So I have been thinking a bit more about this culture and social learning idea that I have been discussing with Ben.
What exactly is it that I want to say?
OK.
So, do I want to talk about culture (defining it as something like ‘information that is transmitted socially and impacts behaviour’) or simply ‘social learning’? If I am making a point about how it is important in making ethical decisions about animals to consider x, then x could just be social learning – and I would not need get into a complex argument about the ‘value’ of culture. Maybe.
No, let’s not start there… what am I saying matters?
Social learning is often important for survival. It is the way in which many animals pass on survival important information. This kind of learning is both safer and faster than individual learning. Young predators learn to hunt by watching adults. There is copying but also evidence of ‘teaching’ – as when cats catch and release small prey for their cubs or kittens and whales or dolphins seem to do the same with fish. Orcas help their young learn how to catch seals by beaching. Other animals learn what plants, fruits and insects to eat. They may also learn or be taught how to catch insects or open nuts.
Migration routes are often socially learned – as are the locations of hunting or foraging sites and water holes (both of which may be seasonally dependent).
It’s worth noting that animals can also learn things which do not help their survival – to rely on human food sources, to eat tasty human food which is not good for them, to trust humans and so on. Or they can develop a cultural quirk which makes them more vulnerable – like the orcas who only eat Chinook salmon.
Take humans out the equation, though, and on the whole, social learning is plausibly largely beneficial – like genetic change, cultural changes that are maladaptive die out.
The important point is that if animals (or birds) cannot learn from older (or more creative) conspecifics, then they will lack certain information – or gain it less quickly and safely.
They can lack this opportunity for various reasons – the loss of older conspecifics through culling, hunting, poaching, disease; inability to communicate due to noise pollution; deterioration of cognitive ability caused by chronic stress and/or acute trauma; loss of ability to learn innovative strategies due to small population or compromised habitat.
Animals tend to be conservative and inclined to follow the cultural traditions of their group – there’s research about this. And the more conservative a group is, the harder it will be for that group to adapt to, say, climate change. These animals might need more care than others which are more adaptable (like rats and crows).
If we are thinking about culture – the song of the humpback or of birds – does it matter if they get simpler? Do the birds lose something by having boring songs?
If seems plausible that social animals lose something by not being able to individuate conspecifics – and it seems that songs play a role in stating who one is. Like scent marking among other mammals.
It’s interesting as sheep are good at recognising faces, dogs individuate by scent, sperm whales and larks by calls… we actually have no idea how or what is really important to other animals. Why should a dog recognise itself in a mirror? It might be better to see if the dog was surprised that its urine smelt wrong.
I’m jumping around, but another thing I wonder about is this: if a herd depends on the knowledge of its matriarch and a pod on the female (orcas will be more likely to die if their mother dies before they are thirty), then isn’t there something beyond individualism at stake here? The relationships count.
The web of being counts. Culture and social learning happen through relations, not through individuals….
Commentaires