So on the plane last night I finally finished reading the
Nim Chimpsky. For some reason recently I have been drawn to reading books about animal consciousness and our relationships with non- human beings. The book I recently finished before I picked up this one was called
Animals Make us Human by Temple
Grandin. While she touches on the
consciousness of cats, dogs, avians, and horses, what
Grandin is known for is her commentary on the relationship of humans with food animals and the slaughtering process. I found it fascinating how she developed more humane ways for
slaughter industries to employ certain techniques that didn't cause undue stress on the animals. Something as simple extending the floor beneath the cow as it is hoisted up on a
conveyor belt solved tons of issues and mental distress on the animal- thus striving ever closer to be more
conscious of our
decisions and how we treat the animals around us makes us more human in the fact that we acknowledge suffering, even among members of other species.
I would be a vegetarian if I could, I like the concept, but those of you who know me also know that is incredibly unlikely, for the sole fact that I just LOVE bacon.
I maintain that if there were 4 incredibly sentient species on earth, Humans, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, would likely be the first three; and Pigs would be the fourth.
Anyway, the book is called
Nim Chimpsky after the chimpanzee that bore that name. His name, as you may have guessed, was a play on the ever famous Noam Chomsky, who believed and argued that language was a
solely human trait- and no other being could use language to communicate. Chomsky said many things, and is beloved by many
linguists, anthropologist,
political activists and philosophers, but i think Chomsky is homo-centric on this issue- meaning biased; and that in itself is a four-letter word in anthropological circles.
Arguments are made that language can mean many things, but as dear old Noam defines language
acquisition:
children are able to learn the "superficial" grammar of a particular language because all intelligible languages are founded on a "deep structure" of grammatical rules that are universal and that correspond to an innate capacity of the human brain.Chomsky directly refutes that any other species is capable of use or understanding language. Anyone who owns a dog of even mild
intelligence has cause to be skeptical. What Project
Nim, although deemed a failure by its creator, set out to do was to prove Chomsky wrong; that non-human species can
communicate with humans, and in our own language no less.
Oversimplified,
Nim was deemed incapable of language because he couldn't form proper
English syntax.
Neither can my 3 year old niece. Would she consider her incapable of language?
While Project
Nim (
Nim as a baby in NY on Left) was a failure, and incredibly sad in
hindsight when you look at the
experiment through a modern perspective, the creator of the experiment wrote another
anecdotal book about his
experiences with
Nim, which all but confirm that
Nim indeed could use language to communicate his wants and desires.
It is a fascinating story, not just about
Nim, but about how the
pharma and scientific community treat their research animals. And when you realize that these animals have the same fears, wants, desires, emotions, and needs as you do, it becomes a very sad and painful story.
I don't think I ever really realized how sentient other beings really are. I always thought my dogs understood much more than they could communicate back to me- but scientifically how do you
separate anthropomorphism from actual
communicative ability in an animal that cannot communicate in
English with you. ( I secretly think Duff speaks Norwegian) When you realize how 'human' they can be- with all anthropomorphism aside- straight from the lips of the chimp in question when he tells you he doesn't like watching that
tv channel, or using sign language and pointing at a picture in one of his albums of a girl he knew from his childhood signing, 'she smelled like apples' you have to second guess your standing in this world.
Nim's is a sad story, but one to be learned from.
Grandin also i believe has a chapter about Chimpanzees that have 'outlived their usefulness".
Her stories of "chimps who have outlived their usefulness' is interesting in that she also recounts stories of these chimpanzees and where they are now living in hybrid situations. Not entirely comfortable being a chimpanzee, and not entirely comfortable being a human, these pseudo chimps (the lucky ones) live in refuges where they have
their own rooms with television sets they
operate on their own, and access to the outside where they can manifest their more 'chimp' like nature.
The one story that sticks in my mind is of Cheetah from the Tarzan m
ovies. Chimpanzees after about age 4-5 become much too strong and often aggressive and are usually discarded at this point because they cannot be used for
tv and movies- that often means to medical
laboratories who have ways of
handling adult chimps. Cheetah however managed to land himself a nice hybrid situation like the one described above. He knew how to switch cassettes in the
vcr and would often put in movies of himself and get excited when he came on screen- and show these scenes to guests when they came over. Sounds like something any actor proud of his work in his first film might do.
anyway, i
recommend both
Nim Chimpsky and Temple
Grandin's Animals make us Human. If you have read Michael Pollen's
Omnivore's Dilemma, this is the next logical step.
By the way I always found it amusing that Pollen wrote a book called
Botany of Desire. How fitting
I also found
this post on the institute for humane education
