E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDuring a 2011 talk at the TEDxPeachtree conference in Atlanta, primatologist Frans de Waal discusses the moral sense possessed by monkeys, apes and elephants.
When Occupy Wall Street and similar protests played out over the past year, the phenomenon looked familiar to Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal: He's seen similar moral outrage over economic inequity expressed by monkeys and chimps. And he thinks we could learn a lesson or two from our fellow primates.
"The role of inequity in society is grossly underestimated," he told reporters today, on the final day of this year's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, Canada. "Inequity is not good for your health, basically."
Based on primate studies, that goes for the haves as well as the have-nots. Far from being a uniquely human quality, a sense of fairness is something biologists have seen in studies of primates as well as crows and dogs. Even elephants may have an appreciation of inequity, although de Waal said he and his colleagues haven't done such a study with that species because "you don't want to piss off an elephant."
One of the classic studies involves capuchin monkeys who were given treats when they exchanged tokens with their human handlers. Two types of treats were offered: cucumber slices (meh...) and grapes (yum!). If one monkey saw that another monkey was consistently getting grapes while she was getting only cucumber slices, she'd quickly start protesting — by flinging the cucumber back at the handler and angrily jumping onto the cage walls.
"This is basically the Wall Street protest right here," de Waal said.
De Waal's replay of the scene never fails to get a human laugh, whether it's at the AAAS meeting or at a TEDx conference in Atlanta, as shown in the must-see video above. But there are serious points behind the laughter: Inequality causes tension and stress, not only for the one who gets the cucumber, but also for the one gets the grape (or a million-dollar bonus) and has to endure the resulting outrage.
Researchers set up a barter game with capuchin monkeys to see how they responded to unequal payoffs. For the full story behind this experiment, check out the NSF Science Nation video.
Some primates actually get the message. "In some combinations, the one who gets the grape refuses it unless the other one gets the grape," de Waal said. Other primates make a different choice. De Waal pointed to a chimpanzee study of selfish vs. altrustic behavior, in which the chimps are more likely to be in a sharing mood if they've attracted the attention of another chimp. However, they're not quite as likely to share if the other chimp is actively pressing them to do so.
The bottom line from de Waal's talk is that a sense of fairness, outrage over moral equality and the ability to reconcile and cooperate are not uniquely human behaviors. Rather, such sensibilities were hard-wired into brains long before the rise of the human species. This is reflected in neuroscience as well, de Waal said. "Very ancient parts of the brain are involved in moral decision making," he observed.
All this meshes with the message of de Waal's latest book, "The Age of Empathy." For more from de Waal about the altruism of animals, check out my Q&A from 2009.
Here are a few more nuggets from de Waal's lecture and news briefing in Vancouver:
- Different primate species express signs of reconciliation in different ways. For example, stumptail monkeys make up by inspecting each other's rear ends, without ever looking each other in the eye. In contrast, chimps and other apes (including us hairless apes) "need eye contact" when they reconcile their differences, de Waal said.
- Men make a characteristic pursed-lip gesture when expressing regret — a gesture that's also widely seen in other male primates under similar circumstances. But de Waal says it's rarer to see women making that pursed-lip look.
- Empathy — the ability to share an emotional connection with other individuals — isn't unique to humans. But humans, like many other species, make a distinction between in-group and out-group connections. Having a sense of empathy for people beyond our "in-group," however that's defined, may be a "fragile experiment" being conducted by our species, de Waal said.
- During an earlier session at the AAAS meeting, a group of scientists and philosophers called for the promulgation of a "Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans." De Waal was asked what he thought of setting up a declaration of rights for non-human primates, and he replied that he generally took a "welfarist" view toward other species. Humans were bound by an obligation to animals rather than by a set of rights drawn up on their behalf, he said. He pointed to the recently adopted limits on chimpanzee research as an example. "If they [chimps] are not so necessary for biomedical studies, should we be using them in biomedical studies?" de Waal asked.
More from the AAAS meeting in Vancouver:
- Lab-grown burger to be served this fall for $330,000
- Scientists map the world's microbes
- Device turns gestures into song
- Researchers working to build a better leaf
- Answers ahead for physics' deepest mysteries
- Scientists revive sounds of Stonehenge and other sacred spaces
- Gas-drilling gaffes aren't unique to fracking, study says
Alan Boyle is science editor for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding the Cosmic Log Google+ page to your circles. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
probably smelled like ows too. ;)
Sounds like you've been fed grapes and want to keep them.
Yes, it's very easy to see how monkeys handle moral outrage. They just promise all kinds of impossible good things. Then when it doesn't happen, they just keep promising all kinds of good things ---- and their fellow monkeys believe them.
Somehow this study is flawed...No mention of bananas anywhere...try one of those moves with bananas and things could get ugly real quick....
Study misses out on the whole effort of labor aspect to inequality. In their study the monkeys did exactly the same labor. Now make one monkey jump through 4 burning hoops for 2 grapes while 1 monkey gets a grape for just laying around and study their reactions.
Our TAX dollars at work???
peanutGallery - you know, they made that remark about the Vietnam protestors, too.
@Jesse-Az - I can tell you what would likely happen. The monkey who had been jumping through the hoops to get their reward would start to refuse to do so and expect to get rewarded for doing absolutely nothing. This is a very clear comparison to the OWS protesters who also want something handed to them for doing nothing. To give in to lazy bums who do not want to work for their keep would result in the eventual collapse of our society as those who are working and paying taxes would start to refuse to do so when they see their tax dollars being given away to others who have done nothing to deserve it. You would see a mass revolt where people would start refusing to pay their taxes. So long as the number stayed small the government could go after them, but once you hit a critical mass the government would have to relent and change it's policies. As the saying goes - there is strength in numbers.
@JS in SD, I look at it differently. Auto manufacturing is a good example. You've got guys on the production line working with heavy equipment and materials. Many have to stand to do their job during their shift. Some may be exposed to uncomfortable temperatures. They have no decision making ability... just an assigned task. Their work is the same every day, yet when cars don't sell, they don't get a bonus while watching their white collar colleagues rack up bonus payments. And they get bonuses when it was their decisions that result in poor auto sales. They make these poor decisions from the comfort of a temperature controlled, well furnished office while never breaking a sweat or their back. It's those inequities that cause them to form unions and strike.
@Mike but then what happens when those unions become corrupt and demand rediculous salaries? What happens when they demand so much that even when the company is going bankrupt they refuse to make any real significant cuts to labor costs in order to compete with companies that pay HALF as much for labor.
Oh we already know what happens, the US government comes rushing in to save you right? Then MY MONEY is used to make sure your monkeys keep their grapes.
JS in SD was right most of the "haves" are incredibly hard workers who earned what they get. I just have to laugh especially when people mention doctors as my father was one. I remeber him not being home until 8pm and gone before i woke up regularly because that's what doctors have to do.
Using a study to compare animal behavior to humans is just foolish. Lions will kill the children of females so they can get her to mate with them sooner, would that be ok to do in humans? Some animals kill each other over food! Is that ok for humans to do? How about some animals EAT their young, is that ok for humans to do?
kama...you made a comment about the auto unions demanding ridiculous salaries"...so I did a little searching.
Pay since the recession is probably skewed, so I did a quick search for 2007 pay and found that the average UAW worker makes about $60K a year. In 2007, the CEO of GM received $15.7 million in compensation.
So by my calculations...the CEO made over 260 times the pay of the "average" UAW worker. So...you consider it "outrageous" for the average UAW employee to expect to make in a year what the GM CEO makes in a day?
From reading the posts above, it is clear to me that the monkeys are more civilized than the human species.
A good study to show how nature handles morality fairly. But remember, in many ways we are the monkeys in the cage being fed either grapes or cucumbers. Like the monkeys in the cage there is no choice in what is GIVEN. The monkey are slaves to their handlers. However, when greed becomes involved then we have one monkey stealing from another and going to war with one of his fellows.
I think dizzy just pwnd you kama.
So the moral of the story is, do not fight with your brothers and sisters inside the cage. Once you take away his grape there will be non left for either of you. The problems is the system which would manipulate and create an atmosphere of inequality inside the cage. This is called economic slavery.
To those that perpetrate the "lazy OWS protester" myth, try this:
Spend 10 years working as a roofer in Alabama in the summer when it's 98 degrees outside, barely being able to put food on your family's table. You're great at your job and you work hard. Then you lose your job when the management of your company makes idiotic descisions. You spend the next year sending out hundreds of resumes in a futile attempt to get a job.
Then you read all about how your tax dollars were used to bail out multi millionaires on Wall Street that helped to collapse our nation's economy through their own incompetence. Those same millionaires get bonuses that add up to more money than you've earned in your lifetime.
So...you protest hoping that elected officials that were SUPPOSED to represent you will actually start to do so.
"I ain't come from no monkey!" - quote from my Texas neighbor
Yes, I'm sure an evolved primate wouldn't use double-negatives like your neighbor. ;-)
Texas: The hairlip society
@JohnSixty, guess you have never been to Texas. Actually, there are quite a few educated people here. You don't mention where you reside, so I can't resort to any inane comments as a comeback.
I overheard the greatest use of negatives at a store in Virginia many years ago: "I ain't never heard nobody." Amazing. Three negatives all together in one sentence without sounding forced. It was a masterpiece.
ag99 funny funny funny
I didn't know that was possible...
Very funny folks...here's a neighbor of mine's, Billy from the Hills...once in a while he sure does do the double negatives TOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayout Out " Me and my husband is a goin ayout tonite "
At That " At airs what I'm a talkin bout "
Air There " I'll be up air in a minute "
Airs There's " Airs some big uns up air "
Backker Tobacco " I'm gonna have a chaw of backker "
Backky Tobacco " Ya'll wanna chaw of baccky "
Chaw Chew " Were gonna have a chaw, ya'll wanna chaw? "
Seent Seen " I ain't seent em latley "
Em Him " Lets go see em "
Em Them " Lets go see em "
Ems Those " Ems some big uns ain't they ? "
Uns Ones " Lou Lou's got some big uns ain't she ? "
Reyud Red " Airs at reyud pickem up truck at Bubba bought"
Saw Seen " I ain't saw er lately "
Er Her " I ain't seent er "
Tabacker Tobacco " At tabacker show is good "
Tabacky Tobacco " I'm goin over air to at tabacky field "
Show Shure " Thems show some good eats "
Tamarra Tomorrow " See ya'll tamarra "
Purtty Pretty " Ain't Lou Lou purtty ? "
Edjumacation Education " I ain't got no edjumacation, I ain't got no book
learnens , don't need em up air in at air tabaccy field "
Doden't Doesn't " Doedn't Lou Lou look purrty ? "
Wadn't Wasn't " I wadn't up air "
Won't Want " I won't ya'll to come over tamarra "
Teum Tim ( my name ) " Teum, won't a chaw of backky ? "
I've run out of em air Redneck words. Feel free to add some of your own !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goes both ways folks; there's tards on both sides....
I would be pissed too if I got a cucumber instead of a grape. Meh...
probably better. i'm sure the monkeys were given a bath every few weeks :P
When morally outraged, throw poo at it.
And you thought New York couldn't smell worse...
How do monkeys handle moral outrage?
They vote republican.
Ah good! You have proven my point! You just admitted Democrats ARE monkeys. Thank you.
E h?
They riot and start fires.
All of these examples are normal pragmatic reactions to the attraction to better food, sex or security. The emotion of fairness has not been supported other than as an inclusion after the event.
You could say the same about humans.
Where does that you, those who have ranted that morality comes from religion?
I'd say they were wrong. About that, and many other things. Altruism never came from religion; it came from a deep rooted sense that being good to each other feels better (and releases more endorphins into the brain) than being bad to each other. I'd imagine species propagation also plays a minor role in altruism as well.
Has nothing to do with religion...
I'd love to see Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert do a piece on this. Maybe interview this researcher and bring these results to a larger audience. I bet it would be hilarious and educational!
Frans de Waal is always a good time - I agree that would be a great show. I would also recommend his book - Age of Empathy. Fantastic read and while I have a background and work in biology - I don't think it is inaccessible to the general audience.
And how did the older monkeys react? Did they hop on their HoveRounds carrying signs reading "Hands off my government grapes"?
That sounds a bit dirty!
What happens? They vote Democratic, and win the Presidency, the House, and 60 seats in the Senate.
It's a jungle out there.
My question is, who is the moron that authorized the spending for this study? Moral outrage over inequity? Obviously a new buzz phrase for all the assorted socialists and Marxists among us now. There has always been and there will always be inequity. Some of it will stem from being born in the right circumstances and much of it will stem from working harder than others to achieve.
More like most of it stems from being born in the right circumstances and without actually working. The whole idea that hard work makes you rich is a myth perpetuated by the wealthy to get their peons to work harder for a reward that never comes.
You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and thousands of other people? I personally know people who had little and worked hard to become pretty well off. You just sit there and feel sorry for yourself while waiting on the government to take care of you.
Really, H Stowell? Because of the Forbes 400 richest, here's how they got where they are today:
Huh? So you think inequality is fundamental (not supported by evidence -btw, inequality varies greatly on society which suggests that it can be manipulated. Also there is a difference over inequality by birth and achievement with very few if any purposing to do away with the latter)? How does this make a study on a sense of fairness on non-human animals any less interesting or worthy of study?
Really, I don't understand you. I'm certainly glad that you are not the arbitrator of the world to decide what is worthy of study or interest.
Guess what Emily? I can have my own opinion on what is a waste of time without being the "arbitrator of the world."
Real Americans, no doubt that plenty of those who are now rich were born into money but there's still a significant amount of ultra rich who made it on their own. Look at the guy who started Facebook. There's an even more significant amount who started with little and while they are not ultra rich they are still well off. When we begin discarding the notion that hard work doesn't pay off then we are all doomed. The government creates housing projects and not wealth. Government simply feeds off us usually more for the benefit of politicians than anybody else. We should strive for equal opportunity & treatment as much as possible and not equal results. Results for the majority of us are gained by talent & toil. I don't spend my time envying the rich.
Sure you can have your opinion, but it seems more like a unrelated rant about your world view then anything relevant to this study and I for one will disregard it as useless as relates to this article.
H Stowell, you think Zuckerberg came from humble origins? His father personally HIRED a professional programmer to tutor him. He went to a school, as a kid, that costs OVER $40,000 per year -- not college, high-school. He went to Harvard after that. Oh, and he had sisters -- plural. They went to Harvard too
That high-school tuition is actually more than most Americans take home in a year, and that was just for Mark.
That's light-years away from humble beginnings.
The VAST majority of the hardest workers in this country earn what are likely the lowest wages.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw/heard of a bloke from the mail-room becoming the CEO, or a produce-picker working their way up to the head of R&D or CFO or marketing?
Hard work is actually one major guarantee that will ensure the MOST likely path to not progressing INTO a serious management track.
Chirmly, I agree with you. I've experienced life on both sides of the track. Most people that succeed do so with help from others. My friends that started with money are financially well-off 30 plus years later. Some had talent and worked hard, some didn't yet they inherited money and had support along the way. People don't fail without help either. Some of the obstacles people have to overcome are tremendous. I'm impressed with the resilience of the human will and spirit when I hear people's stories. The hardest working usually receive the least pay and worst working conditions, little security, and control over their destiny. I remember a kid in my grade school class who drove our teacher crazy. He didn't complete assignments, had the room in an uproar, and teased the teacher to distraction. The teacher was convinced he'd end up in jail. He's doing fine today and owns a company. Another acquaintance who majored in drugs for 20 years has millions and his own company too. Both of them were set-up by their dads. It's nice to think that hard work always leads to success and self-sufficiency and that indolence and lack of discipline aren't rewarded but it ain't always so.
I don't think this experiment demonstrates moral outrage stemming from a sense of fairness. To do that, the result (monkey refusing the cucumber) would have to be compared to the same task-reward event conducted with a single monkey. Does a single monkey become upset when two bowls are placed in front of him, and he is fed only from the bowl containing cucumber? What if the researcher - who does not perform the task - eats the grapes and gives only cucumbers to the monkey?
I'm not sure what your criticism is. The monkeys fed the cucumbers could see the other monkeys getting grapes. That was the point. The monkeys saw others rewarded better for doing the same thing. That is inequality in its simplest form. Showing a monkey two rewards and consistently giving him te lesser of the two in isolation is not inequality -- it's just mean. You cannot have a study of inequality involving a single subject -- since inequality inherently involves inequal treatment of individuals (plural).
So, we keep monkeys imprisoned to find out whether they feel afronted by inequitable treatment? What a waste of money, time, and natural existence for these creatures.
The researchers should've told the monkeys "hey don't worry all those grapes the other guy is getting will eventually trickle down to you." cuz we all know how well that theory works. ha
Proving once again that monkeys are better than conservatives.
And liberals! I can't remember the last time a liberal gave me a grape.
Sounds like sour grapes to me! Are you in need of more grapes? Been denied grapes for working hard? How many grapes have you shared?
Its a Crying Shame that we can't just work together and solve our problems without trying to somehow assert that one group is superior to the other and therefore deserve more.
To the best of my knowledge, none of us asked to be born, no one gets to chose where and to whom we are born, or with what social, mental, or physical abilities we are born with!
When you are all done fighting over the grapes and they are all gone I will be grateful that you ignored the cucumbers. I scooped them all up and made pickles. I like pickles. And now all of you are starving because the grapes ran out. Hey! Stop eyeballing my pickles!
And who is more advanced, I dare say !
NOW I UNDERSTAND! Romney and his envy comments. He's under stress too. Perhaps he can pay taxes near the 30% range and he could feel so much better!
Working poor you have no clue what you are talking about. Romney paid taxes on income once (at income tax rates) and then invested that money where he now pays the capital gains rate on money coming from his investment. If you really want to stifle the economy just raise the capital gains rate.
H Stowell -
That's a fallacy that some people who make a fair amount of money from capital gains would like everyone to believe. The history of capital gains tax rates and economic growth do not support your assertion.
H Stowell: An investment gained is more money incoming on a new day. If you say you've already been taxed once on that income, how is anyone to know which amount of money you have that has already been taxed? Was that $1000 from the income of 12 years ago, or was it from last year or when? Do you only use government services ONCE and never use it again? Sewage, roads, lighting, freeways, airports, military protection, police, firemen, schools, navy, clean air monitoring, clean up, clean running water, on & on. We use these daily and continually. You have been taxed from what you earned to pay for government services for the past year. If I make more money out of what I'm left with, I am ok with paying my share of taxes for the services I continue to use. It's a new day of income. Blithering greedy idiots.
acspore, so in your estimation we should continually pay taxes on our money at the same rate? That's ridiculous. Lets say I earn a paycheck and pay income taxes on that money and instead of spending that money I put it into an investment such as the stock market. If I make a profit from the money I've invested I shouldn't have to pay the same rate it has already been taxed at. I should be rewarded for investing that money or I have less incentive to invest. What you and others like you suffer from is plain old envy. I'm not rich by any means but hope to eventually live a comfortable retirement because I've taken money where I can and invested it. I certainly cannot count on a defined benefit retirement program because most of those are under water and not sustainable. Government is just beginning to figure this out while private industry (like the airlines) figured it out several years ago. There are many people who pay nothing or almost nothing for services they receive and the taxable rate of income is manipulated with deductions/write offs. Not so for capital gains taxes; You pay a percentage of what you take in. Raising the capital gains tax rate might satisfy your class envy but would have disastrous results for the economy.
H Stowell: You don't seem to understand what I wrote: it is simply this - when you make money on a new day, whether it is from income or investment, it is fair to be taxed on it to pay for the common services we ALL use, it's a new day, a new source of income, you are living and breathing in a new day, enjoying the fruits of this modern society we live in. What you are saying makes no sense. So if you make $1000 and are taxed on it and that $1000 provides you with money as an investment for the rest of your life, you shouldn't ever be taxed on the gains from that $1000? We all have investments of one kind or another, don't kid yourself with "class" divisions and the like, you're simply an extremely greedy person, no matter how you slice and dice it.
H- so if I buy a lottery ticket and win a million, I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it, right? Because I already paid taxes on the 1.00 I 'invested'. Wall street is another form of gambling, just a little less risky than Vegas.
acspore, the money from investments is taxed but just not the same way as income gained money. Like I said, there are not write offs for capital gains like on income. To tax capital gains at higher rates would discourage investments and risk takers that drive our economy. You can't seem to understand that both are taxed but just in a different manner. The $1000 you spoke about is taxed as income when it's originally earned and later after it's invested the gains are taxed as capital gains. Where in the world did you get the idea that the money is not taxed?
inmissouri, I'm not sure I understand your question. If you buy a lottery ticket and win a million dollars that million dollars will be taxed as income. You are going to pay income tax on the million dollars and end up losing a substantial portion of that original million. After you've paid the taxes on the original million you could invest what is left into the stock market or some other type investment. You will not be taxed on the residual of the original million dollars again but you will be taxed on the money you gain from the investment in the form of a capital gains tax. There's nothing free here but some of you seem to think otherwise.
H Stowell said
This is simply not supported by history. You seem like a smart, investor type person so I'm sure you understand that people who invest for a living will continue to invest. I'm sure that you would rather have 85% of something over 65% of something, but would you rather have 65% of something or 65% of nothing?
Income is income, and should be taxed accordingly. It shouldn't matter if your money came from digging a ditch or putting some cash in the stock market or winning the lottery. It should be taxed according to the amount received rather than how it was received.
H Stowell is rich and stingy. Stowell, I hope your prepared to ,meet your maker some day. No one lives for ever, I wonder if the pearly gates will open for you.
H Stowell,
Actually, the complaint is rather that hedge fund managers and venture capitalists are allowed to declare their income, much of it derived from management fees, as capital gains regardless of the lenght of (or existance) of an actual investment. In other words, if I arranged a $1 million dollar loan for you (using none of my own money) and for which you paid me $50k, I could claim that $50k as capital gain at 15% as opposed to earned income at 33%. Bain Capital bought large shares of companies using its investors' funds, borrowed heavily against those companies, claimed large shares of the raised capital, and left the companies to Chapter 11. All the while paying 15% or less. Actually Romney admitted that last year's tax was 14% on millions of income.
@acspore...."Do you only use government services ONCE and never use it again? Sewage, roads, lighting, freeways, airports, military protection, police, firemen, schools, navy, clean air monitoring, clean up, clean running water, on & on."
What a load of crap. The federal taxes I pay on regular income covers military protection, the EPA, the DoE, etc. Police, fire and emergency services are covered by state and city taxes. I pay for the local schools through my property taxes (so why do I have to also pay federal taxes for the worthless DoE? The DoE doesn't teach anything to a single student.) I don't know about where you live but I pay a monthly bill for my water, trash and sewage services. Roads and freeways I pay for every time I get gas through the gas tax. I pay for airports every time I fly through the extra taxes and fees added to the cost of my ticket. If I choose to invest the money not already paid in taxes and make a profit why should I have to pay for those government "services" again? Especially when 49% of my fellow citizens pay nothing towards the same services or are even subsidized with my tax money.
@inmissouri... "Income is income, and should be taxed accordingly. It shouldn't matter if your money came from digging a ditch or putting some cash in the stock market or winning the lottery. It should be taxed according to the amount received rather than how it was received."
I would not have a problem with what you propose IF the tax was flat and applied to everyone. As it is now those who use the majority of government services pay nothing or even less than nothing in federal income taxes. But even that is not fair enough in your opinion.
Progressives (formerly known separately as communists, Marxists and socialists) won't be happy until everyone is poor and dependant on the government for their basic survival. That is the only way to "level" the playing field. To bring everyone down to the lowest level of society.
It does boil down to envy of those who "have more than I do." It is human nature. Just like it is human nature for someone who works hard but is compensated the same as those that don't work hard (or at all) to stop working as hard or to stop working all together. The U.S.A. did not become the greatest nation the world has ever known through socialist policies. In fact, in case you haven't noticed, as more and more socialist policies have been instituted the less successful the U.S.A. has become.
So if we increase capital gains nobody will invest? Really?! Lets look at the options:
1) invest it and pay a tax on gains.
2) Put it under your matress and let it drop in value.
3) spend it on good/services.
For those making tons of money (investors that drive economic gain/provide liquidity) they cannot spend it all. Ergo, they will still take a gain over leaving funds dormant. For the little guy, spending the cash is as good for the economy as investing it. The only way this gets screwed up is if we allow profits to be moved outside the country into other markets that do not tax capital gains.
Wait? They're comparing the occupied protesters to upset monkeys? If I was one of the privleged protesters(they don't need to go to work in order to pay their bills), I'd be upset.
You can do the same experiment if you have two dogs.Give one a dog treat and not the other see what happens
How come no one seems to be morally outraged over some human caging animals for no other reason than to f*** with their primate minds?
To be fair, participation in the experiments (though not being in captivity in general) is voluntary in his work. The participants are called by name and then will either enter or not. There is no penalty for not entering which is why most male animals don't bother (under greater pressure to maintain status and access to mates). Of course that they are in captivity at all can be objected to, the quality of life for these animals is as good as captivity gets by most standards.
I for one am interested in animal (and human) capacity of understanding and emotion so I think it's worth doing but I wouldn't be OK with the older methods which were quite cruel.
Being stuck in a cage is cruel enough and this advances almost nothing. We already know envy exists and that animals in the wild will take from others who have something they want.
Stonewell - At what point does "being stuck in a cage" become cruel though? Does it have to be a certain size, with a certain amount of objects, with a certain threshold of family and non-family members there as well before it can be considered cruel or is it always so? I do think it is not in any animals best interest to be captive in any sense - even if they have no way of knowing it since it removes them from the genetic pool but I don't know if I would go so far as to say it is innately cruel. This is up for debate but your ascertain is hardly universally accepted and you attempted no argument here.
Regardless, this study didn't just show envy, it is consistent with an actual understanding of fairness since the participant ended up refusing its share which is inconsistent with simple jealously. Furthermore, we do not "know" anything before we test it. Understanding and emotions come in degrees of complexity in both animals, in individuals, and in humans when you consider disorders. I'm interested in evolution and the evolution of empathy, fairness etc. is interesting to me. It is much more complex, especially when you put high levels of stringency, to test these things in even humans then you may think.
First off, are we saying that we are no better than monkeys? That WOULD be a sad commentary on modern society.
Second, of course someone will get upset if there is no causal relationship between one's actions and the rewards one receives. But don't you think that if the monkeys were rewarded for one type of behavior (no matter how trivial) that all of the monkeys would begin to mimick that behavior to receive the same reward.
In fact, that is where this research actually does have relevance to current events. It tells us that the portion of society that is crying "unfair" has not learned the simple rule of cause and effect. Is it possible that the same group of people that sees value in taking the time to "Occupy" anything is the same group that does not understand the relationship between effort and reward? I'm not saying that the system is perfect, but there must be better ways to fix it.
The relationship between effort and reward is the problem. If I work harder, the reward isn't there. If I work to the exclusion of all else in my life, it isn't there. The means to reach prosperity aren't open to me.
@Myles: I don't know, I think it is worse for the monkeys to be compared to us. Monkeys don't wage war and slaughter their own species indiscriminately.
Very enlightening comment from PeanutGalleryTheater.
Sounds like a hissy fit. (Throwing cucumbers back at the giver)
First of all being kept in a freaking cage is enough to make anyone want to throw cucumbers! Testing on animals is not necessary. Talk about moral outrage....