EnviroLink Forum

In order to be staged, the photographer (the National Geographic photographer) would have had to assemble all of those chimps in the configuration s/he wanted .... line them up just so ... and keep there attention until Dorothy passed by in the wheel barrow. Do you really think the photo was staged Donny? It really doesn't make much sense at all and if you were really interested you would have, by now, done some of your own research and found out a few things about Dorothy and that group of chimps.

Let's just say that the the barrow-pushers are holding D's head up. So what? Even that doesn't say the photo was staged. There was really no need to stage the photo. Totally unnecessary. Even by your own admission and that of AL and Grizzly's, chimps are curious - so what was staged? You can't stage grief. It is not to be seen, and yet we know chimps experience grief and can therefore mourn. It is fair to assume these chimps - at least the ones who had a close relationship with Dorothy - are mourning.

I'm still waiting to hear why they would only be showing basic animal curiosity when they are most likely grieving the passing of this community member?

And then why would this photo be staged? Need to be staged? ... when such a happening could easily happen ... and in fact, did happen?[/quote]



The angle of the camera and the lifting of the head to show the chimps the dead chimp were definitely staged. Why else would they lift the head to display it? Timing would indicate that but you carry on as if you know better and keep digging that hole. .[/quote]

In order to be staged, the photographer (the National Geographic photographer) would have had to assemble all of those chimps in the configuration s/he wanted .... line them up just so ... and keep there attention until Dorothy passed by in the wheel barrow. Do you really think the photo was staged Donny? It really doesn't make much sense at all and if you were really interested you would have, by now, done some of your own research and found out a few things about Dorothy and that group of chimps.

Let's just say that the the barrow-pushers are holding D's head up. So what? Even that doesn't say the photo was staged. There was really no need to stage the photo. Totally unnecessary. Even by your own admission and that of AL and Grizzly's, chimps are curious - so what was staged? You can't stage grief. It is not to be seen, and yet we know chimps experience grief and can therefore mourn. It is fair to assume these chimps - at least the ones who had a close relationship with Dorothy - are mourning.[/quote]



They look hungry to me . They don't look grief stricken and it wouldn't be the first photograph staged by a photographer and lifting the head kinda reinforces that point. Maybe the woman lifting the chimps head was teaching the rest of the chimps a lesson. "+This could happen to you if you hog all the bananas," type of lesson..

You really are a weasel aren't you? I said NOTHING about animals not having emotions. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your continued use of evasion, fallacious arguments, and in this case, blatant intellectual dishonesty is leaving you with ZERO credibility. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing in this story as it is posted, or the picture, that proves that these animals are mourning. It makes a claim with nothing to back it up. Furthermore, what you linked to is a blog; an opinion piece. It is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. I would say "nice try", but your response is so flagrantly dishonest, it doesn't even qualify as a "nice try". Thanks for playing, though.[/quote]

"fallacious arguments and blatant intellectual dishonesty" ... Grizzly, I have noticed that when you don't agree with someone or when someone upsets your view of the world, the same words come tumbling through like a mantra. My arguments are not fallacious and therefore I am not being intellectually dishonest. You are correct in that there is nothing in the photo which "proves" the animals are mourning - but is that what we are actually arguing about? I don't think so.

You said: "Wow, Josh, you sound like an AR; using warm, fuzzy little anecdotes as "proof" of something. Contrary to what the snippet claims, there is no "proof" of anything. Are they really "mourning" in the sense humans understand that emotion, or are they just showing basic animal curiosity about what's going on around them? Paint me skeptical. Let's see some scientific proof and not just feel-good stories."

Am I to believe that you are fully aware that animals have emotions and can experience grief which would then lead to the 'action' or the 'state' of mourning but that we don't know for sure that they are mourning in this particular photo? ... because there is no "proof"? Is that what you are saying? Is that what we are arguing about? So you didn't say that animals have no emotion ("I said NOTHING about animals not having emotions"). yet these chimps couldn't possible be mourning the passsing of a member of their community because ..... ?????? why?

They must only be curious ... not because they don't experience emotion - you never said that .... so why must they be only curious and not greiving?

Tell me where the red herring is please.[/quote]




You are being intellectually dishonest. Your intellectual dishonesty comes in the form of trying to put words in my mouth by your inference that I believe that animals have no emotions, which is something I have NOT said. AL has already pointed that out to you. Attempting to put words in someone else's mouth is a debating cheap shot. You compound it further by claiming innocence of the dishonesty, which I think most readers can see right through.



Actually, it is what we're arguing about, or at least it is the original point I was making. Read my original post. Bottom line once again: Nothing in the story or the picture proves the chimps are mourning. End of story.



That is correct. We don't know without reasonable uncertainty that they are mourning. Your belief that they are is based on conjecture and assumption. You want to believe they are mourning, and that seems to blind you to other possibilities such as simple curiosity or, as Jhawk astutely pointed out, a possible conditioned response to the wheelbarrow ( ever read about Pavlov's dogs? ). You are failing to think critically here by not showing the slightest amount of skepticism and by failing to consider that there may be other rational explanations at work here.



Once again, you are using weasel words to imply something I didn't say. Read my post again. I didn't say it wasn't possible. It is possible they are mourning. But then again, it is possible they are not and there are other rational, plausible reasons to explain the photo.



The red herring is bringing a book review into the discussion. The book review is irrelevant to the discussion and provides no strong argument in regards to the picture in question. It is a distraction from the main point of the discussion, which is the photo.

A very astute point. That would be similar to a Pavlov's dogs type of conditioned response. Be careful though, by offering up a possible alternative hypothesis, you are opening yourself up to animal-friendly trying to paint you as a animal emotion denier.

Your somewhat snide "I'm still waiting to hear" remark is quite ironic when one considers that you have been one of the most evasive members of this board recently. I've been out of town on business the past three and a half days and unable to respond. It should be noted that your statement "when they are most likely grieving the passing of this community member?" is a statement of OPINION, and not of FACT. It is nothing more than assumption and conjecture. I do agree with you in that I find the idea that the photo is staged to be rather absurd. There is no evidence to suggest that it is staged.

Okay. I apologize. It was NOT my intention to be "intellectually dishonest". I did assume that you disagreed with the explanation next to the photo because you did not believe that chimps could experience emotion including that of grief. I now see that you do not agree with the word "proof" which is used to show what the chimps are doing in this photo. You are saying we don't actually know for sure what the chimps are doing so we cannot use the word "proof". This is what you said on the outside anyway, but i did make some inferences which i think were quite valid.

I do claim innocence (as opposed to being *sneakily dishonest*) in my assumption and in fact I'm going to turn your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest back on you, because you did say....



Were my assumptions that you you may be contesting the chimps ability to grieve really so off-target? You don't seem like a person who simply wants to explore other possibilities - you seem more like a person who needs "scientific proof" that these chimps are grieving. How is it possible to provide scientific proof that these chimps in the photo are grieving? The answer? - It's not and we all know that. Knowing that we cannot provide proof that these particular chimps in this particular photo are grieving, I supposed you were asking for scientific proof that chimps in general, as a species, are capable of and do mourn? One makes inferences Grizzly. What inference would you have me make from your request for scientific proof?

Do you then also want scientific proof they are curious? Or are you assuming they are curious? Do you think it safe to assume they are curious? I do and I also think it is safe to assume they are grieving. C'mon Grizzly. I also think it was more than safe for me to make some assumptions about what you think the chimps were and were not capable of in the photo and in general. And I would also venture to say that by not coming clean on that point, it is you who are being intellectually dishonest.

And if we really are all aware (except Donny at this point) that chimps can grieve, is it such a leap? Is it any leap at all? They knew Dorothy and she is dead. She is being buried in front of them - for all the chimps to see. Is it not safe to assume they are each experiencing some form and level of grief? No, it cannot be "proven", but .... safe to assume?



Well then, I think I've spoken to the accusation of "assuming". I admit to assuming they are grieving and I think my assumptions are reasonable and fairly safe given what we know about chimps and the strong community and personal bonding they are capable of. There is no reason for me to think otherwise, but of course there are other possibilities if we look for them. The possibility that jhawk suggested - that the whellbarrow usually carried their bananas ???? No offense to jhawk, but it's a little weak. They saw the wheelbarrow and immediately began salivating like Pavlov's dogs? And even though a respected and known member of their community has passed, they weren't really interested in her as much as wondering where the bananas were? I suppose it's possible, but it seems much less likely than the simple explanation that they are grieiving the passing of their friend.

It is also possible that, along with their grieving, they are also curious. There's no reason why the two cannot be active at the same time. I'm sure many of us have attended funerals with a certain amount of curiosity - especially if it's open casket, while also mourning.



The book review and the opinion piece written by the ethologist are relevent if anyone on this thread, and I believe there may be a couple, are questioning the chimps ability to mourn - and I believe you were questioning their ability to mourn Grizzly, as I have pointed out. There was no red herring in offering an oped and book review that would say otherwise.



I don't have a corner in the "snide" dept Gizzly. In fact, your response to Josh was fairly snide, no? Nor have I been evasive - but I'm pretty darn sure you would like me to be. There is nothing to evade - nothing! And again, it is indeed my opinion that these chimps are "most likely grieving ...." I thought that was pretty clear from the inclusion of "most likely ...." - So is there really a need for you to point out, as you have, that this is my opinion? I thought it was pretty much claro.

This is little different approach than that taken by AL and Donny who do absolutely nothing to offer their conjecture as their opinion. They are quite assertive about the "fact" that the photo was staged, don't you think? And then, Donny tells me I'm full of conjecture. It's humorous. Anyway, we seem to agree that chimps can mourn - which wasn't at all clear from your first post - but is perhaps a little more clear now. AND, we agree that the idea of staging this photo is absurd.

I'm sure we all enjoy our little debates, otherwise we wouldn't bother. How are you enjoying this little "tempest in the teapot" Josh? You sure set it off. Wouldn't you like to join in?

And for Donny ..... so what have you learned about Dorothy, the sanctuary featured in the photo, in your research? Anything to report back?

"Safe to assume?"

No, I don't think it's safe to any such thing. If there's no proof, on what do you base is assumtion? Your personal feelings?

Okay, you can do that.\

But it seems to me assuming the chimps are just looking out for a handout of food from the handlers or photograhpers is every bit as possible.

I didn't think it was dangerous to assume that the Chimps were hungry and the photographer was holding a cluster of bananas on the front of his tripod and directly behind the wheel barrel making it look like the fuzzy creatures were concerned about poor "dottie," the chimp on the way to primate dust & ashes...

Just asking: What does a grieving chimpanzee look like? Chimpanzees have a very mobile face and a number of expressions linked to emotional states that have been well-documented, but grieving is not one of these. OTOH, facial expression indicative of stress have been, and none of the chimpanzees in the picture displays facial or other signs of stress, fear, or discomfort (the least one would expect is clinging to each other). All they look like is being interested in what is going on, as you would expect not just from chimpanzees, but from any group of healthy animals when they see their keepers or people they do not not fear. To be able to experience grief, better arguments must be presented than feelings about how chimapnzees live in social groups and may form strong bonds, especially mothers and infants, and in particular, between mothers and daughters; given the long "childhood" of chimpanzees, such bonds are not surprising but to experience grief (as opposed to stress, when, for instance, a mother chimpanzee dies and her dependant infant may be left without social support or a share of food (if not milk), if there are no siblings, or when the dead female was low- ranking - Jane Goodall has told us of such instances) it is important to define what grief is. Humans experience grief because we have a sense of time and a sense of death. We know we will never see this person again, and never again experience all that that person did for us, interact with them. Because we know about death, it matters to us what happens to the dead person, we have burials and rites that are part of our background and culture. Chimpanzees may have a little idea about future events (they may save a stone used for cracking nut to use again) but such prospective memory seems to relate, like most things chimp, to the animal itself only, and to food. One could also put up an argument that chimps' brains are probably not big enough for such personal introspections as human grief..... If chimpanzees had a clear understanding of grief, why do they practice infanticide?

Well then, if it in fact, did, then you shouldn't have any problem providing data to support that conclusion as opposed to harping over why this, why that, or what could be. It's amazing how persistent some can be in their argument--all due solely on the possibility of it being true.