If only animals could talk? They already can, sort of (1)
Chris Sherwood’s excellent piece on animal communication, “If only they could talk”, reminded me of an essay I wrote for 快猫短视频 more than 30 years ago (21 May 1994) headlined “Why can’t we talk to the animals?”. Even way back then, we and other animals could “talk” with one another using visual signals, sounds, scents and various combinations thereof (2 November, p 21).
Sherwood also considers what artificial intelligence might tell us about what animals want and need from us and that we might not like what we learn. While AI might fill in some of the gaps in understanding, we already know 鈥� and have known for many decades 鈥� that we must treat other animals with much more respect and dignity.
When I updated the second edition of my book, (April 2024), I kept track of the 300 or so references and notes I added to the first edition (2007) and not a single one led to the conclusion that we are now doing enough for non-humans. Sherwood is right on the mark that companion dogs with squished faces might tell us they don’t like being unable to breathe, but we already know that.
AI may be the icing on the cake for communication with animals, but it won’t be the panacea some imagine. All we need to do now is “watch” carefully with our eyes, ears, noses and hearts and we will know when we have crossed the line.
If only animals could talk? They already can, sort of (2)
While it would be fascinating to decode the messages that lie behind a cat’s purr, a dog’s bark or the clucking of a rather overfed chicken, I think we have to be aware of our strong instinct to attribute human qualities to these creatures. While they undoubtedly display intelligence, it is expressed in a way appropriate to the confines of their own exclusive domain.
With physiologies and lifestyles so diverse and so very different to ours, we can’t begin to expect them to convey, or for us to understand, their emotional states in human terms to any great depth or accuracy. Bees are reported to have been seen “playing” with balls. Yet what would “playing” feel like to a bee?
The AI research will hopefully provide us with some valuable insights into animal behaviour. It is essential, though, to not let our natural anthropomorphic tendencies lead us to believe that this will somehow transform our understanding of and communication with animals into something akin to Dr Dolittle.
On diet: There just aren't enough fish in the sea
Your articles on nutrition brought several strands of information together nicely, although, as with previous round-ups of this, it seems to sum up as “more fibre, less red meat and sugar, more variety” (2 November, p 32).
One theme that I would like to add is that those of us in affluent societies are now encouraged more than ever to consider the food we eat as entertainment and as being an indicator of our chosen lifestyles, rather than as simple metabolic input. The plethora of instructional and competitive cookery shows on TV, which are endlessly rehashed in other media, is indicative and probably causal of this change.
On a separate note, one thing I wish would stop is the recommending of oily fish. We simply don’t have enough in the sea for all of us to eat more fish, and the environmental impact if produced via trawling 鈥� or, worse still, via farming 鈥� is untenable. I want suggestions of more sustainable sources for the nutrients they contain, such as various beans and squashes.
How much energy was used to find new prime?
Good to hear that the largest-known prime number has been found 鈥� but at what cost in terms of energy consumption? Rather than rewarding the finder with $3000, perhaps that money would be better spent on carbon offsetting (2 November, p 19).
The idea of classical reality has long been upended
I agree with Daniele Oriti that “we have to embrace the fact that we make reality”, and note readers’ responses. We need to keep in mind that relativity and quantum physics have comprehensively undermined our classical, or Newtonian, view of reality (12 October, p 40, and Letters, 2 November).
For instance, we seem to be increasingly understanding space-time as emergent, rather than some given backdrop to the “things” around us, including you and me. Maybe, too, we should examine what we mean by “objectivity”.
Could it be that each of us is, in some sense, the entire universe aware of itself, and that we are all (animals and possibly plants as well) in some kind of quantum superposition with one another? Answers on a postcard please.
End of Neanderthals sounds a bit like war
Your story on how the Neanderthals really died amid the rise of Homo sapiens, based on regional occupation, sounds like a perpetual hunt/war between the two groups. It would have started with Neanderthals hunting invasive “weak” humans until our species got smarter and tried to eliminate them (12 October, p 36).
Those Neanderthals that split off to avoid us survived with some trading of territory over millennia. Maybe some enlightened H. sapiens even tried to “save the Neanderthals” in parks (look for them in human burial areas). As Neanderthals were too intelligent to be domesticated, it was easier to enslave our fellow humans. But Neanderthals died off because they weren’t ultimately useful in the human artificial environment or, in the end, because they tasted good and were easy to find.
For the record
Despite its name, Barnard’s star isn’t in Barnard’s galaxy (26 October, p 30).
A new type of energy storage device that could be used on Mars is a supercapacitor (2 November, p 12).
In our look at precision nutrition, we misattributed a quote to Regan Bailey (2 November, p 38).
The image used in our look at the effects of sugar rationing was taken in the US, not the UK (9 November, p 14).