Have you guys seen the amazing self-potraits done by elephants?

[sinkingfeeling]

And here's the video of an elephant painting a portrait:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LHoyB81LnE

Why do some people think these fantastic animals shouldn't share our planet?

Edited to clarify my question.

[Bonobo]

1. I would say it is a trick.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Nope, it's true according to Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp

[Bonobo]

7. Not "true" in the sense you mean.

They are painting in the manner they have been trained.

There is nothing to suggest they understand that they are painting an abstract image of themselves.

[nichomachus]

55. On the other hand

There is nothing to suggest that human abstract artists understand what they're doing either. When a guy just kind of flings paint at a canvas - and then says it's up to you to figure it out - I don't see how that's any different than what animals do, even if the animals don't get $3 million from a bunch of people in black clothes at a museum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Research into ANIMAL intelligence is showing that animals

understand far more than we used to give them credit for

In fact, the animal as automaton is loosing favor for the more organic view that animals have self awareness, and are fool of feelings too.

You can blame Alex (an African Gray, RIP) for this little revolution and going back to the future as it were

This automaton view of animals is oh so twentieth century, if you get my drift

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. But anthropomorphism never goes out of style. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Point is MODERN RESEARCH shows that animals are more intelligent

than we like to give them credit for, and several SPECIES are self aware, elephants among others

I think this is making people uncomfortable.

What do you mean that animal MIGHT actually be more than just a beast?

Oh and some chimps have come down from the trees, and look to researchers like early hominids, can you say human evolution about six million years ago? Tools and all... I guess we went to the jungle and taught them that...

Boggles the mind

[texastoast]

71. Bingo!

We NEED our arrogance so we can justify that "hey, it's an ANIMAL."

I have a theory that animals know far more than we do. We are the slow ones. Reason is a two-edged sword that has sliced away half our abilities.

Someday we will be advanced enough to really get this. Not yet. Reason could be used to actually get it, but our arrogance stands in the way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Trust me I am aware... my parrots let me know when they need something

in fact, we joke we have been trained by them.

It is a language barrier, it would be so much easier if cookie said water, instead of screech and point at dish

[tuckessee]

70. Hmmmm....

Maybe you're just posting in the manner you have been trained.

There is nothing to suggest that you understand that you are posting a series of intellectual statements designed to advance a well thought out specific point of view.

[VotesForWomen]

87. so true. some people seem determined to dismiss the 'humanity' of animals. nt

[FredStembottom]

15. I would have thought so, too.....

- But the deliberateness of the elephants movements is like nothing I have seen any animal achieve - trained to do a trick or not.

Wonderful!

[Bonobo]

17. It IS wonderful. But it is NOT representational art painted intentionally.

[FredStembottom]

27. I think you are right.

The flower at the end of the vid. really took some of the shine off.
Clearly, such a mawkish, touristy touch means that this elephant was trained to produce that specific painting.

But, again, the deliberate movements are nothing like any horn-honking seal or dancing dog ever achieved.

[aquart]

36. "Representational"??

First, elephants DO paint intentionally. As to what they believe they are painting, I can't tell you. But you can see the elephant deliberately return to the original line and follow it. That's "intention," sweetie, not accident.

Okay. I've seen the video. The elephant just painted an elephant. Four legs, trunk, ear, tail, tusk. AND THEN HE PAINTS A FLOWER BEING HELD BY THE TRUNK! OMFG.

I double dog dare you to tell me that elephant did NOT intend to paint an elephant holding a flower with his trunk. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

[Marr]

39. He intended to do the trick he was trained to do.

I'm sure you understand what the Bonobo was saying.

[Maraya1969]

54. You are just a jealous monkey

[Cal Carpenter]

82. Ha ha ha!

That made me laugh out loud - thanks :)

[nichomachus]

56. As opposed to what?

As opposed to this?



Which, of course, is worth millions of dollars. Came about when a guy dribbled paint on a canvas.

[LakeSamish706]

3. "Why do we think these fantastic animals shouldn't share our planet?"

Who the hell thinks that?

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Plenty of people who will kill them for their ivory. Those who would destroy their habitats for

commerical gain. Anybody running the USA Dept. of the Interior?

[LakeSamish706]

9. Ok, I understand what you meant now.... I certainly think that we need to do better...

as stuarts of this planet. We need to take care of our beautiful creatures and save there habitats.. Not holding my breath though. Even though many of us do our best, we are far out numbered by those that want to do them harm simply do to greed.

[maxsolomon]

16. stewards

not 'stuarts'

[TheDebbieDee]

21. LOL ! That jumped out me, too.

I work hard to keep supressing the grammar nazi inside of me.

[LakeSamish706]

22. OK.. Old wise one, I have been corrected... And Thank you for that.

It's really no fucking wonder that the creatures of this earth are in trouble, with all the annal shit heads we have just in this forum... hmmm

Oh by the way Old wise one, I'm pretty sure that you knew what I meant.

[maxsolomon]

32. i'm a grammar nazi

i'm not a logic nazi - i left your first post (#3) alone.

[LakeSamish706]

34. I think maybe if you were able to understand my post you should leave all of them alone...

in the future, cause it makes you look stupid.

[Terran]

46. 'anal'

Not 'annal'. :rofl:

[dysfunctional press]

11. the usa dept. of the interior...???

i didn't realize that elephants were indigenous to the u.s....:shrug:

i guess you learn something new every day. where would i find the largest concentration of herds?

[sinkingfeeling]

18. What is your problem? We're talking about the 'types' of people who do not respect other

living creatures and their basic right to exist if they impede 'progress' or 'money-making'. I included the Dept. of the Interior because of its illegal failure to protect 'our' North American polar bears.

[dysfunctional press]

30. which "illegal failure" are you referring to, specifically?

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

38. The department was to issue whether or not polar bears would be on the

endangered species list by last Jan. 9. and yesterday they refused to show up for a hearing at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23920757/

"This listing is months overdue, in violation of the Endangered Species Act," the California Democrat said at the hearing of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee.

[bryant69]

13. Yeah it's a pity there aren't any wild elephants running around the US the way their used to be

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sinkingfeeling]

29. If you went back 13,000 years ago, there were elephants here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990607154315.htm

[dysfunctional press]

31. so if we had more progressive types in the u.s. dept. of the interior...

the wild elephants will come back?

that seems to be the implication.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. Yes, there is a proposal by a group of US researchers to do just that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4160560.stm

"If a group of US researchers have their way, lions, cheetahs, elephants and camels could soon roam parts of North America, Nature magazine reports."

[dysfunctional press]

44. wanna bet they don't get their way?

unless of course it's in an entirely enclosed reserve.
there's NO WAY any tax-paying voters are going to approve of introducing those kinds of species to the u.s. ecosystem.
not. going. to. happen.

[sinkingfeeling]

51. Of course not, because it would be like re-introducing wolves back into the Western states and look

at how that turned out. The ranchers' claimed they couldn't 'eat' the loss of a $1200 cow, grazing on public lands, so "we're" (that's all those tax-paying voters in this country) willing to have the species eradicated to point of extinction, so somebody can make some money or build on the wolves habitat.

"There's nothing about a wolf that's sacred," said Bruce Malcolm, a cattle rancher and Republican member of Montana's House of Representatives.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/28/gray.wolves/


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080221-wolf-endangered_2.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/28/gray.wolves/

"The gray wolf was officially removed from the Endangered Species Act's "threatened" list Friday after three decades -- a decision that has stoked controversy among environmentalists and ranchers."

[dysfunctional press]

63. wolves already roamed the north american continent...

it wouldn't be anything at all like the wolves.

the outcry over introducing dangerous african mammals & predator would make the resistance to wolves look like total acceptance in comparison.

[Winterblues]

43. I want to be a grammer Nazi also.... did you mean there instead of their?

:silly:

[bryant69]

53. Actually I meant "Pomegranate" - my spelling is terrible today. n/t

[CJCRANE]

62. ..."grammER"...?!!

:spank:

[Codedonkey]

78. Spelling Nazi Much? :P

[CJCRANE]

81. Not usually...

I just thought it was funny because he was nitpicking the other poster's grammar/spelling.

:hi:

[Codedonkey]

86. yeah, I know...

[dysfunctional press]

4. i give up- why do you think that these fantastic animals shouldn't share our planet?

:shrug:

personally, i think that they have just as much right to be here as we do.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. That's exactly what I asked.

[dysfunctional press]

10. yes, but you asked why "we" think that way...

i know that i don't think it, and nobody i know thinks that, so we're not part of the group that you include yourself in as thinking that these animals don't deserve to be here.

So- since that is how you apparently feel, i was just trying to find out WHY you would feel that way...? :shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

12. "We", as in human beings.

[dysfunctional press]

14. none of the humans i know ever held that belief...

you shouldn't generalize like that- it's extremely dishonest.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Noithing is worthwhile unless stated with the greatest degree of hyperbole possible....

... NOTHING!!!

[unpossibles]

8. those are great

I've seen stories about how elephants along with some apes, are among the few animals which can truly recognize themselves in a mirror.

As for the portraits, how do we know those aren't paintings of other elephants?!? ;)

[TheDebbieDee]

28. I saw a documentary several years ago

of a dolphin recognizing him/herself in a mirror. The dolphin swam in tight, upright circles in front of the mirror while looking over it's shoulder - it was trying to check out it's BACKSIDE just as we humans do! It was one of the damnedest things I ever saw.

[unpossibles]

35. amazing!

I have a friend who has worked in both primate and dolphin intelligence research centers, and I have been to both places. They are amazing animals.

As someone who has grown up with many animals, I don't understand how people can assume animals have no emotions or other "cognition" even if on a more rudimentary level than we do. I've seen my dogs and cats and birds "think" about something, try to be sneaky, be sad, happy, or jealous, etc. I try to not anthromorphize or romanticize it, but on some level it's there and plain to see.

[XemaSab]

77. There is no more HUMAN emotion on the face of an animal

than the look on the cat's face when it finds the dog eating out of the cat box. :P

[Mist]

19. I'm always uncomfortable w/the "animals trained to do parlour tricks" thing. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

23. Administrators please delete this entire thread. Apparently, DUers cannot

handle the generic use of 'we' to represent the human species when discussing other species.

[InvisibleTouch]

24. Non-human animals have a sense of personal identity...

...just as human animals do. If they didn't, they wouldn't recognize one another and respond differently to different individuals, or respond to their names, or to the names of others (I've had dogs who, for years afterwards, recognized the names of deceased former housemates or friends), and I have no doubt that painting elephants are expressing a mental/emotional state. Sure, they have to be taught to do it, but you have to teach a kid to hold crayons and color, too. Once that door is opened - wow! All that creative expression can come out.

[nam78_two]

25. They are magnificent creatures and I share your sentiment sinkingfeeling

It is a tragedy that we are driving these amazing creatures and many others to extinction with the ivory trade, the exotic hide trade etc.
It is very tragic :(.

[chixydix]

26. Cool painting...it could be either a right or left profile!

:D

[BlooInBloo]

33. That's nurhin. You should see the engine they rebuilt for me.

[unpossibles]

40. the cynicism in this thread is so heartening

</sarcasm>

[Codedonkey]

75. But you can see the zipper on the elephant.,.... :P

[QueenOfCalifornia]

41. WOW!

This is amazing.

And for those who want to take the shine off this apple with screams of "It's not intentional!"

How do YOU know?

That elephant could not have been trained to place that brush in just the right place with each new stroke. It could have been trained to put the brush on the paper and scrawl but not to create the image. That indicates intent.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. no

it WAS trained to do exactly what it did.

It's an impressive accomplishment of training, but no, the elephant is not "painting an elephant". It's painting lines it was taught it to make that end up resembling an elephant - actually, resembling a drawing of an elephant like a human would make.

[magellan]

42. This OP was a wondrous bright spot

...in the god awful couple of days I've had. Thank you, sinkingfeeling.

[Peace Patriot]

45. As with our presumption of innocence, for a human in court accused of a

crime, we should presume sentience, in an animal that acts intelligently and with self-awareness, until proven otherwise.

I've seen the vid of elephants mourning over their dead. That's enough for me. We need to presume sentience in elephants, until proven otherwise.

I would say the same for whales and dolphins, because of their very complex language system, as well as behaviors. Also, chimps, apes and other human-like animals with high imitative and language abilities (not to mention extremely similar DNA).

It's a very difficult corner for us to turn, recognizing sentience in beings who are not us. We resist it mightily. But I think the approach of trying to "prove" sentience, before we will generally acknowledge it, is the wrong approach. We should to presume sentience, when there is significant evidence of it (not "proof"--mere evidence, indications), because the killing of an innocent sentient being is just a grave crime.

There was an interesting Star Trek: Next Generation episode about Commander Data ("The Measure of a Man"), which made a similar mistake in the script--failing to presume sentience in a being who actually claimed sentience. A scientist wanted to dismantle Data for "study" purposes. He managed to get a warrant from Starfleet to acquire Commander Data, the machine. Captain Picard objected. Data objected. So there was a trial, at which Data's humanity was at issue. The judge's ruling was that, although Data's sentience could not be "proven," he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, on the basis of evidence (not proof) of sentience (his emotional attachment to a dead comrade; his retaining a book that Picard had given him, for its "sentimental value," etc.)

The problem with this script was this: If your toaster or lawnmower somehow acquired the ability to speak, and communicated with you, and told you, "I am a sentient being," what would you be obliged to do, as to protecting this being from destruction (and also from slavery)? --after you determined that you were not whacko, that is. A real message from an unlikely source, claiming sentience. Step One: This entity cannot be thrown away, onto a scrap heap, into a land fill. You just CAN'T. What if the thing had achieved sentience, and it was no trick? In short, a claim of sentience IS sentience. So there should never have been a trial about it. Data's claim should have been sufficient.

With animals exhibiting human-like characteristics, it is not so easy--because (to put it simply) they don't "speak English" (or, in the case of chimps and some parrots and others, who can put human language sentences together, and even formulate new concepts, it is not their original language). They are therefore highly handicapped as to communicating self-awareness. Example: Listening to a foreign speaker who only knows a little bit of English, English-speakers can gain the impression that the foreign speaker is stupid and simple and somewhat less than human. Educated and/or kindly English-speakers will realize that this is just bigotry. The person speaks perfectly well IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. We just don't understand that language.

And it would be horrendous bigotry to presume that a non-English speaker is less than human--has fewer rights, can be bullied, looked down upon, harmed, enslaved. Most people understand this as bigotry--although some of us are still unenlightened. Is it not rather similar to presume that a dolphin, or a whale, or an elephant--which have shown considerable evidence of high intelligence--is not sentient, because it can't prove to us that it is sentient?

It seems to me that we are faced with similar problems, too--legal, moral, social problems--as with the end of slavery in the U.S.. Slaves had been deemed less than human. Law, morality and society had all been set up to enforce that notion--that slaves were not fully human. It took one proclamation to declare slaves free. But it took hundreds of years to rid ourselves of the laws, moral standards and social prohibitions that had accumulated around this false, self-serving idea--and we are not rid of them all yet.

Africans should have been presumed to be full sentient beings--and (obvious) human beings--to begin with! It was a grave moral error--and an economic convenience--not to do so.

And a similar progression from the bigotry of "less than human" to full citizenship and recognition of rights has occurred in the case of women, whom our society considered to be "the weaker sex" (less intelligent, too emotional, in need of patriarchal protection), until very recently--and that bigotry is also still with us--not fully purged from law, moral standards and social prohibitions. In both cases--slaves and women--it just became too obvious--obvious via observation and analysis--that the prejudice was INACCURATE. Brilliant and courageous slaves, and brilliant and courageous women, had arisen in these conditions. More and more evidence accumulated that slaves and women were fully sentient, fully human, fully capable of determining their own fate. The dam finally broke, as to law, in both cases. But moral standards and social prohibitions lagged far behind. (Women gained the vote, for instance, but were not considered fit for public office, until very recently. Slaves gained their freedom, but, being propertyless, have had a hell of a time achieving social status and political power, which, in this country, is contingent upon property and money.)

While scientists and others have investigated, and greatly improved our observations of, animal intelligence, and our understanding of it, the paradigm is still very strong among us that we are superior to animals, and stand apart from them as unique creatures, with sentience. I can't think of a more difficult prejudice to break through. But, as with the slaves, and as with women, why don't we begin with the humane thing---presumption of sentience, where considerable intelligence has been observed, and sentience may be present? We are otherwise risking the continued genocide, and/or abuse/enslavement, of sentient beings.

[sinkingfeeling]

49. Thank you.

[Withywindle]

65. Exactly, very well said.

Though I think those who are determined not to understand will still refuse to understand it.

There's also a problem with defining "sentience" - of course, we humans will use a definition of that word that's grounded in human understanding of the concept (we don't have much choice, do we?). But I think there are types of sentience that we have no clue about.

[Peace Patriot]

66. Think again about the presumption of innocence that we grant to all humans

when they are accused of a crime and tried. Our progressive system of law--at least in theory--values the freedom, sovereignty and human rights of the individual so highly that it risks criminals going unpunished, and even civil disorder, by requiring prosecutors not only to prove guilt, but to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There are a lot of problems in doing that. What is a crime? What is intent? What is fair, honest evidence? What is "reasonable doubt"?

If you're on a jury, you have to decide for yourself what "reasonable doubt" is, and if you have "reasonable doubt," find in favor of the defendant, even if your gut tells you he or she is guilty. Because we recognize the phenomenon of prosecutorial abuse--from long history--and have built in strong protections against it. Our justice system favors freedom over order (in theory--lots and lots of abuse in the system today). "Reasonable doubt" is supposed to trump even a strong prosecution with lots of evidence against the accused. But what is "reasonable doubt"?

So, yes, of course--"There's also a problem with defining 'sentience.'" If it was easy to define, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is great intelligence in the natural world. Spiders are intelligent. Birds. (Ever see the vid of crows dropping hard nuts into an intersection, so the cars will crack them, then waiting for the red light to retrieve the nut meat?) Raccoons. Foxes. Chimps using spearlike tools, and sophisticated sign language. Many, many animals are extremely clever--and use what we recognize as reason and analysis for various tasks (remembering past events, anticipating the future from past events). Wolves. Dogs, cats and horses, of course. But are they sentient, i.e., self-aware? Do you have to build great cathedrals or rape forests with "feller-bunchers" to be considered sentient? Do you have to write novels and legal codes, or create vast oil spills from manufactured tankers? Do you have to feel guilt, to be sentient?

It's a tough one. But upon it rests the whole architecture of human rights.

Because it's a tough call is why we should presume sentience (just like "presumption of innocence"). We should create as much of a definition as we can, and then be VERY CAREFUL about what we do to animals that show considerable intelligent, have big brains, have complex communication systems, and/or meet some minimal criteria for self-awareness. As I said, that vid of elephants mourning their dead did it for me. No other proof needed. Killing elephants, in my opinion, is murder.

We often equate sentience with building a civilization--putting up great buildings, vast manipulations of the environment, devotion to the arts, etc. But there might be a different way a living on the planet that appreciates and utilizes what is here, but doesn't change it drastically--that is, a way of having a complex civilization with different criteria than our own. I think this of dolphins. They appreciate and utilize the ocean, and I think talk about it constantly, with a complex language system, but don't feel the need to change it. They have an inherent ability to easily travel in the ocean and don't need ships. Their evolutionary solution is better than our own, which takes great labor and hand-dexterity and alteration of the environment for us to be comfortable and appreciate our existence. Dolphins don't need buildings or agriculture. Thus, their big brains are free for other things--communication, joy, appreciation, love, community...or? We know not what. Killing dolphins, in my opinion, is also murder. When I see a dolphin spin up out of the ocean like a top, in sheer joy of living, I believe that I am looking at a sentient being.

Our murder of sentient creatures is forgivable up to this point. We did not develop the ability to understand what we were doing until lately. But now? Well, a lot of humans are still resisting it. But some of us know. We don't need elaborate definitions--more philosophy, more science, more observation, more proof. Maybe it's the preliminary to contact with other sentient beings, elsewhere in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe. It kind of feels like that--that we ourselves are making an evolutionary leap, and that something is pending. I only hope that, when and if it happens, we don't suffer a tragic "clash of civilizations" such as the dolphins have suffered.

[texastoast]

80. "We just don't understand that language."

:applause:

[Kitty Herder]

47. Elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-asian-elephants_2.html

That's quite a cognitive feat. They're incredibly intelligent animals.

[lonestarnot]

50. looks like an arm inside a trunk there to me. Why don't they show the whole elephant?

Besides elephants have been exploited by the pugs. Why is some pig profitting off the back of some poor baby elephant?

[sinkingfeeling]

52. Go view the entire 8 minute video showing the elephant painting a different picture than the one

above.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Animals do understand more than we give them credit for

In fact, the animal as automaton is loosing favor for the more organic view that animals have self awareness, and are fool of feelings too.

You can blame Alex (an African Gray, RIP) for this little revolution and going back to the future as it were

This automaton view of animals is oh so twentieth century, if you get my drift

And I posted this above, but going through the responses, I do understand why Animal intelligence makes people REALLY nervous

Alex was not trained to ask for what he wanted, hell, my conures beg for breakfast, lunch and dinner, I didn't train them. And they have personalities and communicate with us REGULARLY.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

61. George Bush does a self-portrait on the bottom of the toilet bowl every morning

Another member of the animal kingdom with amazing talent.

[texastoast]

93. ...

:spray:

[eppur_se_muova]

64. How do we know it's a SELF-portrait, and not, say, sex fantasy art?

Not that those can't overlap.

[slowry]

67. I don't think it's cynical to point out that they're meticulously trained, by apes, to do this.

It's not a conscious self-portrait, no matter how cool that would be. Hopefully they aren't abused, like show business animals.

[InvisibleTouch]

68. How do you know it's not conscious? Can you read their minds?

I love these absolute pronouncements in the voice of authority, the claim to knowledge that you can't possibly have.

A young child has to be taught to use crayons, and might start out trying to stay within the lines in a coloring book. Are they doing it just to please their parents? Or is it none the less still a creative expression?

In fact, anyone who takes an art class is being taught technique. Is the resulting artwork just a parlor trick? Do any of us know what motivation goes through the mind of another living being, of whichever species?

To say with absolute certainty that someone's action is or is not conscious and intentional is surely foolish - but extrapolating from our own experience, it's far more likely that "apparent" self-awareness does indicate self-awareness. To desperately try to explain it away by some other means, takes a straightforward issue and shrouds it in artificial layers.

[slowry]

69. I know because I looked into it. You can too. Google is an amazing thing, if used correctly.

They are taught by rote to do a certain thing. Like a monkey pushing a button, to get a piece of banana. The monkey isn't expressing its deepest desires -- it wants food, damn it.

I love animals. They can be extremely clever, loving, violent, and wise -- but this "portrait painting" is no indication of any of that. It's us projecting our idea of intelligence, of self-expression, onto them. Pure anthropomorphizing.

[tuckessee]

72. You as well are meticulously trained by parents, peers, & pros, to do what you do.

Where would any of us be without training?

[slowry]

79. There's a difference between training and education. I'll answer the question, posed more accurately

Without education, we might be stuck performing trained circus tricks for peanuts.

I see no evidence that elephants know the difference between a painting of an elephant, or a painting of a sofa. If you wanted to be really cruel, you could probably just as well train an elephant to paint a scene of him/her with no tusks, and a speech bubble saying "what's mine is yours!"

This doesn't mean animals aren't intelligent in many ways, that they don't feel emotion, etc. -- it just means that, yes, this is basically a trick, and we probably shouldn't read too much into it.

[sinkingfeeling]

83. It's still amazing. Can you teach one of your pets to do the same? The fact the elephant can be

taught to make the same brush strokes in the right place, with the right curves, is an apparent sign of intelligence far more advanced than they are given credit for. Can you get your dog, cat, hamster, snake, or horse to do the same?

[slowry]

89. They don't have the dexterity. Dogs, cats, and horses, can be trained to do neat things, too.

Not sure why you have to try and knock other animals, just to prove your point that elephants are intelligent -- we don't disagree :P. Snakes, I'm not sure. They're jumpy.

It's still just humans projecting their ideas of intelligence, and personal expression, onto other beings, imo. All I think when I see something like this, is that hopefully they aren't harmed in their training*.

* See, for example, http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/cruelcamera/">this shocking exposé on animals being abused/killed for human entertainment, by CBC's "Fifth Estate".

[Codedonkey]

73. I can paint better.... :P

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Not That I Think They Should Be Wiped Out, But All This Is Is Training Of Repetition.

All they did was train the elephants to do just that; without any real cognitive ability goin on. Not sure why this is supposed to be overly impressive, really. But I also never have had a problem with elephants inhabiting our planet regardless.

[maxpower]

76. Wow

That was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. The elephant paints better than I do. Thanks for sharing.

[whistler162]

84. Its okay but....

I don't think Rove's nose is that big even with the Pinocchio effect.

[MilesColtrane]

88. Odd that there aren't any elephant tortured souls in this place who paint...

...their version of an elephant Guernica.

It's always the happy elephant holding a flower.

Bunch of sell outs, playing to their tourist audiences...

[Bonobo]

90. OK. HERE IS THE MASSIVE IRONY IN THIS OP (Cause I'm sick of it)

For some of us who love animals, it is not necessary that we see "humanity" in them.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. Their wonderfulness is diminished by those who look to anthropomorphosize them.

Elephants are beautiful because they are elephants, not because they can be trained to do things that enter our radar as "human-like" thus softening them up for mass-appeal.

Actually, it makes me want to puke.

Long live elephants, and leave them alone and keep the fucking paintbrushes out of their noses.

[sinkingfeeling]

91. Sorry, I totally disagree. I truly believe that all species are connected and do share

very similar emotions and thoughts. I have spent most of my life surrounded by all types of animals and having observed their interaction with each other and with humans, believe that we, humans, do not have sole possession of those things. I don't want them to be 'human-like', but I think they, as well as humans, are 'living-being-like'.

[earth mom]

92. I absolutely love this! I love elephants, and believe we're all connected too. nt

[LanternWaste]

94. I think it's neat.

After reading the thread, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to like this, scoff at it, hold it in bemusement, piss on the wonder of other posters, or laugh at people who illustrate any of the above...

I think it's neat. It's wondrous to me because I've never seen an elephant paint a picture-- but then I'm the first to admit I don't get out much.

I wonder if human painters are trained to paint (you know-- "it's just a trick")-- but again I don't get out much.

[unpossibles]

95. well, animals can't be smart cause then what would we eat!!1!

</sarcasm>

Shit, even if trained to do that, it's pretty damn impressive. I know people who are less trainable - I've had to work with them.