Marino brings up several points that show the readers some of the similarities between the species. If we are using animal models for human research purposes, then there must be a much larger amount of similarities between different animals than first imagined. Since most of my experience is with poultry, the first example that comes to mind is ovarian cancer research. We currently use chickens as the animal model because they have larger follicles and ovulate every day, which allows for a more thorough study in a smaller frame of time. These chickens have a very different reproductive cycle than humans, but the ovarian follicles are the same, as is the process involved in the development of cancer. If we use these chickens as a model to help humans, why can we not take the knowledge of something we know about human beings and in turn help not just chickens, but many other species of animals. It seems reasonable that we do this not only ethically but also scientifically. Any way we can better another species of animal can only better our own. If we discover effective and cheap chemotherapy in chickens, we may easily discover a faster method of recovery for humans.

There are many other factors one could take into consideration when discussing trans-species perspectives, but if you take into consideration Marino’s last post, we know that she is not trying to compare and contrast species or say that one is better than another. All Marino wants is for people to realize that not only can animals help us to better understand human beings, but humans can help be a part of further understanding animals.

I want to clarify one point that has been brought up by a couple of commentators about the obvious fact that humans appear to be the most technologically sophisticated species on the planet and also one of the most populous. However, my point is that those facts do not form the basis for superiority. They simply are characteristics of our species (and those that have not always been advantageous I might add). So the point I’m making is not to draw up a list of match-ups between species. Neither am I claiming that there is equivalence in all characteristics across species. But my point is that a trans-species perspective calls for a stance towards other animals that recognizes their comparable — not equivalent — experience.

Hal Herzog asks the next question: What guidance does a trans-species perspective offer in terms of navigating the moral and ethical decisions we make about other animals? I don’t pretend to have a ready answer but I do know that this is the next great challenge for our species. Certainly we have been able to draw up moral and ethical guidelines for how we treat other humans. Those are not always adhered to nor are they always black and white. But we make the effort and that usually results in fairness for most people. I argue for the same in our relations with other animals. Not all of life is lived in a lifeboat where either a human infant or a dog must be thrown overboad. In between that scenario and the standards by which we treat other animals is a vast domain of objectification, exploitation and abuse that could be remedied while we think about the more difficult issues on the edge.

I would be happy to continue the discussion on Facebook.

Best, Lori Marino

On the other hand, we did evolve from apes as history and science have proven and we still show some animal-like tendencies today. For example, we constantly fight each other over dominance and focus on reproducing. In Dr. Marino’s example stating that humans and dolphins differ in features but not nature, I do not see enough evidence of the similarities between dolphins and humans to support such a claim. I can understand the claim of dolphins being able to communicate or learn, in which case they may be similar to us; but I do not believe they can express categorical desires of long-term goals or teach, which are unique qualities to being classified as human.

In addition, I do not think we deny our animal origin; we just subconsciously show it with primitive actions and constant fighting. However, there is no doubt that we have come much farther than any other species and because of such we should be regarded as higher beings. We have been able to grow and develop exponentially through thousands of years whereas many other species are in the same positions they were just as long ago. We certainly do not deny death though. Death is something every human being knows and learns. It cannot be avoided and we are inclined to be scared of it but certainly cannot deny it.

My own introduction to this notion was through Ernest Becker’s “The Denial of Death,” which Hal Herzog mentions in his own comment, and which argues that the greater our preoccupation with our own mortality, the greater the need to immortalize ourselves by claiming some kind of higher, “spiritual”, and therefore immortal, nature.

Thus we not only place ourselves at the top of the Scala Naturae; we prefer to think of ourselves as being above it altogether.

Wilhelm Reich wrote about this in the early 1930s in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” as the age of the new dictatorships was gathering steam across Europe:

“No matter whether the Fascist puts it in terms of the racially pure ubermensch, the Communist in terms of proletarian class consciousness, the Christian in terms of the spiritual-moral nature of man, or the liberal in terms of the higher human values, all these ideologies have one and the same basis: ‘I am not an animal.’”

Reich posed the question: “What interest has man in constantly proclaiming loudly — be it in science, in religion, in art or in other forms of expression — that he is man and not an animal? … How is it possible, we must ask, that man, consistently, saws off the biological limb on which he has grown and to which he belongs? How is it possible that he fails to see the devastations that result from this biological denial, the biopathies, the sadisms and wars? How can he fail to see that the existing human misery cannot possibly be done away with until man … give[s] up the irrational denial of his true nature.”

Prof. Marino is right in saying that “a change in perspective is critically needed because our current model of nature is not working.” In fact, the current model is leading us into very dangerous territory. It is no longer simply a matter of ethics and morality. Nature does not tend to look kindly upon species that cannot live in balance with their environment.

While I do agree with what Marino has to say, I still have trouble seeing how any other animal could be considered to be on our own level. When we look at the world, humans are everywhere. And while yes, we are the ones who constantly put ourselves above other animals, if other animals are at the same level that we are cognitively, then I would have assumed that the human race would have been contested at some point in time by some other animal. However this is not the case. In our world, humans are the ones that have been able to develop languages, build buildings, and develop cities, while having a dynamic that is way beyond anything an animal can or does have. Yes some animals have skills that we don’t, but then again so do some humans. I think that it is really hard to deny human superiority even if we accept the trans-species perspective.

It is true that non-human animals contain many of the characteristics that humans do that entitle them to some form of moral consideration, but I believe there are still differences between the two that give humans a moral superiority above non-human animals. It is more than just our fear of accepting that we are animals and are capable of death that has always led us to believe that we are above other animals. As humans we maintain characteristics, such as the ability to express long-term categorical goals and desires as well as the ability to create multi-year memories, that non-human animals do not possess — making them unequal to humans. I do believe that other animals have a very similar neurological make-up to that of human beings, especially apes, but our cognitive abilities are ultimately at a higher level at this present time.

The shift away from a human centric view of nature is actively happening in many areas. From Donna Haraway’s concept of “living with others”, to anthropology’s emerging multispecies approach (see November issue of the journal Cultural Anthropology), to changes in the practice of primatology shifting foci to interfaces and shared ecologies between humans and other primates (termed ethnoprimatology), to work by Marc Bekoff (see comments above), Frans deWaal and many others. The concept of bidirectional influence and shared participation in ecologies are becoming more and more central to views of the world and our place in it. This is a good thing, and Marino’s call here reinforces this trend.

However, we have to be careful at the same time to not deny or ignore the discontinuities between human patterns and potentials and those of other organisms. Humans are enormously prolific niche constructors and are currently undertaking global modification of ecologies. Phylogenetically we are in the ape clade, but practically we are not just another ape. Humans shape, modify and impact ecosystems on a greater and more variable level than almost any other organism. Our brains are very similar to other apes and to cetaceans; but our minds, societies, and active manipulation of the planet are different in important ways (not better or worse, but different in implementation, scope and impact).

This reality carries a specific moral and ethical obligation…we are the major niche constructors on the planet and thus we do manage ecologies (as part of our current patterns and our evolutionary past). Because of our specific adaptive toolkit we alter ecologies and manipulate systems such that multiple other organisms are affected by and participant in anthropogenic processes. It is our obligation then to use a trans-species approach both to recognize and respect the equal evolutionary status of all other life and to attempt to create strategies that demonstrate the role of this value, incorporating it in our actions and perspectives. It is a fact that we are part of a multiplicity of life forms currently inhabiting the planet, many who share our daily lives and all of whom deserve our respect. But our attempts to manage the world in as sustainable a manner as possible require both that we adopt the trans-species approach noted in Marino’s essay and that we recognize and incorporate the histories and impacts of our specific evolutionary trajectories, noting that they reflect specific types of discontinuities with other organisms.

In my own classroom experience teaching biological anthropology, I have to work hard to break down students’ assumptions not just about great apes, but also about our extinct hominid relatives, and even about other human beings living in the world today. Their default assumption is often that of profound difference, not of commonality — even when dealing exclusively with Hominoidea, let alone other animals. They are frequently surprised and delighted to discover that other animals sing, solve problems, have politics, love, laugh, and mourn. Why should these realities defy expectation?

As Marino eloquently points out, scala naturae thinking is behind a lot of this, as it manifests through language, scientific practice, and conservation. I also suspect an intertwined influence: the scala natura is animated and applied through old and deeply seated narratives (some even older than the scala natura) which are retold over and over, and even materialized in our buildings. I’ve found it very interesting to consider the stories of human-animal interaction that are embedded in Western society, ranging from ancient Mesopotamian stories to the medieval tale of the Hunt of the Unicorn, to more recent popular stories of human-animal friendships that are considered remarkable because they defy expectation by crossing a putative boundary (which of course isn’t really there!). We absorb such stories from our very first picture books as children. And we also absorb those stories through the physicality of the zoo – a place to which most of us are taken as small children, ostensibly to learn about animals, but where we learn instead what we are allowed to do to them, and how we are separate from them. Thomas King’s book The Truth About Stories begins with a masterful comparison of the Native creation story, The Woman Who Fell From the Sky, and the Judaeo-Christian tale of Adam and Eve, and asks: how might the world be different if we told a different story about how human beings and our animal kin are related?

I couldn’t agree more with Marino’s call for a trans-species perspective — it is inspiring and elegant on both scientific and moral levels — and I hope we can learn to tell stories that embed it deeply in our not-so-special primate brains. I believe we can make progress with this, not only because of the passionate scholar-activists leading the way, but also because of precedent: science and medicine have made progress in related arenas, for example by insisting upon including basic protections for all human beings through the Nuremberg Code. That, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was instituted barely 60 years ago. Instead of treating humanity as subdivided groups of different worth, we have begun to consider all humans equal. Obviously, we have a long way to go even in that arena, but the process of conscious, deliberate change has begun and has taken root. We can keep going — we can keep expanding the circle. As Marino shows, we must.

However, given that you acknowledge that there are some discontinuities and differences between species, what are the moral implications (if any) of these differences? In her book Speciesism, Joan Dunayer argues that if you have to choose between saving a puppy or an infant from a burning building, you should flip a coin. While this position is absurd, it raises the question of how do we draw lines when the interests of members of species come into conflict — which, in the real world, is a common occurrence.

What guidance does the trans-species perspective have in these situations?