Unformatted text preview: HIST 195.002 Animal Histories: From the Zoo to Sputnik II
Discussion Questions for Tues. 1/13 Humans are more similar to animals than we may think. We do not necessaril Ingold – The Animal in the Study of Humanity think before acting- which is considered a major difference between the two.
Humans are impulse driven because nothing would get done. 1) Why does Ingold state on page 85 that “for the most part human conduct does not differ all that
substantially from the conduct of some non-human animals”? What does he mean by that? Symbols- conceptualization
Signs- ﬁrst handily 2) According to Ingold, what is wrong with Morgan's claim that beavers and other “self-conscious,
intentional” animals are “mutes”? If beavers were intelligent enough to communicate they would ﬁnd a way to do so. A Bees are communicating, just in a different way from
humans, therefore are not mute. bee can’t lie about food because there are signs and symbols that direct animals to
take certain action. Humans conceptualize (symbols) unlike animals who use signs. 3) What does Ingold mean when he claims that “animals have no thoughts, as such, to grasp” (see page
Have to think about it (in a sense of reﬂection). Bees communicate rather than think therefore just communicate
without thinking. 4) How does Ingold map the relationship between thoughts, action, consciousness, and intentionality?
How do these relationships influence the similarities and differences that Ingold sees between
Animals are acting without thinking therefore thinking reﬂexively of what they’re doing
humans and non-human animals? but that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing consciously and they are doing it intentionally.
Animals are doing things to survive. How people view intention- different degrees 5) Ultimately, according to Ingold, what distinguishes Homo sapiens from non-human animals? How
would you phrase this distinction in your own words?
6) What is Ingold's primary argument in this essay? What do you think about it? Do you agree or
disagree? Do you think he has provided enough evidence or reasoning to support his
conclusion? Can you think of an example that would strengthen or weaken his argument?
7) Finally, what's the overall purpose of Ingold's essay? Why might he have written it? This is useful to reference in an argument regarding animals rights. It explains the similarities that are overlooked and shows how humans are more
similar to animals than we think. Then distinguishes differences such as symbolic thinking and decision making (by humans).
writing for anthropologists! Mithen – The Hunter-Gatherer Prehistory of Human-Animal Interactions 8) What defined our human ancestors' interactions with other animals? How did those interactions
differ from those that modern humans (e.g., Homo sapiens of the past 130,000 years) have with
Humans were initially the prey of animals and gatherers rather than hunters- eventually we start
hunting. This differs in that humans are now the predators rather than the prey and have caused
extinction of animals. Development of humans and animals. 9) What are some of the characteristics of modern humans' interactions with non-human animals that
Mithen discusses in his article? (Another way of thinking of this: what are some of the diverse
roles that animals have played and continue to play in our society?)
There is a diverse way of interaction among humans and animals. Animals are now companions/domesticated/raised for food/zoos. 10) Why is it significant that humans began to depict non-human animals in art and other symbolic
11) Both Ingold and Mithen make reference to humans' tendency to anthropomorphize animals – first,
what does it mean to anthropomorphize non-human animals? And, second, why do both
authors mention it? What does the human tendency to anthropomorphize animals tell us about
human-animal relations? Listening to things from our perspective makes it easier to understand however there is
truly no way to understand and could cause danger. Animals are inherently different from
humans therefore no true way to have a relationship. We do not fundamentally understand
animals. Although we cannot truly grasp an understanding, we still gain something from
studying them. ...
View Full Document