Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-31
AUTOMATIC ANIMALS.
Can They Ever Feel Happyp-Do
''Clever" Things.

fIoh the LONDON uhl.
Those who have warm affection for AMI
mails will find it hard to read with patience
what 1 am going to write. They do not
wish to make an effort to consider dispas-
sionately any suggestion that the creatures
which seem so human in their response to
kindness can have no consciousness of be-
ing happy or unhappy.
An argument leading to such a couclu-
sion seems too absurd to be listened to-
Yet l think that the most devoted lovers
of animals will find it worth considering.
First, let me recall the fact that there
are some living things which certainly dis
play constituencies without feeling it. Some
plants, such certain acacias, shrink from
touch. Others. like the sundew catch
living prey and hold it tight until they
lave sucked its juices. Others make va
rious cunning motions appropriate to &C.
casion, as when the pfsti of flower which
mas received pollen from another plant
closes tightly upon IL in order to secure the
full advantage of Decentralization. Each
OF these actions seems to be the result of
deliberate and intelligent impulse but we
know that, as being performed by plants,
they must be automatic. Therefore. we
must not take it for granted that similar
ACTIONS are conscious, merely because they
are performed by animals, when we know
that men of science cannot agree as to
whether some creatures are plants or an
imalsi -
mails. which seem very clever, must be au-
tomato and unconscious, like those of
plants, because the animals cannot be
aware of the meaning of them. This is
the case of the ants which take care of
aphis eggs in the winter; and 1t applies
also to most of the clever actions per-
formed by living creatures other than man.
When puss- moth caterpillar. inside its
ne Of tra,
tree trunk, bites off tiny pieces of bark
and sticks them all over the under sur
face of the gum SO that when the cocoon
dries it exactly resembles the surface of
the tree trunk, the caterpillar cannot have
any notion that this is SO. 1t never has
seen. and never will see, the outside of
a cocoon, and it cannot know what It's
own is like, or why 1t has laboriously made
II so.
Exactly the same argument applies to
the building of nests by birds. Each bird
comes into the world with an inherited
tendency to build a certain kind of nest.
No other bird has any tendency to build
the admirable nest which every long-tailed
tit creates; and young birds of kinds which
build no nests Will build no nests either
when their turn comes. They do not know
that the eggs which they are going to lay
for the first time will so closely resemble
the bare ground that nakedness will be
their best concealment. They cannot know
it, because they have IN most cases never
just as cunning in choosing a spot for
their eggs as are the birds which build the
same admirably concealed nests as their
parents built.
ness in the action-which always appears
to us as one of the most beautiful in ma
ture-of a parent bird tumblng and fiut-
tering on the ground before you, as if her
wing was broken, so as to distract your ut
tention from the spot where her young are
crouching.
To perform this action with conscious in
tention the bird would need to know, firstly,
that she would be crippled if her wing
were broken, secondly, what her antics
would be like IL she were crippled; thirdly.
that human being is more likely to pur-
sue her If lame: and, fourthly, that by
Stimulating lameness she will be able TO
lead him into error OF judgment
Now, the bird cannot know any of these
things, either by experience or In intuition:
nor, If she could, would so roundabout a
proceeding occur to her the spur of the
moment Nor would all females of a par
tcuar kind of bird-as, say, partridges-
use a stereotyped form of mock-iameness
while other kinds use other forms The
habit in each case is clearly instructive
and appears to have been gradually evolved
from a natural conflict of instincts-the in
stinct OF self-preservation ON the one hand
and the instinct to protect and fight for
her brood the other.
When the intruder near a partridges
nest is a COW or a sheep the latter instinct
prevails. and by leaping at the animals
nose she turns it aside; but where more
dangerous creatures. such as man or dog,
are concerned, the Instinct of self-preser-
walton comes in. causing that confusion of
action which nature has GSefuliy exag-
gerated into apparent helpiessness until
its effect is TO tempt the enemy away from
the brood.
1t is the same process of useful exagger-
alton of a natural tendency that has pro-
duced all the complex actions of animals
which seem to US to be guided by con-
seriousness similar to our own The mis-
take lies in our judgment. because we do
not understand that our own consciousness
was a later acquisition than our power to
perform similar actions.