open the way to unlimited cruelties....Animals must have the benefit of the doubt, if indeed there be any doubt.”

What We Do with What We Know

As a scientist, I’m often criticized for being antiscience because of my strongly pro-animal views. I’m not antiscience. It is in the best traditions of science to ask questions about ethics; it is not antiscience to question what we do when we interact with other animals. Ethics can enrich our views of other animals, as they are in their own worlds and as we relate to them in ours; they help us to see that their lives are worthy of respect, admiration, and appreciation. Indeed, it is out of respect, admiration, and appreciation that many humans seek out the company of whales, dolphins, polar bears, and birds.

We need animals in our lives just as we need air to breathe. We live in a wounded world in which many of us are alienated from animals and all sorts of nature. Animals are our consummate companions who help us each and every day. Without close and reciprocal relationships with other animal beings, we’re alienated from the rich, diverse, and magnificent world in which we live. That’s why we seek out animals for emotional support. Our old Paleolithic brains pull us back to what’s natural but missing in our fast-moving world: close interrelationships with other beings that help us figure out who we are in the grand scheme of things. Animals comfort us and put us in touch with what really matters — other sentient beings. A sentient animal is one for whom feelings matter, as my colleague John Webster puts it.

If we can learn to live consistently from this perspective, it would change for the better a great many ways in which animals are used and abused by human society. In fact, we owe it to them to help them however, whenever, and wherever we can. We can begin by examining our own lives and making the best and most ethical choices possible. Through the clothes we wear and the food we eat, are we supporting humane industries and practices? If we see people we know making hurtful choices, can we help alert or educate them to change? Are there ways we can better educate ourselves and pursue more stringent animal protection legislation? Far too many animals are harmed each and every day worldwide. If we can change minds and hearts and especially current practices, we will make progress and there is hope.

In my own field, I know that solid science can easily be done with ethics and compassion. There’s nothing wrong with compassionate or sentimental science or scientists. Studies of animal thought, emotions, and self-awareness, as well as behavioral ecology and conservation biology, can all be compassionate as well as scientifically rigorous. Science and the ethical treatment of animals aren’t incompatible. We can do solid science with an open mind and a big heart.

I encourage everyone to go where their hearts take them, with love, not fear. If we all travel this road, the world will be a better place for all beings. Kinder and more humane choices will be made when we let our hearts lead the way. Compassion begets compassion and caring for and loving animals spills over into compassion and caring for humans. The umbrella of compassion is very important to share freely and widely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Marc Bekoff: One of the world’s foremost experts on animal emotions, Marc Bekoff is professor emeritus of Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He has won many awards for his scientific research including a Guggenheim Fellowship, and is a prolific writer with more than200 articles as well two encyclopedias to his credit. The author or editor of numerous books, including the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, The Ten Trusts (with Jane Goodall), and The Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. His most recent books include The Smile of a Dolphin, Minding Animals, Animal Passions and Beastly Virtues: Reflections on Redecorating Nature. In 2005 Marc was presented with The Bank One Faculty Community Service Award for the work he has done with children, senior citizens, and prisoners. His website is http://literati.net/Bekoff Marc has appeared on Good Morning America and has been interviewed by Time, The Wall Street Journal, Nature, Bark, and What Is Enlightenment?