What relationship should we have to animals? | Annette Lanjouw | TEDxCannes

What is the right bridge between humans and animals? Are humans superior to animals? What role does Science play in our understanding of how species work? In this talk, Annette Lanjouw questions the human-animal relationships and more generally, the relationship of between species and shares her view on this matter.

Annette Lanjouw is a famous international primatologist who continued Diane Fossey's work to protect the endangered moutain gorillas in war-torn regions of Africa. Over the past 25 years, she contributed to protect the orang-utangs, the chimpanzees and the bonobos. Her journey developed in her the love of life and wild places as well as the notion that humans are just a part of a complex natural system.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

I'm a primatologist and I work
for the conservation of nature.

Here I was 25,
when I started my career

in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I led a 3-year mission

to study and research

a community of chimpanzees
in Virunga National Park.

It was 1987.

Chimpanzees were the goal of my studies
,

but at the same time

they were my main social contact,

and so over time, they gradually became

very important to me.
I would spend all day

in the forest with them and I began -

I was never threatened
even if they have a reputation

of being dangerous - and gradually

I began to know each individual,

each individual's personality
and I would recognize them

by their gestures, their friendships,
and their position in the group.

As a scientist, I learned

- and you learn - to be impartial,
objective and to avoid at all costs

to become too emotionally attached
with the subject of your research.

But the reality is that I am,
and we all are,

social primates. So we have

a natural understanding
and empathy for them.

This means that
we all have a tendency

to interpret what we observe.
But sometimes,

to avoid to anthropomorphize
and lose objectivity,

we avoid acknowledging the obvious.

However, there has been an exception,
with a chimpanzee

I had named Ozzie.

I was walking in the forest every day,

I knew all of them
but Ozzie was a male teenager

who had been injured,
before my arrival in the forest,

by a poacher trap.
And as you can see, his hand

- despite the poor quality
of the photo -

his hand was not working.
His left hand.

It was swollen,
without hair or dexterity.

He could use it as a hook,

to draw branches to him
and he could also move

normally in the forest.
But he was a little excluded

by the other chimpanzees.
He was rarely deloused

which for a chimpanzee

is a sign of low social status.

One afternoon,
one sunny afternoon,

all the chimpanzees were resting,
having a nap.

I was sitting on the ground,
with my back against a tree

and they were all scattered
around me and I was watching them.

But Ozzie was close
in a... in a tree,

on a branch,
maybe one meter above the ground.

And he was resting with eyes closed.

But at some point,
I realized

he was looking at me.
And he swung his good arm

and it was very relaxed,
almost too cool

almost like the boy
stretching at the cinema

to put his arm around
to the girl next to him.

And at some point,
I realized

he was reaching for my hand,
as if inviting me to touch him.

He was not afraid of me,

he was curious and reaching out.

If I had moved my body slightly
and stretched my arm,

I could have touched his fingers.

My first reflex

was to see this gesture as a friendly one.

My first reflex was to respond
to his gesture.

I was touched, I was tempted,
I was curious

but I was not sure:
should I cross the bridge

with that other species?
Should I go

to meet this being
that remained somehow

unfathomable to me even after years

of research and observation.
He was also both familiar,

but he also a stranger

I could never truly know.

There I was, sitting

with my back against the tree and
I did not know what to do.

And it is this confusion

that Ozzie provoked in me
which raised the question

I'm asking here.
What is the proper relationship

between the human and the other?
What should be the ideal bridge

between the human and the animal?
Without a common language

it is impossible for us
to exchange clearly

and without confusion to other animals...

As it is impossible for them
to express themselves to us.

I do not mean that
with a common language,

there wouldn't be any possibility
of confusion or misunderstanding...

But without verbal language,
it's so easy

to question

what is observed or misinterpreted.

So we use Science
as the language that enables us

to understand and
explain what is observed...

And the stricter the discipline,

the lesser the risk of losing objectivity.

This is important, because
we have a tendency

to explain, interpret what we observe.

The fear of anthropomorphism
and efforts to avoid

any subjective interpretation

are valid, but they also serve

as a blindfold covering our eyes

preventing us from seeing.

What is often extremely convenient!

Consider this:
if we cannot prove

that an animal suffers,
we can ignore its suffering.

If we cannot demonstrate clearly

how its sophisticated brain works,
then we can deny

it works in a sophisticated manner.

And we can simply conclude

it is driven by its instincts

without self-consciousness,
unable to think about its life,

fears, desires and hopes.

All this does not exist,
because we can not see it.

A belief system is in place,

based on philosophy and religion,

allowing man to place himself
at the top of a pyramid

with superiority and domination
over all other species.

And one proof, among others,
of this is that research

in animal intelligence
seeks and notes mostly

how humans
are superior to other animals...

We view our skills
and our superior capabilities

as due to our complex
and sophisticated brain.

And it gives us a unique potential

in intelligence, empathy and altruism.

But the reality is that these skills

are neither unique to humans,
nor always higher.

Let me give you an example.

The brain of the orca is large
and comparable structurally

to the human brain.
Apart from an area...

The area that allows us
to feel and control emotions,

and develop social ties.

This area contains the limbic lobe,

the insular cortex and the cap.
This area in the orca

is proportionally larger
and more complex than humans.

So the only logical conclusion
of such observation

is a logic that we often apply

to explain our human superiority

over other animals, is
that such complexity

would also indicate more capacity
in this creature.

This part of the brain in the orca
is more complex...

so its emotional bonds,

its emotional life
are likely to be deeper,

more complex and somehow unfathomable

for us humans who
do not have these capabilities.

But we continue to ignore
the implications of these studies,

and especially to look for research
that does not call into question

our "superiority".
Denying animals the ability

of having a sophisticated reflection
animals has been very convenient to us,

and continues to do so.
This allowed us to

exploit and even exterminate other species

regardless of the impact
on their lives,

and without much remorse.

We talk about Human and Animal...

Not of the human as an animal.

The animal is often used
as a derogatory word.

Historically and in contemporary life,

the word 'animal'
is used as an insult.

To behave like an animal
is unworthy of us...

Wild, uncontrolled, unrestrained.

Driven by its instincts
and devoid of morality.

Like a beast. A pig.

Or rat. Or a cockroach.

Put... think how many times
you have heard the sentence

"Phew! darling, you eat like a pig."?

But this is not
a meaningless little phrase.

And it can go very far.

And in the racist and genocidal language,

comparisons with animals are very common.

So, we used the same
the theoretical human superiority

to exploit and hurt other humans

by comparing them to animals.

We justified, by their lack of morality

or sophisticated mental capacities,

the exploitation and enslavement
of other humans

by this comparison and
this superiority theory.

This allowed us to discriminate
based on race,

religion, sexuality

or gender.

It is very important to remember
that human exploitation

was done the same way
as we exploited animals.

So... What is the proper relationship
with the animal?

Now I do not want

to replace one illusion with another...

nor do I want you to accept the illusion

and the utopian world
where all the animals

have the same capacities!

I would especially like us to be
aware of our lack of humility

and lack of integrity.

And I'd like us to admit it as illusory.

Take for example an animal...

Picture yourself
in front of a dog, for example.

We will all consider ourselves

superior even if that same dog
had a capacity of smell or

in the detection of certain diseases

far beyond ours.
So superior in what?

Perhaps in a few decades

we will look at
our attitudes and our behavior

towards animals with the same uneasiness

and shame, and we will find
grotesque the way that today,

we look at discrimination
against other human populations,

slavery and genocide.

So... what is the good relationship
with animals?

I'm coming back to Ozzie

who reached his arm in the forest.

Everything indicated a friendly gesture...

Maybe even acknowledging

my own inferior status as an alien

a little comparable to his.

Maybe we were both each other's "other"

as well as being "other"
to the chimpanzees in the group.

It was very difficult to make a choice...

What a temptation to cross the border

and to meet the other species,

a totally wild animal and
reciprocate the complicity

and friendship that he seemed to offer me.

But one thing I knew:
touching a wild animal

and especially a great ape
that is so vulnerable to humans...

this is rarely good for the animal.

So I did not respond to his gesture.

I looked at him, but I kept my hands
folded on my lap.

And after a little while,
Ozzie withdrew his hand

and stopped looking at me.
I had made the choice

not to cross the bridge...
Because somehow

I felt it would have been for me...

and not for him. I wanted him to know

he had nothing to fear from me...

But the unpleasant reality is that
man is everything dangerous,

threatening and essentially immoral
in the world of animals.

For Ozzie, his future and wellbeing

would depend on him
keeping a little fear of man.

I did not know
and I would never have known

the consequences, but since then,
the Congo war led

to the massacres of humans and animals
by the military,

poachers and rebels. For Ozzie,
his future was with chimpanzees.

And it would have been
dangerous for him

to put too much trust in a human being.

But I'm left with the question...
"What if.... ".

And I cannot say that
I wasn't tempted...

nor that I do not regret
my decision a little.

After so many years with wild animals

and so many years looking for

the ideal scientific position,

I'm beginning to understand

the limits of my own knowledge

and all that remains unfathomable
and essentially different.

Now I come back to the
question I put to you:

what is the ideal bridge
between the human and the animal?

And I wonder, should we focus that much

on a comparison of the differences?

Or should we look at
these differences and the value,

the beauty and importance
of these differences?

I think the terra incognita
of other animals is defined

by our ignorance and this blindfold
we deliberately put

before our eyes to avoid seeing.

Maybe the ideal bridge between
the human and the other

should be a celebration
of those differences

towards a respectful coexistence.

Thank you.
(Applause)