From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:16:55 GMT

Mary Otto writes:
mo> From what I have read, personification of animals is common in the
mo> Animal Rights movement literature.  It certainly has been in those
mo> postings by Russell which I have seen.  Perhaps this lead to Russell's
mo> interpretation of Tim's "turn of phrase".

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I trust that you agree with me that it's a mistake to validate 
rl> ideas by asking ourselves whether or not mindless entities 
rl> approve of them.  However, you apparently disagree with me that 
rl> animals possess qualities of personhood.  Have you had any 
rl> experience with individual animals?  If so, did you notice that 
rl> most of them clearly have their own unique emotional behavior, 
rl> their own unique responses to stimuli, their own methods of 
rl> problem solving, etc?  In short, most mammals and birds have 
rl> their own unique personalities.  To the extent that we recognize 
rl> the thoughts and feelings of our non-human animal relatives, 
rl> we're not "personifying" them by any means.  To the contrary, 
rl> we're merely recognizing qualities that they clearly possess.  

From article <1992Sep9.163449.21395@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
mo> Russell, to ascribe a personality to an animal would require that
mo> I consider an animal to have the mental characteristics and emotional
mo> characteristics of a human being.  

This doesn't make sense.  Why would an animal have to manifest a
human-like personality in order for you to recognize that it does,
indeed, have a personality?

mo> Nothing in my experiences with
mo> a great number of animals has ever led me to believe that they
mo> have those types of characteristics. 

Have you ever lived with any non-human animals in close 
proximity?  If so, did you truly failed to notice that mammals and 
birds have their own unique personalities?  

mo> It is my belief that because
mo> humans live within societal groups that they have developed many
mo> of the same instinctive behaviors present in packs of wolves and
mo> dogs and in prides of lions.  These instinctive behaviors facilitate
mo> the cooperative function of the group and enhance survival.  That
mo> they are demonstrated in both humans and some animals does not
mo> indicate anything more than that humans have also, in the process
mo> of evolution, chosen the adaptation of living in societal groups.
mo> Humans, however, have evolved well beyond those pack and pride
mo> structures.  While a pack of dogs will hunt a field until there
mo> are no rabbits left, a human hunter will use evolved intellectual
mo> capacity to make sure that enough rabbits survive to replenish
mo> the area.

This isn't true by any means.  While it may be true that humans 
in our day and age are more attentive to the possibilities of 
extinction than our ancestors, it would hardly be reasonable to 
attribute such cares to some sort of biological attentiveness.  
Be that as it may, why would your observations lead you to 
conclude that canids do not have personalities?  

mo> Russell, dogs don't have contemplations and emotions. 
mo> Humans wrongly project their own emotional and philosophical 
mo> interpretations of the actions of dogs and label them as the 
mo> thoughts and feelings of dogs.  The same for other animals.  

Amazing.  Do you really believe that emotional behavior evolved
in humans after humans branched away from other animals?  Have
you never, ever, observed dogs engaged in joyful play, fits
of anger, sad states of depression, etc?  Have you never, ever,
witnessed problem-solving behavior in non-human animals?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals