Aliens Among Us, Part I

I was caught up in a discussion with some colleagues about animal intelligence, which was interesting because I just read an article on the subject ("The Truth About Dogs" by Stephen Budiansky). The article--and one of my colleagues--made the argument that animals are not necessarily intelligent the way humans understand intelligence, but rather we interpret their behavior according to that standard of intelligence that we set. Humans are very good at anthropomorphizing (lovely word!), especially pet owners. Therefore, the dog is not genuinely loyal, the human owner is interpreting the dog's behavior as loyalty; the dog may merely be doing its doggy thing because it wants a biscuit.

Where this theory breaks down, however, is our standard for intelligence. We are basing it entirely on our own--I would argue--limited perspective. Just because we are the dominant species on the planet does not necessarily mean we hold the only standard for intelligence. We may yet discover there are levels of cat intelligence, and dog, and horse, and gorilla, and dolphin, and whale. After all, although they don't speak our language, cats and dogs and horses and gorillas and dolphins and whales have learned to understand human very well. I'm not sure the reverse could be said to be true.

My colleague went on to argue intelligence based on a large brain, i.e. dogs and cats are smarter than rodents because their brains are bigger, and we are smarter than dogs and cats because our brains are bigger than theirs. But this theory breaks down, too. Dolphins and whales have bigger brains than humans; so who is smarter? (I went on to argue that the Neanderthal had a larger brain than Homo sapiens, but H. sapiens adapted better and outlived them... but I digress). So I don't think a large brain is the only answer to the intelligence question.

The thing is, I don't believe this kind of cross-species intelligence rating is particularly useful. Can we really say that a cat is smarter than a dog? (Or vice versa?) Or that a fox is smarter than a rabbit? (Or vice versa?) Perhaps the most we can say is something like Budiansky's observation that dogs must be smarter than wolves because dogs hooked up with humans early on and have since enjoyed the benefits of this relationship (evidence: dog populations number in the millions while wolf populations are dwindling). But until we truly understand what it means to be a dog, or a cat, or a dolphin, or whatever, then we really shouldn't privilege human intelligence as "smarter." Better adapted, perhaps, but not necessarily smarter. We may, in the end, discover that we are, as Douglass Adams writes, merely the third most intelligent species on the planet, rather than the first.

Which raises an interesting question: If we cannot open our eyes to the possibility of non-human intelligence on our own planet, will we even be capable of recognizing extra-terrestrial intelligence when we meet it?




21 Days til the Burn!