But not his salary.
Man is also the only animal who creates his own morality.
That's two things that make us unique in the animal kingdom. I could add others. Such as, man is the only animal who holds his insanity to the light and calls it reason, this 'Harvard professor' being a perfect example.
Should Ms Pepperberg ever need surgery, might a suggest she seek out a flounder or a grouse?
It requires a a lot of cognitive firepower
to act this stupid.
Only humans create art for art’s sake, with no practical purpose necessary. Animals may create things, but only for practical purposes.
What I find funniest of all is that there is some actual, real, and hard-core irony (and I mean real Irony, not the Alanis Morrisette variety), in the Professor arguing about destroying human exceptionalism. The fact of the matter is that the very act of stringing together her philosophical argument, and putting it into written form, is something that NO OTHER ANIMAL has yet shown the capability of doing. Hence, the irony is that an animal that is exceptional by definition, exercising one of the very things that makes her exceptional, is arguing that she is NOT exceptional.
Yes, I am fully aware of the old saw about the infinite number of chimpanzees on the infinite number of typewriters, but I put that right up there with ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.’
Oh, goody! Now I can run over Prof. Pepperberg with my car and not stop.
I like to take the middle ground here, that yes, humans are biologically mammals, but unlike animals, that are mostly controlled by their biology, humans are able to go beyond our biological imperatives to do other things.
A superb example of this goes to the heart of the matter, with human reproductive strategy.
To start with, about halfway through gestation, the testes of the fetus of male mammals secretes a squirt of testosterone, which travels to the brain of the fetus, and tells it that it is a “male” fetus. If it does not get this squirt of testosterone, the brain is female, by default.
In the 1960s, and then again in the 1980s, scientists did extensive animal experiments with this one event, sometimes adding testosterone where there was none, other times blocking testosterone from reaching the fetal brain, and they even went so far as to provide testosterone to half the brain of a fetus, but not the other half.
In doing so, they created female animals that exhibited male mating behavior; male animals that exhibited female mating behavior; and bisexual animals that exhibited the mating behavior of both females and males.
My point is, that in animals, this is enough to determine sexuality. Heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
But not in humans. Though medical conditions can result in feminine *behavior* in boys, and masculine *behavior* in girls, and even androgyny in both, it *does not* determine their sexuality.
Something in humans allows them to override their biological mating behavior, so whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, this major biological event does not dictate it, unlike all other mammals.
And that is just one thing. Humans have innovated other mating strategies that are unknown in the animal kingdom.
The strategy of basic biological reproduction is complex: for males, it is to provide their DNA to as many females as possible. For females, it is to get the best male DNA donor.
But more evolved species use monogamy to achieve a better outcome for their offspring, in which the male stays with a single female to provide for their offspring. This requires a compromise by both the male, to mate with just one instead of several females; and by the female, to get less than ideal DNA in exchange for help with provision.
However, humans have uniquely taken this further with the idea of socially-enforced marriage. The flaws in the animal system of monogamy are first, that if there is an abundance of males, those with the best DNA are not the same as those that are the best providers. Second, that while all animals are compelled to mate, many are not suitable for mating. Biologically they are intended to die without having reproduced.
Socially-enforced marriage overcomes these things by maximizing the reproductive bond, by putting the couple off limits to others, non-breeders. The entire affiliated group of humans protects couples from interlopers.
However, this also means that because non-breeders are still compelled to want to mate, there must be distractions to prevent their interference with a married couple. This might include things such as infertility, prostitution, or post-menopausal mating. The latter two confined at least to primates, if not unique to humans.
As an aside, periodically studies are made of chimpanzees, in which a single dominant male has a harem of females. However, just outside the perimeter of the dominant males territory are other males, seeking to lure members of his harem into mating with them.
Researchers like to use this as an example of the “normality” of cheating. Since chimpanzees do this, then it is okay for humans to cheat. However, they do not examine the complete picture.
If a dominant male catches one of his females mating with an interloper, he is likely to kill both of them. So, if cheating is okay because chimpanzees do it, then so is the homicide of a cheating spouse and their lover.