Cross species altruism?

[Alfred001]

Is this a case of cross species altruism:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_3BN0m7S8

 

.. and has it ever been recorded (besides in humans, obviously).

[iNow]

There was a case a few years ago where a chimp saved a human baby at a creek or a zoo or something. I've seen female dogs allowing piglets to nurse, tigers caring for things like meerkats, and more. I think the answer is definitely yes. I'm posting from my mobile, but am glad to search for videos and links from my laptop and share them here later if you are interested.

[Alfred001]

Yeah, I'd like to see some.

 

Those are interesting examples you mentioned.

[John Cuthber]

Is this "altruism" or just "not spotting the difference"?

[Delta1212]

Is this "altruism" or just "not spotting the difference"?

And how much of a difference is there between those two things?

[iNow]

Yeah, I'd like to see some.

 

Those are interesting examples you mentioned.

Here is some more information with other examples (a beluga whale, a dolphin, a pig, a parrot all doing things to help save others): http://gimundo.com/news/article/5-more-life-saving-animals-filippo-the-dolphin-binti-jua-the-gorilla-and-mo/

 

The one I mentioned was actually a gorilla, not a chimp. She saved a 3-year old. Here's a video:

 

 

 

Here's a link showing some of the other animals dogs will allow to nurse from them: http://mentalfloss.com/article/22270/6-other-animals-dogs-will-adopt

 

And a video of the one I mentioned, specifically:

 

 

 

Video of a leopard looking after a baby monkey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7DXSbiWbE

 

Tigers caring for pigs: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/16-unlikely-animal-friendships/pig-in-tigers-clothing

 

 

There are lots of pretty fantastic examples of this behavior. Hope this helps aid your understanding and curiosity in the topic!

[StringJunky]

This one's striking and quite a species jump:

 

[John Cuthber]

And how much of a difference is there between those two things?

Intent.

[Delta1212]

Intent.

If I see a kitten and it triggers a feeling if protectiveness because my mammalian brain registers "small furry thing with baby proportions" and I feel the urge to help it, am I being altruistic or is my brain confused about what creatures I'm supposed to want to help to protect my genetic legacy?

 

Edit: To clarify, most people do not make decisions on whether to help someone or some thing based on how much genetic material they have in common. In practical terms, it may actually work out that they do, but no one sits down and thinks "how much is this going to contribute to the propagation of genetic material contained in my DNA" before making a decision to provide aid.

 

Our brains have some shortcuts for making those determinations that make us want to provide help under certain circumstances, and those circumstances tend to heavily favor carries of our own genetic material. But it's rather easy to spoof those shortcuts and get the feelings of protectiveness and altruism to apply outside of the optimal range of individuals from a genetics standpoint.

 

And if humans aren't making those high level calculations as conscious choices, other animals certainly aren't. So how much distance is there between "the dog decided to help the kitten because it triggered the instincts associated with protecting puppies" and "the dog was confused and thought the kitten actually was a puppy."

Edited August 7, 2014 by Delta1212

[John Cuthber]

"So how much distance is there between "the dog decided to help the kitten because it triggered the instincts associated with protecting puppies" and "the dog was confused and thought the kitten actually was a puppy.""

 

In one case the dog knows that a kitten is not a baby dog.

 

True altruism means making a sacrifice, not because it helps you or your kin, but simply because it helps them.

(There is a real question about whether or not it ever really happens)

 

Altruism is the opposite of selfishness. so, if you have (and feed, house, look after...) a cat because you like having a cat that's not altruistic. You are doing it for your benefit.

Putting food out for wild birds on a bird table in the garden is more nearly altruistic- though you can expect some "payback" in that you get to watch the birds in the garden.

 

Paying money to the RSPB so they can in some abstract sense, look after birds, is even closer to altruism- though it's still somewhat selfish. There must be something you "like" about doing it- because otherwise you wouldn't do it.

 

Now, it's hard to say where the instincts of animals lie, but I guess the dog feeding a piglet is running pretty much on instinct rather than rational thought. She does it because she likes to do so. Her reasons for liking to feed the youngsters are not the issue.

She does it because she wants to.

I find it hard to see that as altruism.

 

On the other hand, if she sees the poor hungry piglet and takes pity on it, and feeds it even though she knows that, in principle, it will be a competitor for food from her own children's point of view, that's altruistic (to a degree) but it's also anthropomorphism to a degree which I personally find unrealistic.

[Edwina Lee]

Looks like the bear understood that the bird was drowning, so it took so much trouble to rescue it.

 

More than that, the bird pecked the bear after being hulled out of the water, & the bear clearly got hurt, but it did not react with aggression. So it also looks as if the bear was expecting the bird to defend itself.

 

To me, that looks like empathy towards the bird, and it took action that has no direct benefit to itself. That surely is altruistic behaviour.

 

Also, notice the bear's food source. Vegetarian! A vegetarian bear? Is this natural?

Edited August 13, 2014 by Edwina Lee

[MonDie]

This one's striking and quite a species jump:

 

 

Is it altruism if you're enjoying it for other reasons?

 

---

 

It's not surprising. An animal can become imprinted by members of other species.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conditioning#Sexual_imprinting

Sexual attraction to humans can develop in non-human animals or birds as a result of sexual imprinting when reared from young by humans. One example is London Zoo female giant panda Chi Chi; when taken to Moscow Zoo for mating with the male giant panda An An, she refused his attempts to mate with her, but made a full sexual self-presentation to a Russian zookeeper.[5][6]

Edited August 13, 2014 by MonDie

[Phi for All]

I don't think altruism is the right concept, but it certainly seems like a cooperative empathy. Stuck in the water, too small to get out, the bear knows at least one thing he can do. That he could assess the situation like this seems very empathetic, that he would act on it seems cooperative, in that they both had a common goal (which was essentially "do what it takes to get the bear back to his lunch").

 

Captivity and domestication probably factor heavily. In the wild, I doubt the bear would have missed out on his omnivorous pleasures in favor of vegetables.

 

It's hard not to let anthropomorphism make these moments fuzzy. It's so interesting to see this kind of behavior.

[MonDie]

I don't think altruism is the right concept, but it certainly seems like a cooperative empathy. [/snip]

 

"Ugh, I hate encountering rotten corpses in my pool."

 

It could be a false positive.

[Edwina Lee]

 

"Ugh, I hate encountering rotten corpses in my pool."

 

It could be a false positive.

This is an extremely far fetched hypothesis about the ducks' thinking and feelings.

 

It is much simpler to postulate that the ducks formed a bond with the fishes without speculating on how the ducks think or feel. The nature of that bond is to a certain extent altruistic.

[MirceaKitsune]

I've heard about this now and then... such as mothers in one species adopting children in another species. I remember a wildlife documentary mentioning something even more interesting: A leopard who suffered a trauma due to having lost her mother, and decided to adopt or befriend a gazelle afterward. It was somewhat mind blowing, considering the two are predator and prey by all natural means... yet the footage showed them spending time together and playing instead. Both were young adults, but clearly not little cubs either.

 

It is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad evolution made it happen in all this "kill for survival" thing. But as usual, the best part is the science. Once again, I'm not psychologist or qualified scientist or anything... so what I say are just my 2 cents and not to be taken as fact. Either way, this is my take on the matter:

 

Officially, evolution is all about surviving in order to pass your own genes further on. Most creatures need to kill other species to eat, fight and even kill members of their own race to be the ones that get to mate and have offspring, and so on. But is it really just that? If evolution intended each individual to fight for its own sake, why is it that some creatures are willing to give up their own lives for other creatures (applies to humans and animals alike)? Sometimes creatures which aren't part of their direct family... sometimes even members of other races. If preserving your own genes is all that matters, this makes no sense.

 

My belief is that evolution didn't quite intend members of each species to preserve their own genes necessarily. It instead intended individuals to preserve the things they associate with. Just like some can consider others inferior and believe they're less important than their own self, they can oppositely consider others better and more worthy than them. After all, this does theoretically help the species prosper: If you're sick or old or disgruntled with yourself, then see an individual who represents the things you love but don't find within yourself, you might want them to prosper more than you want yourself to... since you know they can take the things you stand for further better than you. Of course, this is only the case if feelings like jealousy don't kick in first... so it depends on the nature and personality of the individual.

 

Obviously it's arguable whether such feelings and concepts apply to animals too, not only people. I don't really have much of an idea here, and can't really estimate how much "sentience" is required to empathize with another more than with yourself. Still, people evolved from wild animals at the very end, and the base brain structure and chemical structure should be the same. So to me at least, the idea makes a lot of sense.

[Unity+]

I've heard about this now and then... such as mothers in one species adopting children in another species. I remember a wildlife documentary mentioning something even more interesting: A leopard who suffered a trauma due to having lost her mother, and decided to adopt or befriend a gazelle afterward. It was somewhat mind blowing, considering the two are predator and prey by all natural means... yet the footage showed them spending time together and playing instead. Both were young adults, but clearly not little cubs either.

 

It is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad evolution made it happen in all this "kill for survival" thing. But as usual, the best part is the science. Once again, I'm not psychologist or qualified scientist or anything... so what I say are just my 2 cents and not to be taken as fact. Either way, this is my take on the matter:

 

Officially, evolution is all about surviving in order to pass your own genes further on. Most creatures need to kill other species to eat, fight and even kill members of their own race to be the ones that get to mate and have offspring, and so on. But is it really just that? If evolution intended each individual to fight for its own sake, why is it that some creatures are willing to give up their own lives for other creatures (applies to humans and animals alike)? Sometimes creatures which aren't part of their direct family... sometimes even members of other races. If preserving your own genes is all that matters, this makes no sense.

 

My belief is that evolution didn't quite intend members of each species to preserve their own genes necessarily. It instead intended individuals to preserve the things they associate with. Just like some can consider others inferior and believe they're less important than their own self, they can oppositely consider others better and more worthy than them. After all, this does theoretically help the species prosper: If you're sick or old or disgruntled with yourself, then see an individual who represents the things you love but don't find within yourself, you might want them to prosper more than you want yourself to... since you know they can take the things you stand for further better than you. Of course, this is only the case if feelings like jealousy don't kick in first... so it depends on the nature and personality of the individual.

 

Obviously it's arguable whether such feelings and concepts apply to animals too, not only people. I don't really have much of an idea here, and can't really estimate how much "sentience" is required to empathize with another more than with yourself. Still, people evolved from wild animals at the very end, and the base brain structure and chemical structure should be the same. So to me at least, the idea makes a lot of sense.

I think the altruism towards other species comes from a survival stand point of food resources rather than an association with other species.

 

If you notice, a majority of the altruism presented is predator to prey. The Gorilla to human altruism is a result of the training they probably go through.

[Pierre]

Anyone saw the one with a dog trying to save fishs by giving them water? It's viral this week, it's the video of the week on http://science.media

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWemgBG5llc

Edited August 17, 2014 by Pierre
spam link removed

[MirceaKitsune]

I think the altruism towards other species comes from a survival stand point of food resources rather than an association with other species.

 

If you notice, a majority of the altruism presented is predator to prey. The Gorilla to human altruism is a result of the training they probably go through.

 

That might be the case as well. Although realizing that you need to help a prey species survive to keep having what to eat feels like it would require rather advanced intelligence and reasoning... more than just basic empathy. Not sure how many species have that... though it would be a nice thought, and means people underestimated the intelligence of other races until the age of modern science.

 

Even if this is the case though, it wouldn't explain things like predatory mothers adopting orphaned prey offspring. I still feel that creatures who do this think and feel the same way you would if you saw an abandoned puppy on the street and felt you had to take him home. It's again discussable how much sentience is required for this, but humans are based on the same biological layout and might therefore share such feelings with other species.

[John Cuthber]

The bear sees something unusual in the water, pulls it out for a better look, gets pecked, drops it and goes away.

What altruism?

[MonDie]

This is an extremely far fetched hypothesis about the ducks' thinking and feelings.

 

It is much simpler to postulate that the ducks formed a bond with the fishes without speculating on how the ducks think or feel. The nature of that bond is to a certain extent altruistic.

 

My bad. I was talking about the bear.

[MonDie]

The bear sees something unusual in the water, pulls it out for a better look, gets pecked, drops it and goes away.

What altruism?

A domesticated bear unaccustomed to live meals sees poultry in the water, pulls it out, gets pecked, gives up and returns to his harmless potato.

[John Cuthber]

A domesticated bear unaccustomed to live meals sees poultry in the water, pulls it out, gets pecked, gives up and returns to his harmless potato.

OK, but why?

Bears are intelligent enough to be inquisitive so that's an entirely plausible explanation.

Saying it's due to compassion or empathy requires evidence that bears have the capacity to feel those things.

Occam's razor is on the side of simple curiosity.

The bear plainly does something- It takes the trouble to pull the bird from the water.

The question of altruism is one (as I said earlier) of intent,

Did it do it because it was curious or because it didn't want a dead bird in the pool or because it felt sorry for the bird.

It's not clear how we could hope to know from that video clip.

[MonDie]

Maybe the curiousity was whether the bird was edible. Alas, if the peck hurt that bad, it probably would have dropped the bird immediately.

It pulled the bird out, so (a) the peck didn't hurt and/or (b) curiosity, ( c) a dislike of corpses, or (d) altruism. Or how about (e) the bear enjoys the birds, so doesn't want them dead.

We do see a dead bird that may have drowned previously, but we have to consider selection bias since this is a popular YouTube video. Maybe there was even zoo keeper tampering.

 

Again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_3BN0m7S8

Edited August 17, 2014 by MonDie

[Unity+]

 

That might be the case as well. Although realizing that you need to help a prey species survive to keep having what to eat feels like it would require rather advanced intelligence and reasoning... more than just basic empathy. Not sure how many species have that... though it would be a nice thought, and means people underestimated the intelligence of other races until the age of modern science.

 

Even if this is the case though, it wouldn't explain things like predatory mothers adopting orphaned prey offspring. I still feel that creatures who do this think and feel the same way you would if you saw an abandoned puppy on the street and felt you had to take him home. It's again discussable how much sentience is required for this, but humans are based on the same biological layout and might therefore share such feelings with other species.

There is no need for empathy if it is instinctive. For example, we grow livestock that we eat on a daily basis because we need a constant source of food. There is no empathy for the animal, just an instinct to grow resource. Many things that seems intelligence are merely the result of instinct. With evolution, over time, animals that resorted to altruistic measures to keep their prey resource above a particular amount lived onto the next generation.