You are on page 1of 12

Nguyen 1

AP Rough Draft
Introduction
It has long been proposed that animals are inherently inferior to humans. This sentiment,
made popular by French philosopher Rene Descartes in the 1600s, reflects a belief still
prominent today that humans possess dominion over the other supposedly mindless creatures
on Earth. Many studies conducted over the last century, however, have forced us humans to look
at other animal species in a new light. Peter Singer, a renowned bioethicist from Princeton
University who helped launch the animal rights movement, argued that the ability to suffer is a
great cross-species leveler, and we should not inflict pain on or cause fear in an animal that we
wouldnt want to experience ourselves (Qtd. by Kluger 10). Although for centuries society has
held onto the firm belief that animals lack intelligence and are incapable of feeling to justify the
acts of cruelty humans have collectively committed on these animals, with new scientific
evidence gathered recently, times are changing and we now recognize that animals are similar to
humans in numerous ways. Elephants in particular are capable of profound intelligence, forming
close social bonds with those of their own species, and experience grief over the loss of a
companion. For this very reason, we can no longer justify the poaching of elephants for the
illegal ivory trade which kills 35,000 elephants each year (Poladian). Awareness must be raised
in order to save these sentient beings from extinction.
Cognition
It has been falsely presumed that the size of the brain dictates the level of intelligence an
animal possesses. This reason has been widely used to justify human superiority over other
creatures on Earth. Although the notion of animal consciousness and intelligence has long been
studied, Bernhard Rensch, a German evolutionary biologist, tasked himself with measuring the

Nguyen 2
intellectual capacity of elephants, animals that possess the largest brain of all land mammals,
through experiments conducted on a five-year-old female elephant at a German zoo which tested
her visual memory and abstract prowess. Before Renschs study in 1957, little attention had been
paid to the brain of elephants. Based on his research, Rensch hypothesized that brain size is
quite evidently a decisive factor in the brains learning capacity after the elephant in his
experiments passed an overwhelming majority of his intelligence trials (49). However, German
neurologist, Gerhard Roth and his colleague, Ursula Dicke, a behavioral physiologist, later
deemed in 2005 that the relationship between relative brain size and intelligence is
inconclusive (253). Although brain size does not necessarily dictate intelligence as concluded
by Roth and Dicke, the fact that elephants have the largest number of cortical neurons, second
only to humans (254), may explain how they display such clear cognitive intelligence, being
capable of passing Renschs visual tests and capable of self-recognition.
The mirror self-recognition (MSR) test is another widely used method to determine
mental capacity in animals. Elephants, apes, and dolphins are among the few known creatures
who can pass it. In a study orchestrated in 2006 by Joshua Plotnik, an animal behavior
psychologist who specializes in elephant research, and his colleagues, three Asian elephants were
subjected to the MSR test. By recording the four stages of behavior the elephants experienced
when exposed to a large mirror, they concluded that the elephants actions were very similar to
the known animals who have passed the test before, such as the great apes and dolphins. Plotnik
et al.s research provides greater insight into the cognitive abilities and intelligence of elephants,
demonstrating that elephants possess a theory of mind -- the capacity to understand ones and
others own mental states -- from their ability to recognize themselves in a mirror. Based on the
sources presented above, it is suggested that animals may not lack any intelligence after all and

Nguyen 3
that their brains have evolved to suit the context within their own environment, both natural and
social.
Social Groups
What might drive intelligence may not just be in an animals brain, but how animals
function in their collective societies. Machiavellian Intelligence, also known as social
intelligence, was at first a term used to describe intelligence in humans and primates, but is now
also used in reference to elephants, dolphins, and other creatures. As stated by Byrne et al., a
neuroscientist studying the cognitive and social behavior, there is a considerable body of theory
and supportive data to suggest that living in an extensive social network often correlates with,
and likely promotes, cognitive sophistication (66).
Recently in 2011, Elizabeth Archie et al., a behavioral ecologist who focuses on social
behavior in animals, outlined the social relationships formed by female elephants. As stated in
the text, Elephantsboth Asian and Africanlive in flexible, multi-tiered, fission- fusion
societies (Archie et al. 8) with elephant matriarchs leading the herd. Observed through genetic
analysis of the structure of elephant communities, Archie et al. found that while elephants spent
more time around their maternal kin, this did not stop them from socializing with other elephants
as well due to the benefits attributed to these social interactions. In her research, Archie et al.
communicated that, In fact, females without any close kin in their family were just as likely to
engage in a cooperative coalition with another group member as were females that had
many close maternal kin (243). Similar to humans, elephants are highly social creatures. As
suggested by the research, their relationships with others in their groups provides the female
elephants a way to successfully reproduce and survive. Because of their social nature, elephants
are capable of displaying signs of empathy such as helping the fellow members in their herd

Nguyen 4
through actions such as babysitting another elephants calf or providing emotional comfort when
one is in distress for both related and unrelated elephants (Bates et al. 222-223). The research
explored here supports the notion that elephants display incredible social intelligence through the
behavior exhibited in their social groups for the benefit of the species as a whole.
Grief
Stated in the prior paragraph, elephants possess the capability to express empathy, and
because of this, it can be assumed that they can also demonstrate signs of grief when
experiencing a loss of one of their own. African elephants in particular have shown high levels
of interest in the skulls and ivory of their own species as stated by McComb et al., a professor
of animal behavior and psychology (26). In this regard, they display similar traits to humans who
attach significance to the deceased bodies of those closest to them and created elaborate rituals to
mourn their dead.
In order to further understand the connection between human and nonhuman animal
behavior, Hamilton et al. conducted observations of elephants through the eventful death of a
matriarch named Eleanor of the family unit known as the First Ladies (FL) in Kenya. Through
days of close observation, Hamilton et al. found that elephants seem to show interest in the
bodies of other dying or dead elephants that is not only restricted to kin (15) since four
unrelated elephant families paid a visit to the matriarchs dead body, depicting a clear interest in
her carcass. From Eleanors death, the researchers concluded that elephants and humans share
emotions, such as compassion, and have an awareness and interest about death (15).
Furthermore, observations gathered from Hamiltons research and through prior studies on the
subject suggest that elephants have a generalized response to suffering and death of conspecifics
and that this is not restricted to kin (15). The case of Eleanors death provides a clear example

Nguyen 5
of elephants exhibiting genuine emotions with humans such as sadness, compassion, and grief
which further demonstrates their profound mental capacity.
The Philosophical Discussion
Despite research demonstrating that animals such as elephants display clear signs of
intelligence, preconceived notions of human superiority has led to the blatant objectification of
other animal species. Speciesism, a term coined by Richard Ryder, a British writer, psychologist,
and animal rights activist, in 1970 describes, The prejudice against the other [nonhuman]
species (What is Speciesism?). Although animals ourselves, this discrimination serves to fuel
the us against them mentality which prompts the heinous mistreatment of the living,
breathing creatures we have deemed to be lesser beings. On a moral standpoint, we must treat
animals ethically if they demonstrate the ability to feel and experience pain. As English
philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said, The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they
talk? but, Can they suffer? (What is Speciesism?); and as a paper published by Nancy S.
Mroczek, a behavioral psychologist, suggests, animals can indeed suffer pain (27).
Defining the Problem
Poaching, part of the illegal wildlife trade, reflects one of the cruel acts humans
demonstrate towards animals and is a massive thriving global industry that takes in $19 billion a
year (Criminal Nature). Classified as having no natural predator, the wild African elephant is
the largest land mammal on Earth; although this, however, does not guarantee their safety. For
almost a century, elephant numbers have dwindled due to the illegal poaching and selling of
ivory. Elephant ivory, a highly sought after import in eastern Asia, reflects the tastes of the
burgeoning middle class elites, especially those in China, who seek elephant ivory as a status
symbol (Bale). In 1989, despite the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Nguyen 6
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) ban on all international trading of ivory, the number of African
elephants have still significantly decreased with up to 100,000 elephants poached for their ivory
tusks between 2010 and 2012 (Save the Elephants). The infographic below, produced by the
National Geographic demonstrates the magnitude in which elephants were poached in Africa in

Infographic of the number of elephant deaths in each region of Africa. National Geographic

2011. The two most affected regions, Central and Western Africa, experienced 90% and 84% of
reported elephant deaths from the ivory trade respectively.
The loss of African elephants due to the devastation caused by poaching may lead to the
extinction of the species within the next decade (African Wildlife Foundation). An article written
by wildlife conservationist, George Wittemyer et al., discusses the steady decline in the wild
African Elephant population fueled by the poaching of elephants. Their study demonstrates the
heavy toll the illegal ivory trade is taking on African elephants, and suggests current offtake
exceeds the intrinsic growth capacity of the species (13118). In their research, they found that

Nguyen 7
rising ivory prices were correlated with the illegal killings rates of elephants. In 2014, the price
per kilogram of ivory was stated to be around 2,100 USD with prices tripling since 2010 (Vigne
& Martin 5). Furthermore, their study also concluded that poaching has negatively impacted the
elephant population, not just in numbers, but also by heavily disrupting their social groups as
well with there being few prime-aged males, strongly skewed sex ratios[with] some collapsed
families and increased number of orphans (13118). A recent study published in 2011 by
Elizabeth Archie et al., outlined the social repercussions that poaching had on elephant herds.
Since elephants survive in matrilineal fission-fusion societies, poaching disrupts [social]
relationships by removing older animals and kin, which can limit the adaptive value of female
relationships. Furthermore, poaching may also increase the rate at which genetic diversity is
lost from natural elephant populations (775).

Solutions
Because of this poaching crisis, measures need to be taken in order to protect the African
elephants. As stated previously, in 1989, CITES banned the international trading of ivory to help
alleviate the dwindling elephant numbers in Africa. However, a major problem with this ban is
that it only applies to ivory acquired after elephants were listed under CITES (1) as stated in an
online journal released by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service -- an agency within the
U.S. department of the Interior that serves to protect and enhance the fish, wildlife, and plants
within the country -- which outlines the CITES ban on elephant ivory and gives important
information about what the ban does and does not protect.
In an article by Emily Hutchens, an attorney who wrote the piece for Wisconsin Law
School's journal, she analyzes the elephant poaching crisis within the scope of law. In the journal,

Nguyen 8
she gives insight into why policies regulating the trading of ivory have failed and offers solutions
to this problem. Another major problem with CITES' 1989 ban of ivory is that while it bans the
international trading of ivory, it does not detail how to go about enforcing this ban, leaving it
instead to the nations affected by it. In order to successfully protect elephants, she states that the
African nations need to strictly abide by the African Elephant Action Plan (AEAP) which was
presented to CITES in March, 2010 and developed by the African elephant range states
consisting of 39 African countries to combat the ivory crisis. The plan outlines eight key
objectives that will presumably help combat the illegal ivory trade.
Although an article was written by Andrew Lemieux, a post-doctoral research fellow at
the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, and Ronald Clarke, a
former dean of the School of Criminal Justice at Rutger's University, found that the ban was
successful as it did initially increased the number of elephants in Africa, the country still saw a
significant decline in elephant populations because of unregulated markets that need to either be
closed or better controlled.
Measures must be taken to put a complete end to the ivory trade. While stricter
enforcement of the CITES 1989 ban and the AEAP is required, raising awareness is another issue
needed to be tackled as well. When there is a market for ivory with prices as high as 2,100 USD
in 2014, the poaching crisis will continue. To place an end to the ivory, the root of the problem
must be solved which is to end demand for ivory in Asian countries, especially China where the
demand is the highest. Recently, Kenya burned 105 tons of elephant ivory in order to send a
message to the world that ivory has no value and that its trade should be banned.. This has not
been the first time that such a burn has occurred as there were around 20 such events globally
within the past 27 years, but Kenya now holds the record for the largest in history. (Nuwer).

Nguyen 9
To further raise awareness, campaigns have been developed by organizations such as
WildAid who in 2014 partnered up with Animal Planet, African Wildlife Foundation, and Save
the Elephants to launch the Ivory Free to call attention to the elephants in question who have to
suffer in order to supply the world of ivory. As scene in the image below, WildAid asked people

An example of a campaign created that raises awareness about ivory poaching. WildAid 2014.

to take a stand and pledge to never buy or accept ivory (WildAid). Moreover, African Wildlife
Foundation recently launched the #WorthMoreAlive campaign that also serves to raise awareness
to the elephants that have been killed for their ivory. Social media is a powerful tool that is
extremely beneficial in the 21st century to connect with people from all over the world. Through
efforts to raise awareness, the worlds desire for ivory will perhaps decrease since in China, 70%
of people polled by the International Fund for Animal Welfare believed that elephants ivory
tusks simply fall out on their own like teeth.
Conclusion

Nguyen 10
If nothing is done to help combat the ivory trade, the African elephant population will be
extinct within the next decade. As such, there must be stricter enforcement of the pre-established
1989 CITES ban on ivory. Awareness must also be raised to target the root of the ivory trade
issue which is the high demand for ivory in Asian countries.

Works Cited
American Wildlife Foundation. Elephant Infographic (English) Online video clip. Youtube. 9
January 2014. Web. 13 May 2016.

Nguyen 11

"Animal Minds." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Oct. 2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Archie, Elizabeth A., Cynthia J. Moss, and Susan C. Alberts. "Friends and Relations." The
Amboseli Elephants A Long-Term Perspective on a Long-Lived Mammal (2011): 238-45.
Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Archie, Elizabeth A., and Patrick I. Chiyo. "Elephant Behaviour and Conservation: Social
Relationships, the Effects of Poaching, and Genetic Tools for Management." Molecular
Ecology 21.3 (2011): 765-78. Wiley Online Library. Web. 14 May 2016
Bale, Rachael. "U.S.-China Deal to Ban Ivory Trade Is Good News for Elephants." National
Geographic. National Geographic, 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 May 2016.
Bates, Lucy A. et al., "Do Elephants Show Empathy?" Journal of Consciousness Studies (2008):
204-25. ResearchGate. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Byrne, Richard W., Lucy A. Bates, and Cynthia J. Moss. "Elephant Cognition in Primate
Perspective." Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews CCBR 4 (2009): 65-79. Web.
24 Apr. 2016
Douglas-Hamilton, Iain, Shivani Bhalla, George Wittemyer, and Fritz Vollrath. "Behavioural
Reactions of Elephants towards a Dying and Deceased Matriarch." Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 100.1-2 (2006): 87-102. ScienceDirect. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Kluger, Jeffrey. "The Animal Mind." TIME Magazine (2014.): n. pg. TIME. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Vigne, Lucy, and Esmond Martin. "China Faces a Conservation Challenge." (2014): 1-92. Save
the Elephants. Web. 18 May 2016.
Mccomb, K., L. Baker, and C. Moss. "African Elephants Show High Levels of Interest in the
Skulls and Ivory of Their Own Species." Biology Letters 2.1 (2006): 26-28. Royal Society
Publishing. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Mroczek, Nancy S. "Point of View: Recognizing Animal Suffering and Pain." Lab Animal
(1992): 27-30. Web. 18 May 2016.
Plotnik, Joshua M., Frans B. M. De Waal, and Diana Reiss. "Self-recognition in an Asian
Elephant." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103.45 (2006): 17053-7057.
PNAS. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Poladian, Charles. "World Elephant Day 2015: Poaching And Ivory Trafficking Kill 35,000
African Elephants Every Year." International Business Times. IBT, 12 Aug. 2015. Web.
24 Apr. 2016.
Poole, Joyce H., Katherine Payne, William R. Langbauer, and Cynthia J. Moss. "The Social
Contexts of Some Very Low Frequency Calls of African Elephants." Behavioral Ecology

Nguyen 12
and Sociobiology Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22.6 (1988): 385-92. JSTOR. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Ratchford, Marina, Beth Allgood, and Paul Todd. "The Global Security Implications of the
Illegal Wildlife Trade." CRIMINAL NATURE (2013): 1-35. International Fund for
Animal Welfare. Web. 13 May 2016.
Rensch, B. "The Intelligence of Elephants." Sci Am Scientific American 196.2 (1957): 44-49.
Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Roth, Gerhard, and Ursula Dicke. "Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence."Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 9.5 (2005): 250-57. ScienceDirect. Web. 8 May 2016.
Ryder, Richard. What is Speciesism? Online video clip. Youtube. 25 October 2012. Web. 9
May 2016.
Save the Elephants. "Statistics." Save the Elephants. Save the Elephants, 2016. Web. 19 May
2016.
Wittemyer, G., J. M. Northrup, J. Blanc, I. Douglas-Hamilton, P. Omondi, and K. P. Burnham.
"Illegal Killing for Ivory Drives Global Decline in African Elephants." Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 111.36 (2014): 13117-3121. PNAS. Web.

You might also like