Only when they read your column. (updated)

Updated on 22nd August, see bottom.

Today’s g2 contains a dull and ill-thought-out article about whether or not animals feel grief, by Justine Hankins, who used to be the Guardian’s “pets editor”. It’s perhaps to be expected, then, that she is eager to think animals have human feelings. It’s nice to see her questioning the rest of the media for taking this too far, but personally, I’m not sure she’s quite got the hang of it yet…

Photographs of Gana, an 11-year-old gorilla in Munster Zoo, holding the lifeless body of her three-month-old infant... have prompted headlines such as "Heartbreaking" and "A Mother's Grief". ... Are we too quick to project human feelings onto animals, particularly our closest ape relatives?

...René Descartes believed that... animals are no more capable of higher emotion than a clock. But, as anyone who has been watching Richard Dawkins' Channel 4 series The Genius of Darwin will recall, evolution favours any species with strong enough parental instincts to see their young through infancy. Animals invest time, energy and genetic material into their young, just as we do, and they naturally want them to survive.’”

Let’s be careful with the word “want”. Once you say “want” you’re kind of begging the question: anything that “wants” has emotions. I think you’re being too quick to project human feelings onto our closest ape relatives again. If you start bandying words like “want” about then before you know it you’re going to say something like

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that they would also feel loss when their young die?

Yes.

Evolution probably doesn’t care too much what happens to mothers of dead infants. Evolving to stop caring for dead children is probably low down the genetic priority list, several items beneath keeping the children alive in the first place. There’s no reason to imagine that the gorilla’s behaviour is the result of grief. It could just as easily be well-meaning genes misfiring. Grief is totally unnecessary to explain any part of gorilla behaviour that I’m aware of.

Of course, they might. I don’t know. Hankins’ argument has utterly failed to convince me, but I really have no idea how gorillas work. I’ve not, say, been observing wild baboons in Namibia for years, but that’s probably why there’s a quote from a man who has, and he’s “reluctant to describe this as grief in the human sense”. That’s that settled, then, presumably…

Gana has a history of neglecting her young, and the infant's death may have been a result of her poor parenting. So perhaps it's not so much grief as guilt she's exhibiting. Or maybe that's an anthropomorphic step too far.

Yes it damn well is! Why must you persist in this? You’ve started by trying to explore quite a complex question in a 300-word column, and ended up saying nothing except “maybe”, and posing another, almost identical question. What possible use is that?

The article frustrated me mostly because it was 300 words of nothing, beyond raising a question that could have been just as easily posed in fifteen. The opening paragraph made it sound interesting, but there was no worthwhile discussion around the theme at all – a fact made even more annoying since she’d clearly interviewed someone who could have provided some. Hankins started out by observing that journalists liked to ascribe human feelings to animals and spent the whole column indulging in exactly the same wooly thinking.

Might as well have let Gana write the column for all the content we’d have missed out on.

Update: it seems that lately anyone I mention here turns up to talk to me about it. This is strange. Being rather more polite and generally nicer than Kevin Straw, Justine Hawkins had this to say:

I would love to look indepth at the media's odd relationship with animals - but you get 300 words and a couple of hours and that's it. I know it's not perfect but it's how the media works. I personally was quite shocked at how some of the media had protrayed this incident as if it was exactly the same as the feelings a human mother would have. I have a deep respect and affection for animals, but in general, this sort of sentimentality is not good for our understanding of animals and doesn't apparently make us treat them any better.

With which I agree – she’s quite right to highlight the absurdity. My problem was that she also seemed to be indulging in it in the same column.

By ending the piece with the gorilla's bad parenting record - I was trying to deflate the 'heartbroken mother' angle - sorry if it didn't come off. If I ever get the chance, I'll finish off the opening in a more challenging way!

After reading all of the above, I feel a bit bad and think that maybe the bit about evolution was misjudged, and came across (to me, anyway) as a genuine argument thrown in for balance, and that made the last paragraph read more like squirming than parody, a narrative trying to reach a conclusion that its own evidence won’t support.

At this point there’s not much I can do but sit here criticising the composition of the thing, which is well outside my comfort zone (besides which I’ve probably now written more words about this column than it contained, which is verging on tragic), so I think I shan’t bother. Anyone who’s used the internet for more than about an hour knows that it can be very difficult to detect irony in text – it says a lot for writers that most of the time readers understand them properly. In this case, whether my fault or hers, I didn’t read it as it was intended to read; let’s leave it at that.