I know many monkeys have been able to learn some human like bahavior and also even learn some human language but do you think it would be possible to train one to learn something like a stove or fryer and actually cook a human style meal? Even learn to use a microwave. If so how would someone even go about doing that? Jason
Maybe but not as much fun. Plus, a monkey might know how to prepare the ultimate banana split due to him or her having expert banana experience to a human. Plus it would be a brand new experience for them and since they aren't human they might think of spice combinations a human would never even consider because it would go against what we sort of expect to see in a meal. A monkey for example might do something like cook apples in grease and then dip it in cheese. No human would think that outside of the box and for all we know that would make for a great kind of food. Jason
As ridiculous as this thread seems at first blush, the answer is apparently... yes. TBH, I'm still on the borderline of wanting to close this anyway, but I'll leave it for now and see if it actually generates a real discussion. Unless there's something you're not telling us, your first sentence disproves your second.
Well I was just using a example. Who knows what even more extreme food combo's they might actually come up with. Not sure why you would want to close it. People are going to either bring comedy or a a unique insight to the question. Maybe even both. Plus people always love talking about monkeys. It's a proven Trekbbs fact. Jason
Well I will need some time to gather the data but I assure you people love, monkeys. Almost as much as cats and more than dogs. Jason
It's funny that the article says that "chimps are surprisingly similar to humans." Are we really still surprised by this? It doesn't surprise me at all that chimps can learn to cook if given the right tools, and it's also not very surprising that the researchers in the article believe humans' cooking activity accelerated as soon as we controlled fire. I think what's harder to understand is why chimps seem (in our view) to be content to continue on without controlling fire or cooking their food, but humans at some point decided that they were not. That seems to me to be the difference between us and many other species; many of them CAN do various human-like things, but they regularly choose not to when left to their own devices. What was it about humans that made us decide to start doing these new things? Almost all species seem to have some form of curiosity and ingenuity, but humans take it to the next level, and I just can't figure out why.
I am not certain if monkeys would have the manual dexterity and motorical skills required for cooking. Most cooking is done Standing upright which is possible for most monkeys but a huge strain on their legs and backs. They'd have to constantly concentrate on keeping their balance and propably need one hand to stabilize. You can't cook one-handed. On the whole, monkeys just are not constructed for that sort of work. A remarkable exception is my old friend hi-Monkey, who is an excellent cook.
I think there is some room for discussion here in terms of the ethics of the question. Chimpanzees can and have been trained to do housework, but at what point does rewarding an animal for useful traits and behaviours become exploitation and cruelty?
Caesar will say no when the time comes, don't worry. Humor aside, might we need to answer whether the purpose is relevant at all? I believe the extreme animal rights groups would say even pets are a step too far but that sounds a bit much to me since it begs whether humans can justify existing with animals at all. It also begs why we favor animal rights over plant rights if we really want to go for the absurd. Leaving aside absurdist questions there is a good place for debate in things like healthcare. Would we ever say emotional support animals is putting undue stress on animals that have no business put into the role of psychological support mechanism? Or that service animals are doing jobs that they shouldn't be forced to?
Absolutely, moreover are some animals so ingrained in our way of life, their very evolution so shaped by artificial selection, that it's actually crueller to stop making use of their services. Right now I have a German Shepherd lay at my feet, his name is Flynn. He is rarely more than a few feet away from me unless I go out without him, he sleeps in bed with me given the opportunity, sleeps next to it when I'm sharing with my wife. He guards me against a myriad threats such as cars driving past, postal workers, cats, snow, thunderstorms and on one occasion an actual intruder. More to the point he knows he's a deterrent against aggression, I'm a big chap anyway and walking him helps convince the local petty criminals (of which there are many) steer well clear of me and mine. He's been bred to do these things, they're in his nature and he seeks out the approval and validation that goes with doing them. Take that away from him and you'd take away his purpose, the very role he sees himself as being here to do. If he wasn't a pet with a practical job he'd be... well I hate to imagine to be honest. Miserable at the very least.
I think it is not possible for monkeys (chimps etc.) to grasp granular nuance in dishes, their ingredients and variable flame control, timing etc. Also, AFAIK becoming a cook requires being able to taste your work as you go along and improve over time. Sense of taste of a monkey would be much different from the human palate, i imagine. And how would you communicate to a monkey that there's a tablespoon more of mustard seeds in the curry? So I don't think it is possible for our animal cousins to ever become cooks. We may be able to teach the robot cousins to do so in about 25 years' time.
It isn't even a question of "would we ever say?", at least in this instance. There are groups of people that actually already make this argument.
Indeed there are, which personally I find a very difficult ethical road to go down. The argument is essentially we should let them exist in their natural state, but whilst I would agree in terms of wildlife that presupposes the existence of a concept which is doubtful at best. "Nature" no longer exists for most of these animals, if indeed it ever did. Going back to my German Shepherd analogy in nature no such beast exists, they have been selected for by human intervention. Left to nature my GS would be a wolf, prowling the woods as part of a predatory pack. Human intervention over the millenia successively tamed the wolf then bred to select for traits which were desirable, reducing the aggression, molding the pack instinct to incorporate people rather than other wolves and favouring ever larger, stronger, but ultimately less efficient forms. The end result is an animal which is no longer suited to the natural environment, an animal which essentially exists, can only exist, in a state of symbiosis with humans. They seek out humans to bond with, they are born with the instinct to do this. When they are employed as guard dogs, police dogs, seeing dogs for the blind, they are following an imperative they no longer have a viable alternative to. They are dependent on us for a rich diet they would be ill suited to finding for themselves in a world where they would no longer be able to hunt anyway. They now need us. We could debate the ethics of creating such a situation but in the case of most of the animals being employed in such a manner that boat has sailed, the "damage" (if damage it is) has long since been done and is out of our control. All we can do is make decisions about how we handle the end results. When I refer to police and seeing dogs being "employed" this isn't a casual choice of words. They aren't being used, there is a two way relationship where they willingly provide a service and receive reimbursement. Our police colleagues may weigh in here but I'm pretty sure their dogs have fairly extensive employee rights which include breaks, health and safety regulations, age based retirement, protections against illness and injury in the line of duty. It isn't callous and we've treated human employees far worse in the past. I don't for a second buy the idea that my dog doesn't understand the idea that he and I look after each other in our own ways and that relationship isn't mutually beneficial. He actively seeks me out and does so of his own free will, he shows signs of distress at separation. I pay him for his services with food, medical attention and (most importantly) love.
I'd draw the line where it is no fun anymore for the animal. That border differs individually. I'd like to restrict myself to dogs since I have more than half a century experience with them and have trained rather a lot of guide dogs, mantrailers and assistance dogs. Some dogs are very happy to guide their blind human, others would feel stressed out by such a task. Some are excellent trailing dogs and enjoy following a scent, others would rather be left alone. It is vital for both parties to find out what the dog can do and what he or she enjoys to do. Both aren't necessarily the same. In my opinion, forcing a dog to do something he or she fears or dislikes would count as cruelty. If, on the other hand, the dog really finds pleasure or even fun in his or her task, then why shouldn't they perform it? My parents have a dog atm who has an excellent nose - the perfect search dog if only he could concentrate for more than 30 seconds. But tasks that take a long time bore him. On the other hand, he's highly intelligent and eager to learn. He enjoys doing lots of different tasks. So he makes a perfect assistance dog: he opens doors, picks up things my mom dropped, finds her mislayed glasses. And between tasks he chases the squirrel up the walnut tree, believing it's a sort of cat *LOL. My point is: If its fun, it's not cruel. The trick is to find out what is fun for the respective animal. A task that hurts, demands an unnatural posture, causes physical discomfort, overburdens or stresses an animal emotionally must not be asked of an animal. * not cruel either - the squirrel sits in the tree with a grin like the Cheshire Cat. I suspect, he considers these chases a sort of morning callisthenics