«The hierarchy of living beings is an illusion»

Self-awareness, cooperation, morality… It is commonly thought that this is what makes us human. But only research by biologists, ethologists, and neuroscientists is slowly destroying these beliefs every day. Frans de Waal is one of those who regularly proves the exceptional abilities of large primates (which are at the center of his scientific interests), but not only them.

Crows, voles, fish — all animals find in him such an attentive observer that it would never occur to him to say that the animals are stupid. Continuing the tradition of Charles Darwin, who back in the nineteenth century argued that the difference between the human brain and the animal brain is quantitative, but not qualitative, Frans de Waal invites us to stop considering ourselves higher beings and finally see ourselves as we really are — biological species related to all others.

Psychologies: You have studied all available data about the mind of animals. What is mind anyway?

France de Vaal: There are two terms — the mind and cognitive ability, that is, the ability to handle information, benefiting from it. For example, the bat has a powerful echolocation system and uses the information it provides to navigate and hunt. Cognitive ability, closely related to perception, is in all animals. And intelligence means the ability to find solutions, especially for new problems. It can be found in animals with large brains, and also in all mammals, birds, molluscs …

You name a lot of works that prove the existence of mind in animals. Why, then, is the mind of animals so little studied, why is it not recognized?

Animal research in the last hundred years has been carried out in line with two major schools. One school, popular in Europe, tried to reduce everything to instinct; another, behaviorist, widespread in the USA, said that animals are passive creatures, and their behavior is only a reaction to external stimuli.

These oversimplified approaches have their followers to this day. Nevertheless, in the same years, pioneers of a new science appeared. In Wolfgang Köhler’s famous study a hundred years ago, a banana was hung at a certain height in a room where boxes were scattered. The chimpanzee guessed to put them together to get to the fruit. What does this mean? That he has an imagination, that he is able to visualize in his head the solution to a new problem. In short: he thinks. It’s incredible!

This shocked the scientists of the time, who, in the spirit of Descartes, believed that animals could not be sentient beings. Something has changed only in the last 25 years, and a number of scientists, including myself, began to ask themselves not the question “Are animals intelligent?”, but “What type of mind do they use and how?”.

It’s about being really interested in animals, not comparing them to us, right?

You are now pointing out another big problem: the tendency to measure animal intelligence by our human standards. For example, we find out if they can talk, implying that if so, then they are sentient, and if not, then this proves that we are unique and superior beings. This is inconsistent! We pay attention to the activities for which we have a gift, trying to see what animals can do against it.

Is the other path you are following called evolutionary cognition?

Yes, and it involves considering the cognitive abilities of each species as a product of evolution related to the environment. A dolphin living under water needs a different intelligence than a monkey living in trees; and bats have amazing geolocalization abilities, as this allows them to navigate the terrain, avoid obstacles and catch prey; bees are unmatched in locating flowers…

Each species has its own specialization, so it makes no sense to wonder if a dolphin is smarter than a monkey or a bee. From this we can draw only one conclusion: in some areas we are not as capable as animals. For example, the quality of short-term memory of chimpanzees is far superior to us. So why should we be the best at everything?

The desire to spare human pride hinders the progress of objective science. We are used to thinking that there is a single hierarchy of living beings, stretching from the very top (human, of course) to the very bottom (insects, molluscs, or I don’t know what else). But in nature there is no hierarchy!

Nature consists of many branches that stretch in different directions. The hierarchy of living beings is just an illusion.

But what then is characteristic of man?

This very question explains much of our anthropocentric approach to nature. To answer it, I like to use the image of an iceberg: its largest underwater part corresponds to what unites all animal species, including us. And its much smaller above-water part corresponds to the specifics of a person. The humanities have all jumped on this tiny piece! But as a scientist, I’m interested in the whole iceberg.

Isn’t this search for «purely human» connected with the fact that we need to justify the exploitation of animals?

It’s very possible. Before, when we were hunters, we were forced to have a certain respect for animals, because everyone realized how difficult it was to track and catch them. But being a farmer is different: we keep animals indoors, we feed them, we sell them… It is very likely that our dominant and primitive idea of ​​animals stems from this.

The most obvious example of where humans are not unique is the use of tools…

Not only a number of species use them, but many make them, although this has long been considered a purely human property. For example: large monkeys are presented with a transparent test tube, but since it is securely fixed in an upright position, they cannot extract peanuts from it. After some time, some monkeys decide to go get some water from a nearby spring and spit it out into a test tube so that the nut will float.

This is a very ingenious idea, and they have not been trained to do it: they must imagine water as a tool, persevere (go back and forth to the source several times, if necessary). When faced with the same task, only 10% of four-year-olds and 50% of eight-year-olds come to the same idea.

Such a test also requires a certain self-control …

We often tend to think that animals have only instincts and emotions, while humans can control themselves and think. But it just doesn’t happen that someone, including an animal, has emotions and does not have control over them! Imagine a cat who sees a bird in the garden: if she immediately follows her instinct, she will rush straight ahead and the bird will fly away.

So she needs to restrain her emotions a little in order to slowly approach her prey. She is even able to hide behind a bush for hours, waiting for the right moment. Another example: the hierarchy in the community, pronounced in many species, such as primates, is based precisely on the suppression of instincts and emotions.

Do you know the marshmallow test?

The child is seated in an empty room at the table, marshmallows are placed in front of him and they say that if he does not eat it right away, he will soon get another one. Some children are good at controlling themselves, others are not at all. This test was also carried out with large monkeys and parrots. They are just as good at controlling themselves — and some are just as bad at it! — like children.

And this worries many philosophers, because it means that humans are not the only ones with will.

Empathy and a sense of justice are also not only among us …

It’s true. I have done a lot of research on empathy in primates: they comfort, they help… As for the sense of justice, it is supported, among others, by a study where two chimpanzees are encouraged to do the same exercise, and when they succeed, one gets a raisin and the other a piece cucumber (which, of course, is also good, but not so tasty!).

The second chimpanzee discovers the injustice and rages, throwing away the cucumber. And sometimes the first chimpanzee refuses raisins until his neighbor is also given a raisin. Thus, the notion that a sense of justice is the result of rational linguistic thinking seems to be erroneous.

Apparently, such actions are associated with cooperativeness: if you do not get as much as I do, you will no longer want to cooperate with me, and thus it will hurt me.

What about language?

Of all our abilities, this one is undoubtedly the most specific. Human language is highly symbolic and the result of learning, while animal language is made up of innate signals. However, the importance of language is greatly overestimated.

It was considered that it is necessary for thinking, memory, behavior programming. Now we know that this is not the case. Animals are able to foresee, they have memories. Psychologist Jean Piaget argued in the 1960s that cognition and language are two independent things. Animals are proving this today.

Can animals use their minds for actions that are not related to the satisfaction of vital needs? For example, for creativity.

In nature, they are too busy with their survival to indulge in such activities. Just like people have for thousands of years. But once you have the time, the conditions, and the mind, you can use the latter in a different way.

For example, for playing, as many animals do, even adults. Then, if we talk about art, there are works that show the presence of a sense of rhythm, for example, in parrots; and the monkeys turned out to be very gifted in painting. I remember, for example, the Congo chimpanzee, whose painting Picasso bought in the 1950s.

So we need to stop thinking in terms of differences between humans and animals?

First of all, we need to achieve a more accurate understanding of what our species is. Instead of seeing it as a product of culture and upbringing, I see it rather in a progressive perspective: we are, first of all, very intuitive and emotional animals. Reasonable?

Sometimes yes, but to describe our species as sentient would be a misjudgment. You only need to look at our world to see that emotions play a decisive role in it. So let’s not overestimate our reasonableness and «exclusivity». We are inseparable from the rest of nature.