Hi everyone! I hope you are doing as well as possible during this difficult time.
This summer, I took two Columbia pre-college classes, and I wanted to share some of my takeaways from them, particularly as they relate to the topic of nonhuman animal justice and conservation. When referring to animals, I use the term nonhuman animals to clarify the idea that scientifically speaking, humans are animals too. I believe that by recognizing that humans and nonhuman animals are equal in that classification, we can begin to understand that humans are not so different from or better than other animals as we’d like to think. Therefore, they deserve the same treatment we give our fellow human beings.
My first class, “Inside the Animal Mind: How Animals Think and Feel,” taught me a tremendous amount about cognitive ethology—a field of scientific study that I will pursue in connection with a major in Biology, and likely as a career. For centuries, scientists have debated the notion that nonhuman animals can think and feel as humans do. However, as many pet owners, myself included, would agree, nonhuman animals show us proof of their emotional lives every day that they live with us. Cognitive ethology is often confused with basic ethology or psychology, both of which can involve the study of animal behavior. While the field does involve observing how nonhuman animals behave, the methods it uses, and the conclusions it draws, are different.
Cognition represents many subjects, from thinking, to emotions, to consciousness. Although scientists have studied human cognition for years, there is still a tremendous amount that remains unknown simply because cognition is not a physical object that can be concretely measured. Unlike the brain, the mind cannot be examined by X Rays or surgery. If we can’t even fully grasp how cognition works amongst human animals, it is exponentially more difficult to understand in nonhuman animals. Nevertheless, cognitive ethologists are resilient and not dissuaded by the claims that anecdotal evidence is insufficient data to tell the whole story. After all, it is far worse to assume that nonhuman animals are not sentient and therefore cannot feel pain than it is to assume that they are sentient and should be treated accordingly. In the first case, being wrong causes nonhuman animals tremendous suffering but in the second case, being wrong has no effect and there is no harm done.
I’ve always loved nonhuman animals and been passionate about speaking up for their rights. In recent years, however, I became slightly discouraged by the controversy surrounding certain topics such as animal testing and certain organizations such as PETA. My instincts erred on the side of speaking up whenever I saw any animals suffering at the hands of humans. Yet when I heard the counterarguments such as “animal testing can help cure diseases,” and “PETA tends to bend the truth to fulfill their own extreme agenda,” I could easily understand where people were coming from, which caused me to question my own opinions. I couldn’t help but feel that some of the moral dilemmas surrounding nonhuman animal rights could be easily solved if humans and animals could communicate and that frustrated me. Therefore, when I took “Inside the Animal Mind,” it struck me that the challenges cognitive ethologists face in proving animal cognition were incredibly similar. In both cases, the biggest obstacle is anthropocentrism, the idea that humans are more intelligent than other animals and therefore, they must always come first in the social order.
My second class, “Conservation Biology and Sustainability: Preserving the Planet,” taught me about the broad range of topics that conservationists can study. Previously, I only understood the general concept of conservation: protecting endangered species (both plants and animals). I expected that I could predict every subject the class would cover. However, after taking the course, I realized that there was infinitely more for me to learn. I came to understand that conservation can be achieved through myriad methods.
I was surprised to find that people can be inspired to support conservation for reasons other than science and love of the environment and animals. I considered the moral dilemma of invasive species. I knew that since humans caused the problem, they have to fix it. However, I’d never taken into account the idea that sometimes, once the problem has escalated far enough for an extended amount of time, invasive species will just keep coming back if you try to relocate them. Therefore, the only solution is to kill them. After my previous session considering how nonhuman animals think and feel, I found it difficult to consider that humans caused the death of countless native species and, eventually, the necessary elimination of many invasive species who would never have become invasive in the first place, were it not for human influence.
I learned many important lessons from “Conservation Biology and Sustainability.” One lesson that I continue to think about is that in conservation, the most obvious or simple explanation for a problem isn’t always right. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, a seal species is endangered. I assumed it was endangered because of overfishing. The video we watched before our class discussion described perceived conservation solutions that had proved ineffective at identifying the root of the problem. Like me, conservationists previously assumed that these seal populations were declining because overfishing eliminated their main food source thereby leaving the seals to starve. In reality, however, the problem was that certain whale species who were once the primary prey of orcas were being hunted by humans. With no other food source, the killer whales were left with only one option: eat the seals.
I enjoyed taking these courses with renowned professors who challenged me and working with talented classmates who helped me see different perspectives through our many group discussions and projects. I was also grateful to have the chance to hear from different highly inspirational guest speakers and have the chance afterward to ask them questions and connect over our shared interests.