What happens when animals share intelligence, knowing and responsibility for ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More? A recent paper challenges the notion that generational transfer of Traditional Ecological Knowledge is limited to humans and advocates for stronger rights for nature. The authors remark that Traditional Ecological Knowledge is believed to be:
‘Fundamentally embedded in relationships, responsibilities, and ways of knowing that are inseparable from the communities that hold them’; adding that
‘Emerging evidence from elephants, cetaceans, chimpanzees and other intelligent species suggests that some animal communities maintain and transmit ecological knowledge across generations in ways comparable to human[s]’.
Within these two sentences are four words that stand out to me.
These are: intelligence, knowing, responsibility and ecological. Understanding what these mean, at an ecosystem level, will provide an a stronger basis for recognising the rights of nature than the authors’ suggest. It’s also part of the path to knowing what’s good for us so we can make better decisions for our own futures.
Intelligence
Intelligence is not only limited to animals we consider to be ‘intelligent’. Sure, we relate more easily to the culture of chimpanzees, cetaceans (whales and dolphins) or elephants. But that doesn’t mean ants, frogs and bacteria lack intelligence.
I have long argued that intelligence can only be defined as the ability of animals to make decisions that enable the survival of their species. Therefore, this is endemic to all animals.
For me, this is one of the most magical and mysterious aspects of being an animal. As individuals we make individual life-and-death decisions that aren’t always in the best interest of those around us. Yet overall, many species have survived for millions of years.
The only reason it works (that our selfish instincts are overcome) is because our minds are also embedded in the concepts of knowing and responsibility.
Knowing
It’s significant that this paper opened with the word ‘knowing’. A species’ ability to survive is not through research and learning. When ecosystems break down, survival becomes trial-and-error. As the authors rightly point out, these costs are prohibitive:
‘Without the social transmission of Traditional Ecological Knowledge … each generation would face the prohibitive costs of rediscovering essential survival information through individual trial-and-error.’
When an ecosystem is in a steady stable state, most of its energy is either fully absorbed into the food chainA single thread in a food web illustrating the chain of animals that eat each other. At the base of the food chain are small high-energy (fast metabolism) animals and at the other end large low metabolism animals. An example would be whales eating krill that eat plankton that eat algae. Or lions that eat gazelles that eat grass. More or waiting to be consumed. Because it’s animals that gather the resources for each other, when they live together, they begin to ‘know’ where to go to find resources. For millennia, humans have been watching nature to understand these patterns. Over time, animal brains become able to modelThe process, either mathematically or in the human brain, of creating an internal version of something that we can refer to, to better understand how it functions and our place within. Scientific modelling is where we take the best knowledge we have and build a version of what will happen, if we assume certain parameters. For example, we might model More the patterns in the world around us, while also creating those patterns through our behaviour.
Hence, as we transfer(of nutrients) the thing that sets animals apart from plants, is that they can move. Some of the biggest migrations on Earth every day, are the movement of insects like caterpillars, from the stem of a plant to a leaf and back, before turning into butterflies and transferring the energy elsewhere. Large-scale migration of grazing animals and migratory songbirds moves More this knowledge, culture develops around those whose knowledge system best survives. Eventually those patterns become retained and synchronise to the world around. This is passed down over generations through stories. In humans, these become ‘myth’. The word myth means a story, often a profound sacred truth. It has only recently been manipulated by modern scholars to commonly mean a fiction.
We don’t always need science to prove what we already know, but we do need it to help rebuild what we’ve lost. This means believing in something bigger, something that science will never prove: knowing why the natural world is key and we must respect the delicate balance of humanity, landscape and wildlife if we’re to have any chance of surviving the next 100 years
These are among the reasons I struggle with experimental scientific approaches to ecology.
We don’t fix the world’s problems by simply re-learning. When we disregard what we already know, we resort back to trial-and-error (hence why we are suffering a cost of living crisis). To refind our way, we have to flip science on its head and use what we already know. Call this ‘wisdom’ if you like. This becomes the basis for survival. One where we base decisions in community-wide knowledge-gathering. It opens up new potential that renews social and economic viability.
Responsibility
The concept of responsibility is getting some airtime at present. We live in a society where some people believe they deserve to speak and act any way they wish. But this isn’t an acceptable strategy for any species that wants to survive. Yes, there has to be autonomy (to make individual life and death decisions) but most people must also follow rules (to ensure ecosystem and social stability).
One way to summarise this is in the concept of cooperation. Without cooperation, species disappear fast. This is because culture necessitates good behaviour. Cooperation with other people and animals is what maintains the ecosystem we co-depend on. An animal’s responsibility, if any, is to do what it knows best, within the rules of its society.
So while the authors of the paper disregard ‘socially learned social conventions’ as part of ecological knowledge, this is a bit of an oversight. It also contradicts their earlier statement about the importance of social transmission of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
One would argue that human interest in sport has little to no relevance for ecology. Yet the social bonding it causes and the ‘need’ it creates to be outdoors, is pivotal to social cohesion, and therefore, the development of behaviour and ultimately, impacts on ecology. This is the same for all animals.
‘We know at the present time that all animals, beginning with the ants, going on to the birds, and ending with the highest mammals, are fond of plays, wrestling, running after each other, trying to capture each other, teasing each other, and so on’. adding that this is ‘a manifestation of sociability proper, which is a distinctive feature of all the animal world’.
– Peter Kropotkin, late 1800s, quote from Sweet in Tooth and Claw.
Are non-human animals responsible for their actions though? Probably not. Are humans? Almost definitely. But go back to a time when our Traditional Ecological Knowledge was sustaining our survival, and we weren’t having to think about being responsible. We were human ‘beings’ in the sense that being human was ‘knowing’ how to behave. Because our community had set the boundaries to survive after earlier periods of trial and error. We weren’t that different to animals back then.
Conscious responsibility is a modern dilemma for modern humans (maybe we have lost the ‘being’ part). We overlook ‘knowing’, when culture disconnects from nature and we make ourselves dependent on learning. It’s only in this respect that we are any different from other animals. Its a hard truth we have to accept. Our learning and ability to think ahead, can be both a blessing and a curse.
Ecological
Which brings me to the final point. What does ecology really mean in this context? The ability of animals to ‘know’ where to find food and water, stabilises our environment through the transfer, amplificationAmplification (of nutrients and energy). Animals consume plants and other animals and in doing so, reintroduce important energy-containing nutrients back into the environment, at even higher concentrations and in patches. Amplification of energy is driven by migration and happens at every scale, from insects moving daily in and out of your vegetable patch, to African wildebeest herds and the seasonal More and concentrations of nutrientsEnergy and nutrients are the same thing. Plants capture energy from the Sun and store it in chemicals, via the process of photosynthesis. The excess greenery and waste that plants create, contain chemicals that animals can eat, in order to build their own bodies and reproduce. When a chemical is used this way, we call it a nutrient. As we More. This provides healthy soil, clean water and shelter. But humans are only part of that equation.
By allowing wildlife to decline in local areas, we have removed the very mechanism that supports our livelihoods and lifestyles. That support is the key to us ‘knowing’ how to survive. Ecology, in this sense, is the complete interaction between people, wildlife and our environment. That includes the way animals cooperate with each other. It’s not just about language but ‘being’ present with others we depend upon.
The aforementioned paper, like many before it, doesn’t do enough to recognise this important connection. The authors regard Traditional Ecological Knowledge for humans and animals as different. But they are not. They are the same system. Understanding this would strengthen their argument for rights of nature. The authors say they are ‘challeng[ing] long-standing anthropocentric assumptions about whose knowledge is worthy of respect and protection’. But it’s not about that. It’s about recognising that we need their (non-human) knowledge for our survival too.
Can we extend the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to non-human societies?
This is a question the authors ask and the answer is, of course, yes.
But we must remember, that we are living in ecosystems that are more dynamic than ever before. If we assume humans are different because we’re living in broken ecosystems, we may fail to appreciate that recognising what we ‘know’ about working ecosystems, is more important. That ‘learning’ how to survive means imagining what it will be like if things were fixed.
In other words, we need to aim for a situation in future where responsibility becomes a function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More of how we behave naturally. Where our culture and environment are allowed to synchronise once more.
Alternatively, if we believe animal and human knowledge are a different system, we will continue to cannibalise our survival, by depending on learned knowledge for our own societal needs, without knowing nature. This separation of people and animals in science and policy remains a substantial roadblock to all our economic futures.
Because, as the tagline in my first book says ‘animals are humanity’s best hope’. Our actions aren’t because we need to save animals but because we need animals to save ourselves.
Today, we believe we are different to animals. In some ways we are and in other ways we’re not. But in the ways we differ, we may be putting ourselves at risk. Rediscovering some of our animality is important.
To some extent we have put ourselves in a trial-and-error phase once more. In another respect, we still have the knowledge from our history, that we could be using to help make wiser decisions for people and nature. As I surmise in my latest book How to Survive the Next 100 Years: Lessons from Nature, I believe we’re already a long way down the path to doing this.
