Mimic not speech

Koko the "talking gorilla" is mourned by his "trainer".

But what is worse is that a lot of sceptics think it is a fraud.

We simply cannot know whether a particular utterance is grammatical or not just by looking at the words used. We have to see the context.

Terrace and his team had collected videotapes of Nim with his trainers and proceeded to analyze these frame by frame, looking not just at what signs Nim used, but at the exact context — everything that was going on before and after Nim’s utterances.

Terrace released his results in November 1979. Dava Sobel in the New York Times summarized Terrace’s new position thus: “Herbert S. Terrace … now asserts that the success of his own and related efforts can be explained as mere prompting on the part of the experimenters and mistakes in reporting the data. ‘Much of the apes’ behavior is pure drill,’ he said. ‘Language still stands as an important definition of the human species.’”

BBC discussion:

It might appear that Koko has mastered the ability to communicate a complex message using signs. But as the article below explains, she has been trained well to make certain sounds and gestures.

Slate discussion here.

just over look his history of sexual harassment of course.

but never mind: The Bonobos are the next frontier.

one is reminded of the handlers who interpret the "speech" of profoundly retarded children aka "facilitated communication".

Hmm... my cats talk to their kittens and to me, and my dogs request food and push it away when they don't want it.

So yes, animals can communicate.

I love animals.

The problem with this is that it is a cult: not the idea to take care of animals but the subtle ideological argument that humans aren't unique and no better than animals

In Africa and in parts of Asia, we get these types who essentially say: the locals shouldn't be allowed to farm land they desperatly need to feed their families because hey, a rich outside group with loads of money from animal lovers wants to stop them and preserve the land for keep for animals.

These folks are not trying to care for their families, they are
destroying the habitat/ So screw the locals: let'm starve.

this is usually put in more polite language of course.

The relationship between humans and wildlife is a challenging one. While people place boundaries around their homes, communities, and countries, wildlife doesn’t recognize it. It often roams outside park boundaries and onto land owned by communities. When this happens, wildlife causes substantial damage to fields as well as eating the communities’ crops.

This naturally can create tension, which can quickly turn into human or wildlife injuries, even death. As people and wildlife increasingly find themselves living alongside one another, there continues to be a struggle for resources and human-wildlife conflict.

Black lives matter, anyone?

even the idea that we shouldn't kill or eat animals has it's dark side:

we are allowed to legally kill sick/vicious/unwanted animals
humans are no better than animals.
Therefore we can kill humans who are sick/vicious/unwanted.

no, I am not joking about this.

this sounds nice. What's wrong with stopping animal suffering?

until you read more stuff this bozo has written:

Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.

Peter Singer

or this one:

The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments.

and yes, the usual suspects are the problem

Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Peter Singer

Walker Percy, call your office. Flannery is on line.