We’ve learnt to see the world through the eyes of our prey. All the better to eat them with.
‘Can’t you feel it?’
‘Feel what?’ I asked
‘How we are turning into greedy predators, just like wolves. We have this need to kill more and more. Even if we had two hundred sables we wouldn’t feel satisfied, would we? Just like the devil, you see.’ He paused for a while. Then he added, ‘I suggest we calm down and stop hunting for a week or so.’
– Rane Willerslev, Soul Hunters
If you ran out of food, would you hesitate to eat your dog? If stranded on an island, have you put any thought into how you would carve up the family cat?
What is it that separates these animals from the ones you can encounter on a farm? If this question is difficult to answer, then you have a certain general unease about killing and eating animals. Why, then, would you choose to eat meat?
An ongoing question in the psychology of empathy is why, if people love animals, we nevertheless choose to kill and eat them. This question, known as the Meat Paradox, is one whose answer could help to resolve many of the modern contradictions we find between vegans and meat eaters alike. For instance, many ethical vegetarians cannot seem to understand how meat eaters can make the conscious decision to end an animal’s life when they will seemingly extend empathy to other animals in other situations.
Many meat eaters cannot understand the unnatural character of the vegetarian position: We evolved to eat meat, and only in recent years is it the case that society has deemed it a problem. Only in recent years has our modern isolation from the natural state of affairs, when we had to hunt and kill our food, created an empathy for animals where there was not one before.
But is this Meat Paradox an actual paradox? Why would we have empathy for our prey?
One potential explanation is that it could be an evolutionary spandrel, or by-product, due to our advanced ability to empathize with one another. Like lions, chimpanzees, and other predators red in tooth and claw, we were always supposed to be cold-blooded predators who saw our food as food and nothing else. But perhaps when we evolved familial and tribal bonds, and eventually national and international bonds, not to mention bonds with our useful pets like dogs, the cognitive mechanisms weren’t perfectly specific, and have attached more broadly to nonhuman agents.
I wish to advance an alternative case. What if our empathy allows us to think like, act like, and even kill our prey? Without a time machine, answering this question completely conclusively is impossible. Fortunately, what we do have is the ethnographic and cross-cultural record where we can ask: In environments and ecological situations similar to the ones we evolved in, how do humans think about their prey? Do they think like them, and do they feel bad for the animals they kill?
People who are familiar with hunting tactics in the West understand how deceiving other animals works. My great-great-uncle taught my father how to hunt rabbits when he was a child. If a rabbit tried to run away, you could simply whistle – the rabbit would believe you were a hawk and stop dead in its tracks. To this day we use hunting lures, duck decoys, and imitated animal calls to lure in our prey, as we see in one of the 2010s’ most powerful television shows, A&E’s Duck Dynasty, which follows a family with a 400millionfortuneoriginallymadebyproducingduck−andturkey−callingimplementsfromtheirdilapidatedboathomeinLouisiana.Thereisevidencethattheseimitationpracticesareusedaroundtheworld.Asamaster’sstudent,mycolleagueMichaelAlvardtoldmeastoryabouthistimewiththePirohunter−gatherersfromthePeruvianAmazon.Atribesmanaskedhimifhewouldliketoseehowasinglehuntercouldtakeoutaflockofbirdswithasingleblowgun.Notbelievingit,Alvardwentwiththehuntertowatchtheprocess.Approachingtheflockofbirds,thehunterfiredadart,injuringone,whichfelltotheforestfloor.Startled,theflockdisappeared.Butstillalive,thebirdbegantosignaltoitsflockitwasintrouble.Curiousabouttheirfriend,thebirdswouldreturn,thehunterwouldkillanother,andthebirdswouldflyoff,onlytoreturnagaintothecallsoftheirfriend.Thehunterdidthisuntiltheentireflockwaskilled.Peeringintotheethnographicrecord,suchstoriesarenotuncommon.AsmycolleaguesWillBuckner,MelinaSarian,andJeffWinking,andIhavefoundinourownresearch,themethodshumansaroundtheworldusetodeceivepreyareasvariedandwildasthehumanimagination.Insomecultures,hunterswilldressupastheanimals,eitherasaformofcamouflageortopiquetheanimal’scuriosity.OneexamplefromtheethnographicrecordamongtheeasternSiberianChukchinotesthathuntersinwinterusedcamouflageintheformofasealskinhatshapedlikeaseal’shead.‘Hecrawledslowly,imitatingthemovementsofthesealandfromtimetotimescratchingtheicewithaspecialscrapertowhichseal’sclawswerefastened.’Anotherexample,recordedamongtheSanpeoplesofSouthernAfrica,highlightshow,stalkingaherdofzebras,twohunterswoulddressintheuniformofanostrich–onemanasthebodyoftheostrichitselfandanotherhiddeninfeatherscarryingabowandarrows.Evenmoresalientintherecordareacousticluresofalltypes.InMelanesia,rattlesmadeofcoconuts,shells,andotherloudobjectsarestrungtogetherandshakenonthetopofwaterintheoceantoattractpredatorysharksthatbelievethenoisesrepresentananimalindistress.Amongvirtuallyallgroupsofhuntersworldwide,verbalmimicryofone’spreyisnotedasbeingfundamentalforattractingit.Andwhilemanycallsaremadethesamewayonetalksoronesings,oneacousticphenomenonabsentfrommostextanthumanlanguagesispresentacrosstheglobeinhunting:whistling.Aroundtheworld,huntersusehigh−pitchedwhistles,eitherwiththeirmouthsorwithreededinstruments,todeceivebirdsandprimatesbymimickingtheircalls.Beyondthesevisualandacousticformsofdeception,thewayshumansdeceivetheirpreytakeonanumberofotherforms.AmongreindeerherdersandintheAmazon,humanswillcapturefemalereindeerormalerivalsofamatingspeciesandusethesepotential‘mates’or‘rivals’tolureinunsuspectinglonemales.AmongtheKimampeoplesofPapuaNewGuinea,hunters‘takeadvantageofthenaturalcuriosityofkangaroosbystampingonthegroundfromtimetotimewhileapproachingtheirgame,inimitationofajumpingkangaroo’.TheYupikpeopleofSt.Lawrencesimilarlytellstoriesaboutthecarvingsonthebottomoftheirwhale−huntingboats–entrancedbythecarvings,whaleswould,seeminglyvoluntarily,positionthemselvestobeharpoonedbythehunters.Thisisjustasmallsetoftherangeofexamplesoftheseformsofdeceptionacrosstheethnographicrecord.InourresearchusingtheHumanRelationsAreaFiles(HRAF),amassivestandardizeddatabaseofethnographiesusedbyanthropologiststomakecross−culturalcomparisons,mycolleaguesandIcatalogedhundredsofexamplesfrom147culturesacrosstheethnographicrecordandacross7continentgroups(includingOceania),includingonesrepresentingmostofHRAF’shunter−gatherergroups.Whiletheexistenceofmimicryanddeceptioninhuntingmaybeintuitive,theirpervasivenessacrosstheglobesuggeststhatthey′velikelyhadsomeimportanceinourevolutionaryhistory.Althoughthefieldsofevolutionarypsychologyandculturalevolutionhavesaidagreatdealaboutthecognitivemechanismsthatareevolved,builtup,andultimatelypresentinthehumanmindtointeractwithotheragents,theyhaveseriouslyoverlookedanothercomponent:thatotherhumansarenottheonlyagentswehavehadtodealwith.Theinteractionsofmindsinthelandscapeofourevolutionaryhistoryhaveincludedthemindsofotheranimals,frombirdstodeertofishtowhales.Whatcanourinteractionswithotheranimalstellusaboutourownevolutionaryhistory?Intheirpaper‘WildVoices’,anthropologistsChrisKnightandJeromeLewispresentthehypothesisthattheoriginsofhumanlanguagemayliewithinourabilitytomimicourprey.Fromanearlyagehumansareadeptatcopyingsounds,anditisourvocalplasticity–thatis,ourabilitytomakeawiderangeofpreciseandvariedsounds–ratherthanlexicalability–ourabilitytounderstandmanydifferentconcepts–thatseemstoseparateusfrommostofourrelatives.Asnotedbytheprimatologistswhostudiedtheoriginsoflanguageandhumancognition,‘whilethenumberofdistinctcallsthatanimalsproduceishighlyconstrained,thenumberofsignsthataparrot,dolphin,sealion,orchimpanzeecanlearntoassociatewithagivenstimulusoroutcomeis,ifnotlimitless,certainlyinthetenstohundreds’.Thecentralquestionforthemthenis,‘Whyshouldanindividualwhocandeduceanalmostlimitlessnumberofmeaningsfromthecallsofothersbeabletoproduceonlyalimitednumberofcallsofhisorherown?’Inotherwords,why,amongthemammals,doweexhibitsuchadegreeofcontroloverourfacesandmouthsandtheabilitytomakewhatseemstobeanexhaustlessnumberofphonemeswithaninfinitenumberofcombinationsbetweenthem?Thecorequestionforlanguageevolutionmaynotbewhatitsadaptivefunctionis,orwhatweneededitfor,but,moreproximately,howitevolved.Oneoptionisthatourabilitytomakesoundscoevolvedwithaprotolanguage–humanssteadilygotbetteratmakingsoundsinordertoexpandtheirvocabularyandthedepthofthelanguage.Individualswithbetterabilitytousetheprotolanguagehadmoreoffspring,eitherduetotheabilitythelanguagegavethemtodealwiththeworld,orsocialprestigeconferredbymasteringit.Butthereareproblemswiththistheory.First,languageseemsalmosttheparadigmaticnetworkgood:Howcouldthecommunitybestowprestigeonusersofalanguagetheycouldn’tunderstand–andwhowouldtheyuseitwith?Forthisaccounttowork,itwouldbeeasierforlanguagetoevolveamongagroupalreadypossessingthebasicphysicalabilitiesnecessarytouseit.Second,astoryofwheretheinitialsteppingstonesofvocalplasticitydevelopedismissinginexplanationsoflanguagethathavefocusedonadaptation.InthewordsofBjornLindbolm,oneofthemajorchallengesofourtheoriesofphoneticsishowwebuildonesthatcan‘derivelanguagefromnon−language’.Ifprotolanguagedidn′tleadtovocalplasticity,onesteppingstonemayhavebeenintheabilitytomimicothersounds.Inhumanlanguage,thepresenceofwarblish–theuseofonomatopoeiafortheimitationofanimalcalls–highlightshowlanguageandmimicryareintertwined.Evenwithinthetrajectoryofhumandevelopment,theimportanceofanimalsoundsandcallsinlearninglanguageisnoteworthy.NativeEnglish−speakingreadersmaybefamiliarwithFisher−Price’sFarmerSayswheel,aclassictoythatselectsananimalatrandom,tellsthechildtheanimal’sname,thenletsthechildknowwhatsounditmakes.Thispatternhasbeenwitnessedelsewherearoundtheworld,includingbyLeonhardSchultzeworkingamongtheKhoisaninthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcentury:‘Itisnohypothesisbutanascertainmentoftheactualstateofaffairsthat,intheNamalanguage,thechildishjoyinimitatingcertainanimalvoiceswithwordsrepresentsonewaytorhythmicaldevelopment.’Notonlywouldsuchanevolutionarystoryhighlighttheimportanceofthesortofvocalplasticitywefindinlanguage,butalsothepresenceofwhistlingasanacousticfeaturesharedbyhumansaroundtheworld.Asnotedbythephilosopher−poetLucretiusinhisfirst−centuryBCworkDeRerumNatura,‘Menlearntomimicwiththeirmouthsthetrillingnotesofbirdslongbeforetheywereabletoenchanttheearbyjoiningtogetherintunefulsong’.Andtherepetitiveappearanceofreededimplementslikewhistlesusedformimickingbirdsandhoovedanimalsmayhavefurtherscaffoldedtheuseofthesetoolsinmusicalcontexts.Thisrelationshipbetweenanimalmimicryandthedevelopmentofhumancognitionlikelyextendsbeyondlanguage.InhisbookSoulHunters,ethnographerRaneWillerslevexaminestherelationshipbetweenYukaghirnomadichuntersandtheirprey.Hearguesthatthemostcommonandancientoftheworld’sreligions,animism,hasitsoriginsinimitation.AsdefinedbyearlyanthropologistEBTylorinthenineteenthcentury,animismatitscorereflectsthe‘ideaofpervadinglifeandwillinnature’–theideathatnon−humanshavealifeforcelikehumans.ForWillerslev,thedances,songs,shamanistictransformations,andmimeticcopyingofpreymayhighlighttherolethatotheranimalshadintheoriginsofhumanperspectivism,orourabilitytotakeonthepointofviewofothers.AmongtheMbutiforagersofWestAfrica,ethnographerColinTurnbullnotedthatmanymagicalritualsinvokinganimalspirits‘conveytothehunterthesensesoftheanimalsothathewillbeabletodeceivetheanimalaswellasforeseehismovements’(emphasismine).Suchanabilitytotakeonthethoughtsofothersmayhavesimilarlyscaffoldedanunderstandingofone’sself(whatphenomenologicalphilosophersbeginningwithMartinHeideggermightrefertoastheboundaryofopposition).Inmanyofthesecasesofdeceptionandmimicry,wecanfindexplicitreferencestohavingtothinklikeananimalthinks,actlikeananimalacts,andpretendtobeananimal.Theseformsofmimicryincludenotonlymimickingthebehaviorofpreyanimals,butalsomimickingthebehavioroftheirpredatorsinordertobecomebetterhunters.AmongthePawneeIndiansofNorthAmerica,‘thechiefscoutcrawledupcautiouslyonhisbelly,imitatingthemotionsofawolfsothathewouldnotbedetectedbytheherd.Aftertheheadscouthadsurveyedthesituationtohissatisfaction,heinvitedhisfellowscoutstocomeup,eachinturncrawlinguplikeawolfandtakingalookaround.’AmongthereindeerherdersofNorthAsia,suchimitationwaswidespread,leadingonenineteenth−centuryethnographertoremark:‘toacertaindegreealsotheimitationofthewholeanimalmayoccuramongmanyprimitivepeoples.IcannotrefrainfrompointingoutafewinstancesofthiskindamongotherPaleo−Asiaticpeoples...ThenomadicKoryak,forinstance,forwhomthewolfisthemostdangerousenemyoftheirreindeerherds,inwinterwearcapsofwolffur.’Asinthecaseoflanguage,theextensiveuseoftakingonperspectivesinordertodeceiveanimalsmayhaveplayedaroleintheevolutionofourabilitytodothesamewithotherhumans.Theabilityforusto‘getintheheads’ofotherpeopleortodeveloptheoriesoftheknowledgetheyholdaboutthingsisknownastheoryofmind.Whilemanyprimatespossesssomeleveloftheoryofmind,nonepossessitonthelevelofourspecies,Homosapiens,whereitplaysacentralroleasanadvancedcognitivefeaturethatsetsusapartfromotheranimals.Suchideasfeatureprominentlyintheoriesofcognitiveevolution,suchasRobinDunbar’ssocialbrainhypothesis,whichsayshumansevolvedlargebrainstonavigatetheirlargesocialgroups,andtherelatedMachiavellianintelligencehypothesis,whichsaystheyevolvedlargebrainstocompetewithinthesegroups.Centraltothesesocialtheoriesistheideathathumanintelligencearoseinorderforustodeceive,outsmart,andmanipulateothers.OuruseofmimicryandabilitytotakeontheperspectivesofotheranimalspresentsuswithaverystraightforwardinterpretationoftheMeatParadox.Byallowingthethoughtsofotherorganismsintoourminds,webuiltapathwaytodevelopingempathywithourprey.Liketherestoftheworld’spredators,humanshavetokilltheirpreytoeatit.Unliketherestoftheworld’spredators,wehavethecapacitytoempathizewithourprey.OutsideofaWesterncontext,theethnographicrecordisrifewithexplicitexamplesofhunter’sguilt,orthepainfeltfromtakingananimal’slife.Iopenedthispiecewithoneexampleofatrapper’sguiltfromWillerslev’sbookSoulHunters,butnumerousexamplesfromhisethnographicexperiencearerecorded,suchasinaninterviewwithoneyounghunterwhostated,‘Whenkillinganelkorabear,IsometimesfeelI’vekilledsomeonehuman.Butonemustbanishsuchthoughtsoronewouldgomadfromshame.’Examplesliketheseareabundant.ConsiderthisexcerptfromRobertKnoxDentan’sbookontheSemaiofMalaysia,whereonehunterdiscussestheguiltfeltafterhishunts:‘Youhavetodeceiveandtrapyourfood,butyouknowthatitisabadthingtodo,andyoudon’twanttodoit.’Dentangoesontostate,‘trappersshouldtakeritualprecautionslikethoseassociatedwiththesrngloo’(hunter’sviolence)...Animals,remember,arepeople“intheirowndimension,”sothatthetrappingheisengagedinisprofoundlyantisocial,bothviolentandduplicitous.’Moreover,manySoutheastAsianandOceaniccultureshavebeennotedfortheiruseofalivedecoypigeontiedtoacordorlongpoletolureotherpigeons–yetinseveralofthesecases,ethnographersalsonotethatthereareculturalnormsagainstkillingone’slurepigeon,whichisaffordedrespectforthetaskithasdone.Soisitthecasethenthatouraversiontoeatingmeator,rather,ourrecognitionofthepaincausedbytheprocessofeatingmeat,isaperversionofthemodernenvironment?Thefactthathuntersaroundtheworldattimesexperiencesomethingakintoahunter’sguiltreadstomethatthesestrange,contradictoryfeelingsare,cognitivelyspeaking,ratherold.Theearliestpaleoanthropologicalevidenceforhumanhunting,athomininkillsites,indicatesthatourearliestancestorswereambushpredators.ThedistributionofhomininkillsitesacrossAfricatellsusthatourancestorstendedtokilltheirpreyaroundnaturallandscapefeaturesthatprovidedvisualcover.Despitenothavingthetypicalmeansaffordedtopredators,suchasspeed,claws,teeth,orpoison,humanshaveneverthelessreignedasthesinglemosteffectivepredatorontheplanet–somethingwe’vedonesimplywithourbrains.Theideathatthesecognitivefeaturesmayhavecomefromanimalsisprovocative,butwhenappliedtohumancontextstheyarenoncontroversial.Narrativesaboundontherolesthatvocalplasticityplaysforlanguage,thatimitativelearningplaysforculturallearning,andthatempathyplaysforemotionalregulation.Butwhileagreatdealofattentionhasbeenpaidtothefactthatthehumanmindisshapedbytheinteractionofhumanswithotheragents,littlehasbeenpaidtothefactthatnonhumananimalsareagentstoo.Asnotedbythelate−twentieth−centurynaturalistPaulShepard,‘Animalsembodyeveryqualityfoundinthehumanpersonality.Inthewholerangeofhumantemperamentandcharacterthereisnothingunique,nothingnotfoundassomeaspectofanotherspecies.Itistheonlyotherplacetheyarefound.’Subscribefor100 to receive six beautiful issues per year.