- Pia Nystrom
Pia Nystrom and Pamela Ashmore are university professors, researchers, and best friends. They are also passionate animal lovers. Nystrom and Ashmore both received PhDs in Anthropology from Washington University in St. Louis where they met as graduate students. Nystrom now lectures across the Atlantic at the University of Sheffield in the UK, while Ashmore is an Anthropology department head at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Though they have lived in different continents since 1994, these two friends managed to write a book for undergraduates on their favorite subject, primates.
The Life of Primates (2008) gives the reader an in-depth yet straightforward review of nonhuman primate biology. This includes the social behaviors, environments, and cognitive processes of primates as well as basic physiology. The chapter we’ll be discussing is “The Primate Brain and Complex Behavior.” In this section, Nystrom and Ashmore cover a broad range of topics from they “why”s to the “how”s of primate brains and cognition.
Why study nonhuman primate cognition?
Because we ourselves are primates, the brains and behaviors of other apes and monkeys interest us and allow for interesting views of our own neurological evolution and psychology. Nonhuman primate cognition research is highly controversial-- especially in its interpretation. Many don’t believe that humans can ever truly understand the minds of other animals because we cannot experience their perspectives for ourselves. However, we continue with this research in order to answer both philosophical and evolutionary questions.
The philosophical questions relate to our desire to know our position in nature - how unique our minds are compared to other creatures. Those who seek answers to the evolutionary questions examine our closest extant relatives (bonobos, chimps, etc) while trying to understand the evolution of the human brain.
Early Research
Nonhuman primate research began in 1927 with Köhler’s chimp observations in the Canary Islands. He was the first to suggest that chimps were capable of insightful behaviors. Systematic research into primate cognition did not truly begin until the 1960’s, however, and even then most of that was done on captive primates. The biggest discoveries of this time period were from two field studies in Tanzania where the researchers showed the chimps frequently construct and use tools. Later research revealed that chimps have tool kits and that these kits are different regionally. This is more than Homo habilis can say with its identical tools across time and geography.
Brain Size
Though brain size usually correlates with complexity, the discovery of Homo floresiensis in Indonesia means this assumption must be reevaluated. H. floresiensis has a small brain case and stature (around the size of a modern chimp), yet it used tools which were much more advanced than those of chimps. This leads us to believe that the internal organization of the brain may be more important than its size. Still though, primates have larger brains than expected based on body size alone and are known to have more complex behaviors than other orders of animals.
Now the question is why did primates evolve such large brains? The brain is a metabolically expensive organ to run. There must have been a very strong selective pressure for large brains that outweighed the energetic cost.
There are several hypotheses for why primates have large brains. Primates with larger home ranges and which also eat fruit (a high energy food) have larger brains. They also seem to have the most efficient routes between food sources on their home ranges mapped out in their heads - this relates to the expensive tissue hypothesis. Sociality is another characteristic which correlates with brain size. Primates which live in large groups have complex interactions and can use “social tools” to achieve their own goals. For example, many primates use manipulation to gain access to food. This is the social intelligence hypothesis.
Awareness
Researchers are also interested in whether nonhuman primates have theory of mind. However, it is very difficult to ascertain whether or not nonhuman primates understand another individual’s mental perspective. In order to learn more about nonhuman theory of mind, researchers have attempted to study an individuals awareness. If an organism has theory of mind, it is assumed to also have awareness. Though awareness is also a complex subject, it may studied a bit more easily than theory of mind. Awareness can be divided into two levels, self-recognition and self-attribution. Self-recognition is the ability to identify oneself apart from others. Self-attribution is when an individual aware of their own mental state and can use this to predict the actions of others.
The mirror test is the most often used test for self-recognition. Chimps, bonobos, and orangutans appear to recognize themselves in the mirror and use it to examine parts of their body they might not normally see. Gorillas do not react in this way and instead try to threaten the image. However, the famous captive gorilla Koko is said to routinely examine herself with a mirror. This may be because of her increased level of social stimulation. Gordon Gallup, the mirror test deviser, suggested that self-recognition could be an index for self-attribution.
Why do primates need to think?
The ability to understand others’ mental states can create more effective cooperation as well as social manipulation. Both of these lead to gains for the individual. Organisms which can differentiate between friendly and unfriendly interactions and intentions are better suited to realize when they are being manipulated or give them the means to manipulate. These abilities also potentially allow for the exchange of knowledge through observation or teaching.
Tools
As we learned in the Leary/Buttermore paper, tool use is a very large component of research on primate cognition. Primates are hand-feeders, meaning they use their hands for eating and essentially all grabbing activities. Hands are represented extensively in the sensory and motor areas of primate brains. While not all primates use tools, the grasping ability of the hand makes tools fairly useful in the primate world. Chimps and orangutans frequently use them, other species do not quite as much or at all.
Tools are not always used for food either - they can be used in displays and grooming as well. Chimps have been known to throw rocks at enemies and monkeys often dislodge branches to frighten away predators.
Not only are primates able to use tools, but they are also capable of making them. To do this requires forethought. They must have an idea of what the final product should look like and an understand of what materials to use to make that product. Chimps have also been known to make tools hours ahead of time - up to 14 hours of reaching the goal.
The “how”s of tool use in nonhuman primates are widely disputed. Capuchins seem to via trial and error, whereas with chimps it seems to be a mixture of emulation and perhaps intentional teaching.
While we may not ever truly understand the cognitive processes of nonhuman primates, we can learn a lot about our own evolutionary history from this research. There does not seem to be a distinct dividing line between our mental capacities and their own, especially when in a stimulating environment.
I do agree that this is a controversial topic because some people believe that we cannot understand primate cognition because our perspective is different, and also that we can relate to primates could be a contentious topic due to the volatile nature of the debate of evolution versus creationism. However, I believe these views are flawed because it is only through understanding (or attempting to understand) another organisms (who share similar genetic composition to our own) thoughts and experiences, can we truly gain a deeper understanding of our own thought processes. Witnessing different ways others do things is a way to note the uniqueness of one’s own processes. I read an article about 6 months ago that addressed brain size in relation to intelligence. Even though this study was done on humans, with the semi flawed conception of intelligence standards (the IQ system only tests for the ability to learn rather than production of thought), it was still noted that brain size and structure variations seldom had anything to do with intelligence and rather indicated a person’s ability to interact and create new connections socially. This is why the brains of psychopaths are generally distorted (their sense of self is much different from a “regular” person’s).
I'm reading a book called "Grain Brain" by Dr. David Perlmutter and the information in this article and blog post made me think of some of the things he mentioned. His hypothesis is that physical exercise and diet affect the brain and its development more than we have ever realized. He quotes: "The more athletic and active [early humans] survived and passed along physiological characteristics that improved their endurance, including elevated levels of [the brain's growth hormone]. Eventually, this nudged the growth of brain tissue." Hence, being in motion lead to more complex thinking over time. This makes me wonder if the same hypothesis applies to other species as well--for instance, have primates reached the levels of complex thinking that they have because of the physical demands of their environment? Are they continuing to improve upon these levels of thinking, self-recognition, etc, as they attempt to survive? Furthermore, how important is the diet of these species in relation to their cognitive evolution? As a Nutrition student I am always curious about how diet affects physical performance, mental clarity, and evolution.
Another thing I thought of as I was reading this: do primates display signals of commitment like people in the churches we are studying? What does that look like in their species, and what does it look like when they display insight and judgment?
I always knew monkeys were smart, but I never fully realized how advanced they were when compared to other beings (not including humans). My question is why do primates possess the capability of self-recognition and higher cognitive thought while other animals don’t? I understand that they have more developed, complex brains, but why? Is it like this chapter was stating that they develop these things over time due to the aid of outside conditions? I know a certain amount of it is biological, but since we were able to gradually evolve into humans from monkeys, how plausible is it that other, less intelligent beings can develop a more complex brain over time? What factors play into this development? I know this is more of a series of questions rather than a comment, but theoretically it makes sense.
Our earliest primate ancestor of course had a larger brain biologically than say, a goldfish, and that is why humans were able to gradually evolve into what they are today. But my question is, if, for instance, every goldfish in all of history mated with another who had a larger brain, and they all gradually began to engage in more social activity with other goldfish and ate certain things to enhance their brain activity, could they, in theory become more and more intelligent? What limitations are put on them since they are merely goldfish? They do not have the ability to use tools or eat with their hands like primates, but could they become more and more intelligent and become self-aware?
Goldfish have short term memories (as we learned in Finding Nemo haha) BUT could evolution ever change this under any condition? Ultimately, I am curious as to the limitations of evolution. This may sound like a dumb comment, but if you think about it in the simplest terms it makes sense. If guaranteed perfect conditions for evolution, how much does biology play a limiting factor? Does this mean every creature on the planet has become more and more intelligent over time?
When I was interning at the University of Pennsylvania, one of my jobs was to assist one of the project managers with the renovation of the Non-Human Primate Research Lab. I was able to spend a good amount of time in the lab and even got to see some of the different focus centers including mental cognition. One of the expenditures were a set of carnival mirrors. My question is whether or not the same primates are used for all types of research. Do some primates have higher mental capacities and are used mainly for mental cognition research? Are there some that aren't quite as smart?
I love the controversy of this topic because it brings back thoughts of the newly female Mr. Garrison summing evolution up with, "You're the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations". (see link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LzSX37C5J4). Though this blog isn't directly about our origins, it addresses the similarities with our primate relatives well. While our study of the minds of other animals may be imperfect and sometimes incorrect, the research is essential to understanding our own minds. This blog also reminded me of an experiment where a researcher tested both human children and chimpanzees with a box and a treat. She first used a black box and showed the children and chimpanzees the same process to get the treat out of the box. Then, she swapped the black box with a clear one, exposing that the only important part of the process was the last step to get the treat. When the researcher showed the children, every one of them still completed the entire process, even though they could see the internal structure of the box. The chimp, however, bypassed the pointless process and went straight for the treat. (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GInzFRCAUEw). Though many people would look to the human dominance of the planet as evidence that we have nothing to learn from 'inferior' primates, I think that the aforementioned experiment is evidence enough that we do have a great potential to learn from other primates.
I think the study of non-human primates is essential to our understanding of our own cognitive evolution. How are we the only species that has come this far intellectually? Research findings of social cooperation and self-attribution in non-human species is amazing and makes me wonder how many more human attributes these animals may have. As humans, we accept the idea that geniuses (individuals possessing far greater mental capacities than the norm) do exist. To what degree are these extreme outliers present in the wild? How much of the development of theory of mind and self-attribution is generated by environmental influence and how much from genetic influence? Based on the observations of Koko the gorilla, who regularly examines herself in a mirror, I wonder how many other species could adopt similar behavior under conditions of heavy social stimulus. Dogs clearly do not recognize themselves in the mirror seeing as how they respond to it as if being confronted by another animal; but if they were exposed to the mirror for a lengthy period of time, there’s a chance they may also display behaviors similar to Koko’s. Isn’t there? Self-recognition is a learned behavior, according to our past readings, and so through exposure it is possible that many other species could evolve the sense of self given the right conditions to do so.
Subjects such as this one are really why I signed up for this course. I have always found other intelligent animals to be incredibly interesting. Of course, the first intelligent animal many of us think of is an ape of some sort.
I really enjoy reading about why our brains are so complex, and why the brains of primates are so much more advanced than the brains of other animals. Your section on brain size was very interesting to me. I would expect a larger brain to mean more computing capacity or more complexity, but it appears I would be wrong. I really like the hypothesis that access to higher energy foods leads to greater brain development. Social factors also seem to me to be a likely cause of the complex brains in primates.
I also thought it was pretty nifty that Koko was able to self-identify while almost every single other gorilla has failed to do so. Primates exhibiting self recognition and self attribution is incredibly interesting to me, just as how primates fashion and use tools is impressive and interesting. Enjoyed reading this content the most so far, hope more stuff like this is to come.
You know, as children, we are inclined to project human traits onto animals. That’s why children so readily accept Disney movies like 101 Dalmations, The Fox and the Hound, The Lion King, Bambi, etc.: it makes sense to them that animals would have the same cares and values as we do, since that’s the only way they know to understand the world. This idea of survival, competition, and reproduction as the core of an existence is not a naturally occurring consideration to them. It makes sense to human children that Bambi is sad that his mom died, that Todd and Copper value their friendship over the fact that they’re different animals, that Pongo and Perdy want their puppies back, and so forth. The movies just let them talk in English so that we can understand. Our pets of course love us and enjoy playing, just like we do, so obviously they’re the same as we are. At some point, we grow out of that anthropomorphic tendency and separate ourselves from the lowly, dumb animals. And while it is important to understand that animals are not human, it does us no good to enforce the boundaries of human vs. animal. We can learn so much more by exploring the differences and similarities in the cognitive functions of our fellows in the animal kingdom. We still recognize that our dogs seem to love us, and see reflections of familial and friendly relationships among animals that certainly extend beyond survive-compete-reproduce, and so we ought to delve deeper into those relationships. I don’t really understand the controversy here. I think that finding parallels to “human” traits in animals—such as capacities for self-awareness, memory, interpersonal relationships, and goal-motivated actions—would serve to validate meaning in life for human and nonhuman animals alike. But I might be waxing far too philosophical for the purpose of this post.
The point is, I think understanding the ways in which intelligent species function cognitively, consciously, and socially, is fascinating, and can only add to our understanding of our own consciousness and “human” experience.
My thoughts on this post remain much the same as my first comment... I still find it very interesting, and was glad that we got to delve into it a bit in class. I mean, we're animals, studying closely related animals. I have often wondered why we have such "difficult" to maintain brains. I have always viewed the body as doing whatever is possible to eliminate unnecessary costs in order to survive, and the brain seemed to be in direct opposition to this view. The bit about higher access to calorie-rich foods makes sense, as well as the need for a mental map of food locations requiring a more complex brain.
However, I am more in favor of the social theory. No other animals have such complex social structures as primates, although some are pretty complex in their own right. In the wild, a lone primate is very often a dead primate. If it does manage to survive, it will not pass on its genes, which is kind of a big deal. Social interaction allows survival cooperation, which means our body realized "Hey, we should put some effort into this brain thing." Which hurts my head to think about. The brain decided to improve the brain. Brainception.
I know I talked a lot in my previous comment about how brains become more sophisticated and the various factors involved, but over the course of this class, I stumbled on more information regarding neuroscience that made me thing of this blog post, Hilarie. In another comment I posted on a more recent blog, I talked of how women and men have different sized brains. Yes, men do have larger brains, but before you get all excited guys…..drumroll……that doesn’t make you necessarily more intelligent than women.
Women and men do have different sized brains, but there are other factors that play into the equation, like the wiring of the brain. I am wondering now if this information has any relativity to this topic. I posed the question earlier of to what extent do biological factors limit other factors regarding consciousness development, and this tid bit only further perplexes me. So size can be a factor, but neurological set up is too. Well, how can we further elaborate on this subject so that I may be able to develop a more informed opinion? I guess it’s time to do some side research. Anyone have an idea of where I could start?
Take my Neuroanthropology course in the fall. Short answer, it's not the absolute size, it's the neural integration that determines intelligence. That said, larger brains, to a point, can contain more neural tissues & thus be more integrated. But those differences are matters of scale, not merely degree. In other words, whales have bigger brains, but they are scaled to body size & must have more tissue to operate more body. Brain size must be considered relative to body size & integration relative to brain size.
I understand why we study primates in this type of discussion, but it always just makes me interested in other animals and how they stack up. Whales absolutely baffle (and kind of terrify) me. They have incredibly strong senses of family and community within their pods. They strategize, cooperate, communicate, and travel all while maintaining tiny cultures within their families. They are clearly very socially intelligent like the primates in the article. Studies show that the whale families all have distinct “accents” (maybe like the cow herds we talked about?) that differ between the individual pods, and there is strong evidence that they have language. I’m interested to know how this relates to brain size, because the article states that brain size may not necessarily be as important for complexity as is the internal organization. From the movie Blackfish I learned that “Killer whales have very complex and convoluted brains. When they were able to do an MRI and scan a whale brain, they found that they have everything we have and an extra part that we don't. We don't know what it is. We can't identify it because we've never seen it before. It's theorized that it's connected to their social and emotional lives [limbic system]. It has to do with the bonds with their families.” And also that “Their brain also demonstrates an exquisite level of cortical folding similar to humans and other higher mammals (chimpanzees, but not macaques, for example), which indicates high amounts of cortical processing.” They may have theory of mind if this is true, and this plays deeply into their sense of family and attachment. Anyway, I just find it interesting to draw similarities between humans, primates, and other highly evolved animals. Plus I think if whales had hands, they would definitely be using tools, and probably ruling the world.
It’s interesting that primates that live in large groups have complex interactions and can use social tools to achieve their own goals. This reminds me of Rossano's article "Good Ritual Make Good Friends" in which our cognitive evolution was dissected. The anatomically modified humans developed complex cognitive functions after being forced to adapt to the eruption of the volcano Toba and cohesively work together as a group. The fact that they establish this primitive community allowed them to make tools that were extremely advanced for the Hominids and Neanderthals that existed during that time period. So the validity of the positive correlation between social groups and advanced cognitive skills is evidenced again in this article.
I also have to agree with Hannah Gene's post that the controversy over studying animals to learn more about our own brain functions is unreasonable. Yes there is a big difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of intrinsic value. If there is a fire, and I can only grab my brother or my dog to make it out of the house in time, I know to grab my brother. But it does not make feel any "lower on the totem pole" that my dog and I share comparable traits. It makes me happy to hang out with my friends, take frequent naps and exercise daily just as it makes him happy to play with his doggy friends, nap all day and run around in the yard. There is much to learn from other intelligent species( which my Chihuahua probably doesn't fit the criteria for) and I look forward to reading more about studies such as these.
Follow up:
Before getting started on my actual follow up, I feel like I should say that I am absolutely terrified of chimps. We may have bigger brains and everything, but those bastards are so strong. They will rip your face off and wipe their asses with it. Kind of makes me mad that we have incredible intelligence but a chimp could eat me for breakfast. I guess you can't have it all.
Anyways, I'll get to talking about the important stuff. Taking a second look at this article, I'm more curious about the 'why' primates have bigger brains. The article talks about the brain being a metabolically expensive organ to run and how the primate diet consists of high energy foods like fruit. I'm having trouble formulating what I mean to say, but I guess my question is why did they develop these larger brains in the first place? Was it because of their high in fruit diet? Maybe their social interactions? Or is all of this a result of bigger brains in the first place? I mean, there are fruit bats and other fruit eating mammals, so why don't they have larger brains? Not wanting to ask any more potentially stupid questions, I'll stop.
Though I don't really understand how they developed larger brains in the first place, it is undeniable that brain size has a direct correlation to intelligence and social complexity. That being said, it is hard to imagine that primates have such large brains and are still so much animal. I understand that a lot of that has to do with different areas of the brain being more developed, but chimps are smart creatures with savage potential.
This was a good article because it was so thought provoking for me. This is a good thing, but it actually leaves me with more questions than answers.
I'll leave everybody with one final piece of evidence as to why chimps are the most terrifying animals on earth...... there are chimps with machetes out there. I don't know with absolute certainty that this is for real, but watch the video in this link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0vbvy2ip4). The wonders of primates' ability to use tools, right?
My undergrad mentor, John Beatty, had his front teeth knocked out by Washoe, one of the signing chimps. Beatty is a linguist & was at U of OK doing grad work & Washoe just got excited, flung his arms up, & knocked him teeth out. Relative to humans, they literally don't recognize their own strength.
Since writing this blog post, I have taken up watching 2 Netflix series that have really changed how I view animals and life in general. They’re these BBC documentaries called Life of Mammals and Life of Birds, and wow, by far the best nature series I have seen, I highly recommend it to anyone who’s into that kind of stuff. Anyways, what I found fascinating about the episode relating to primates was how higher order apes (orangutans in particular) used tools to get what they needed. This one older orangutan was in the treetops balancing by holding a branch with one arm (causal agent) and using a stick in his other hand to poke honey out of a hive. When he got a sufficient amount of honey on the stick, he flipped the stick, put it in his mouth, and started probing for more honey while still sucking on the honey he had just gotten. Three younger orangutans were watching him and learning this way of using sticks to harvest food. It was all very fascinating, but I had one thought the entire time I was watching this episode: “Wow, that seems like something toddlers would be doing.” I couldn’t shake this eerie feeling of juxtaposition of how the announcer was moving and how the orangutans were playing, it all seemed very surreal. When they showed a close up of the orangutan’s foot, the thumb looked almost exactly how our thumbs look. I am a firm believer in evolution, but that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t slightly creeped out thinking, “If advanced cognition and divergent evolution never developed, that could be me.” Well me, not including the sense of self, but I think you get the point (I apologize if I offended or upset anyone).
Great series. I think "Social Climbers" is part of that series. You see a large group of hamadryas (or gelada?) baboons hanging out grooming each other but also chattering to individuals further away. It drives home the point that when your social group is too large to maintain by grooming with your hands, vocal grooming & language can evolve.
I feel like a common topic of discussion is how smart different animals are. I know I always hear how smart my buddies dog is cause he can roll over, or some hippy nature girl saying that “dolphins are as smart as humans because they’re the only other animals that have sex for fun” (yes that happened). But honestly, is there any debate? After reading this article it seems hard for me to argue anything other than a few of our close primate relatives. Both the capuchins and chimps’ ability to create tools are fascinating, and the fact that chimps have enough self-realization to emulate their elders, or teach their young, is unbelievably impressive. I know I’ve read before that chimps have a surprising diversity of tools used from location to location. I do have to believe however that chimp’s tool making abilities are learned through emulation rather than teaching. I don’t know much about chimps but I sort of think if they were physically taught rather than copying then more adaptions and improvements would have been made over time, in way similar to the innovations of humans.
The relation between brain size and apparent intelligence seems obvious so it’s surprising to learn about exceptions to the rule such as H. floresiensis. I never realized the brain was so demanding to operate even though it makes a ton of sense (I feel like I’ve already lost 5 pounds just writing these responses). Since the brain is the most metabolically strenuous muscle to operate it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the animals with the largest ones have to depend on things like the creation of tools for survival. I notice that the two hypotheses of why primates have large brains are the hypotheses that Cant and Povenelli disprove using gorillas. But gorillas are much larger than other primates so they obviously require greater metabolic effort for their body, likely reducing what they could use for their brains, right? Is this shown in their brain size? It doesn’t mention it in this article, but do gorillas tend to have smaller brain to body size ratios than the rest of the great ape category?
As we touch on Koko again in this article I can’t help but think self-recognition is partly a learned trait from social interactions. If humans develop self-recognition at 18-24 months then maybe that’s the time required from socialization to develop it. The socialization of chimps and orangutans involves learning the creation of tools so maybe this instinctive desire to teach triggers self-recognition and a member of these groups in isolation wouldn’t experience the same thing. If gorillas general interactions don’t trigger self-awareness then that would explain why Koko now seems to have it but in most cases it doesn’t apply.
Like I said in my previous post, my role in helping with the renovation of the University of Pennsylvania's non-human primate research lab facility while interning last summer allowed me a first-hand access to how a primate research facility operates. However, I didn't fully explain how this experience allowed me to gain a deeper glimpse into the controversial nature of this type of research. The ethicality of all of research performed is constantly under immense scrutiny at the University of Pennsylvania after some incidents that happened in the past, namely "Unnecessary Fuss." The Animal Liberation Front raided uPenn's research facility in 1984 and were able to take over 60 hours worth of video tapes portraying researchers in the Head Injury Clinic inflicting brain damage on small monkeys. The graphic tapes were released to the public in the form of a video sponsored by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This created a huge scandal for the University in which one of the biggest debates about this type of research occurred. The lead researcher declined to comment on the scope of his research because it would create "unnecessary fuss," hence the movie title. The University was found to have other primate research labs on campus with violations as well, leading to a suspension of their primate research program. Nowadays, the employees I worked with took keeping everything up to code extremely seriously as the issue brought to light many of the unethical instances of animal research. Now that I have gone through this whole course and learned so much from researching primates and how we can learn from their brains, I cannot imagine people still being opposed to performing animal research. Understanding primates is the early key to unlocking some of the answers to life's great questions.
Follow-up comment:
In my initial comment, I ended by saying
"I think understanding the ways in which intelligent species function cognitively, consciously, and socially, is fascinating, and can only add to our understanding of our own consciousness and “human” experience." I would like to elaborate on this opinion
I had recently watched "Blackfish" with my boyfriend's nephew. The documentary follows the life of Tilikum, a performing Orca, who ends up killing 3 people during his captivity. The trainers interviewed for this feature discuss the impressive intelligence and emotional capacity and expression of orca whales and their complex social dynamics among each other. It is obvious that Tilikum was not a some violent animal with no understanding of his behavior; he was an emotionally abused creature of extremely high intelligence and consciousness. Human ignorance of the intelligence and consciousness of non-human individuals can only hurt us.
I sobbed during this entire film. 🙁
[…] from Google Photo from […]