Abstract
This paper examines how digital technologies might be used to improve ethical attitudes towards nonhuman animals, by exploring the case study of nonhuman apes kept in modern zoos. The paper describes and employs a socio-ethical framework for undermining anti-ape prejudice advanced by philosopher Edouard Machery which draws on classic anti-racism strategies from the social sciences. We also discuss how digital technologies might be designed and deployed to enable and enhance rather than impede the three anti-prejudice strategies of contact and interaction, enlightenment, and individualization. In doing so, the paper illuminates the broad potential and limitations of digital technology to both harm and benefit animals via its effects on human ethical attitudes. This examination provides guidance for future projects and empirical work on using digital technologies to promote moral respect for a range of nonhuman animals in different settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
-
Machery’s chapter had no Google Scholar citations at the time of writing.
-
Most digital technology in zoos is directed at nonhuman ‘great apes’ (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas).
-
Many other nonhuman animals share some of these characteristics, though great apes clearly possess highly humanlike cognitive, emotional, and social capacities.
-
Later, we complicate matters by problematizing zoos and returning to moral criticisms of them.
-
Note that KWO was installed in an indoor (non-naturalistic) area of the animal exhibit, and visitors might have found the use of digital technology more jarring in the outdoor exhibit area which simulates a rainforest habitat.
-
Dogs may be surrendered for many serious reasons, including safety, when the dog is aggressive, uncontrollable, etc.
References
Acampora, R. (2005). Zoos and eyes: Contesting captivity and seeking successor practices. Society & Animals, 13(1), 69–88.
Alcaidinho, J., Valentin, G., Tai, S., Nguyen, B., Sanders, K., Jackson, M., Gilbert, E., & Starner, T. (2015). Leveraging mobile technology to increase the permanent adoption of shelter dogs. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ’15, 463–469. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785861
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Altman, J. D. (1998). Animal activity and visitor learning at the zoo. Anthrozoös, 11(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.1998.11425083
Altschul, D. M., Wallace, E. K., Sonnweber, R., Tomonaga, M., & Weiss, A. (2017). Chimpanzee intellect: Personality, performance and motivation with touchscreen tasks. Royal Society Open Science, 4(5), 170169. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170169
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
Andrews, K., Comstock, G. L., Crozier, G. K. D., Donaldson, S., Fenton, A., John, T. M., Johnson, L. S. M., Jones, R. C., Kymlicka, W., & Meynell, L. (2018). Chimpanzee rights: The philosophers’ brief. Routledge.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367–383.
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012a). When closing the human-animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611425106
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012b). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
BBC News. (2019). Orangutan with human rights to begin new life in Florida. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856859
Bekoff, M., & Byers, J. A. (Eds.). (1998). Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative and ecological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Bekoff, M., & Pierce, J. (2009). Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. University of Chicago Press.
Berger, J. (2015). About looking. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1990). Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees. Folia Primatologica, 54(1–2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1159/000156428
Bostock, S. S. C. (2003). Zoos and animal rights: The ethics of keeping animals. Routledge.
Buller, H. (2013). Individuation, the mass and farm animals. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(7–8), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413501205
Carter, M., Sherwen, S., & Webber, S. (2021). An evaluation of interactive projections as digital enrichment for Orangutans. Zoo Biology, 40(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21587
Cataldi, S. L. (2002). Animals and the concept of dignity: Critical reflections on a circus performance. Ethics and the Environment, 7, 104–126.
Chisik, Y., & Mancini, C. (2019). P for politics D for dialogue: Reflections on participatory design with children and animals. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371049.3371061
Clark, F. (2011). Great ape cognition and captive care: Can cognitive challenges enhance well-being? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135(1–2), 1–12.
Cornou, C. (2009). Automation systems for farm animals: Potential impacts on the human-animal relationship and on animal welfare. Anthrozoös, 22(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303709X457568
Cox, E., Mancini, C., & Ruge, L. (2020). Understanding dogs’ engagement with interactive games: Interaction style, behaviour and personality. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446002.3446122
Debauche, O., Elmoulat, M., Mahmoudi, S., Bindelle, J., & Lebeau, F. (2021). Farm animals’ behaviors and welfare analysis with AI algorithms: A review. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 35(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.18280/ria.350308
Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2015). Farmed animal sanctuaries: The heart of the movement? Politics and Animals, 1(1), 50–74.
Dowsett, E., Semmler, C., Bray, H., Ankeny, R. A., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2018). Neutralising the meat paradox: Cognitive dissonance, gender, and eating animals. Appetite, 123, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.005
Driessen, C., Alfrink, K., Copier, M., Lagerweij, H., & van Peer, I. (2014). What could playing with pigs do to us? Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture, 30, 79–102.
Egelkamp, C. L., & Ross, S. R. (2019). A review of zoo-based cognitive research using touchscreen interfaces. Zoo Biology, 38(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21458
Finlay, T., James, L. R., & Maple, T. L. (1988). People’s perceptions of animals: The influence of zoo environment. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204008
French, F., Mancini, C., & Sharp, H. (2018). High tech cognitive and acoustic enrichment for captive elephants. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 300, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.09.009
French, F., Mancini, C., & Sharp, H. (2020). More than human aesthetics: interactive enrichment for elephants. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference, 1661–1672. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395445
Garrett, E. A. (2013). Why do we go to the zoo? Communication, animals, and the cultural-historical experience of zoos. Rowman & Littlefield.
Golbeck, J., & Neustaedter, C. (2012). Pet video chat: Monitoring and interacting with dogs over distance. CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212799
Goodall, J. (2000). In the shadow of man (Vol. 4113). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gray, J. (2017). Zoo ethics: The challenges of compassionate conservation. CSIRO Publishing.
Gruen, L. (2006). The First 100 Chimpanzees. http://first100chimps.wesleyan.edu/
Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and animals: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Gruen, L. (2015). Entangled empathy: An alternative ethic for our relationships with animals. Lantern Books.
Guo, S., Xu, P., Miao, Q., Shao, G., Chapman, C. A., Chen, X., He, G., Fang, D., Zhang, H., Sun, Y., Shi, Z., & Li, B. (2020). Automatic identification of individual primates with deep learning techniques. Iscience, 23(8), 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101412
Hancocks, D. (1980). Bringing nature into the zoo: Inexpensive solutions for zoo environments. Zoos and Aquariums Collection, 1(3), 170–177.
Hare, V. J., Ripsky, D., Battershill, R., Bacon, K., Hawk, K., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2003). Giant panda enrichment: Meeting everyone’ needs. Zoo Biology, 22(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10109
Hewstone, M. E., & Brown, R. E. (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Basil Blackwell.
Hirskyj-Douglas, I., Pons, P., Read, J. C., & Jaen, J. (2018). Seven years after the manifesto: Literature review and research directions for technologies in animal computer interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2020030
Hopper, L. M. (2017). Cognitive research in zoos. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.04.006
Howell, T. J., McLeod, E. M., & Coleman, G. J. (2019). When zoo visitors “connect” with a zoo animal, what does that mean? Zoo Biology, 38(6), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21509
Inoue, S., & Matsuzawa, T. (2007). Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees. Current Biology, 17(23), R1004–R1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.027
Interspecies Internet. (2021). Interspecies Internet. https://www.interspecies.io
Jamieson, D. (1995). Zoos revisited. In B. Norton (Ed.), Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp. 180–192). Smithsonian Institution Press.
Keulartz, J. (2015). Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 335–351.
Kleinberger, R., Harrington, A. H. K., Yu, L., van Troyer, A., Su, D., Baker, J. M., & Miller, G. (2020). Interspecies interactions mediated by technology: An avian case study at the zoo. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376858
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492
Köhler, W. (1926). Intelligence of apes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925. (pp. 146–161). Clark University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11020-007
Kutska, D. (2009). Variation in visitor perceptions of a polar bear enclosure based on the presence of natural vs. un-natural enrichment items. Zoo Biology, 28(4), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20226
Kymlicka, W. (2018). Human rights without human supremacism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 48(6), 763–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1386481
Lawson, S., Kirman, B., Linehan, C., Feltwell, T., & Hopkins, L. (2015). Problematising upstream technology through speculative design: The case of quantified cats and dogs. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, 2663–2672. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702260
Levin, A. (2015). Zoo animals as specimens, zoo animals as friends: The life and death of Marius the Giraffe. Environmental Philosophy, 12(1), 23.
Lowry, R. (2009). Visitor based conservation campaigns at Zoos Victoria. International Zoo Education, 45, 11–14.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo vistor knowledge and attitudes toward Gorillas and Chimpanzees. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 33–48.
Machery, E. (2013). Apeism and racism. In R. Corbey & A. Lanjouw (Eds.), The politics of species: Reshaping our relationships with other animals (pp. 53–66). Cambridge University Press.
Mallavarapu, S., Bloomsmith, M. A., Kuhar, C. W., & Maple, T. L. (2013). Using multiple joystick systems in computerised enrichment for captive orangutans. Animal Welfare, 22, 401.
Mancini, C. (2011). Animal-computer interaction: A manifesto. Interactions, 18(4), 69–73.
Mancini, C., van der Linden, J., Bryan, J., & Stuart, A. (2012). Exploring interspecies sensemaking: Dog tracking semiotics and multispecies ethnography. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370239
Mankoff, D., Dey, A., Mankoff, J., & Mankoff, K. (2005). Supporting Interspecies Social Awareness: Using peripheral displays for distributed pack awareness. UIST ’05: Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 253–258.
Manning, C., Mangas, H., Amel, E., Tang, H., Humes, L., Foo, R., Sidlova, V., & Cargos, K. (2018). Psychological distance and response to human versus non-human victims of climate change. In W. Leal Filho, R. W. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of sustainability and social science research (pp. 143–161). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67122-2_8
Maple, T. L. (2007). Toward a science of welfare for animals in the zoo. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 10(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700701277659
Maple, T. L., & Perdue, B. M. (2013). Zoo animal welfare. Springer.
Markowitz, H. (1982). Behavioral enrichment in the zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Maust-Mohl, M., Fraser, J., & Morrison, R. (2012). Wild minds: What people think about animal thinking. Anthrozoös, 25(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505224
McPhee, M. E., Foster, J. S., Sevenich, M., & Saunders, C. D. (1998). Public perceptions of behavioral enrichment: Assumptions gone awry. Zoo Biology, 17(6), 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1998)17:6%3c525::AID-ZOO6%3e3.0.CO;2-W
Morgan, K. N., & Tromborg, C. T. (2007). Sources of stress in captivity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3), 262–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.032
Nelson, J. K., & Shih, P. C. (2017). CompanionViz: Mediated platform for gauging canine health and enhancing human–pet interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.002
Orangutan Outreach. (2020). Apps for Apes. https://redapes.org/multimedia/apps-for-apes/
Perdue, B. M., Clay, A. W., Gaalema, D. E., Maple, T. L., & Stoinski, T. S. (2012). Technology at the zoo: The influence of a touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Zoo Biology, 31(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20378
Pons, P., Jaen, J., & Catala, A. (2015). Envisioning future playful interactive environments for animals. In A. Nijholt (Ed.), More playful user interfaces: Interfaces that invite social and physical interaction (pp. 121–150). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-546-4_6
Quick, D. L. F. (1984). An integrative approach to environmental engineering in zoos. Zoo Biology, 3(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430030107
Reade, L. S., & Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01014-9
Ritvo, S., & MacDonald, S. (2016). Instrument of agency: ACI as a mechanism for choice, environmental control, and preference assessment for captive animals. HCI Goes to the Zoo, CHI 2016 Workshops, 1–7.
Rossello, D. (2017). All in the (human) family? Species aristocratism in the return of human dignity. Political Theory, 45(6), 749–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591716668383
Ruge, L. (2017). Dog-smart homes: Portable controls optimised for mobility assistance dogs. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152130.3152133
Ruge, L., Cox, E., Mancini, C., & Luck, R. (2018). User centered design approaches to measuring canine behavior: Tail wagging as a measure of user experience. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295598.3295599
Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second and third-generation zoo exhibits: A comparison of visitor, staff, and animal responses. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204005
Shumaker, R. W. (2018). The history and status of cognitive research with great apes in the United States. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 68(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.2502/janip.68.2.3
Smith, J. (2011). Apps for apes: Orang-utans want iPads for Christmas. New Scientist, 212(2844), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(11)63173-4
Spooner, S. L., Farnworth, M. J., Ward, S. J., & Whitehouse-Tedd, K. M. (2021). Conservation education: Are zoo animals effective ambassadors and is there any cost to their welfare? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, 2(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg2010004
Sudduth, K. A., Woodward-Greene, M. J., Penning, B. W., Locke, M. A., Rivers, A. R., & Veum, K. S. (2020). AI down on the farm. IT Professional, 22(3), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2020.2986104
Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mayorga, M., & Peters, E. (2014). Compassion fade: Affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e100115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100115
Wallach, A. D., Batavia, C., Bekoff, M., Alexander, S., Baker, L., Ben-Ami, D., Boronyak, L., Cardilin, A. P. A., Carmel, Y., Celermajer, D., Coghlan, S., Dahdal, Y., Gomez, J. J., Kaplan, G., Keynan, O., Khalilieh, A., Kopnina, H., Lynn, W. S., Narayanan, Y., et al. (2020). Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. Conservation Biology, 34(5), 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13494
Webber, S., Carter, M., Sherwen, S., Smith, W., Joukhadar, Z., & Vetere, F. (2017). Kinecting with orangutans: Zoo visitors’ empathetic responses to animals’ use of interactive technology. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 6075–6088. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025729
Webber, S., Carter, M., Smith, W., & Vetere, F. (2020). Co-Designing with orangutans: Enhancing the design of enrichment for animals. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM conference on design, 1713–1725. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357236.3395559
Weiss, A., Wilson, M. L., Collins, D. A., Mjungu, D., Kamenya, S., Foerster, S., & Pusey, A. E. (2017). Personality in the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park. Scientific Data, 4(1), 170146. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.146
Westerlaken, M., & Gualeni, S. (2013). Digitally complemented zoomorphism: A theoretical foundation for human-animal interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513527
Westerlaken, M., & Gualeni, S. (2014). Felino: The philosophical practice of making an interspecies videogame. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, Istanbul, 2014, 1–12.
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (1988). Tactical deception in primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00049682
Whiten, A., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437(7059), 737–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04047
Wirman, H. (2015). Games for/with strangers—Captive orangutan (Pongo Pygmaeus) touch screen play. Antenna, 30. http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/10397/7611
Yamamoto, S., & Takimoto, A. (2012). Empathy and fairness: Psychological mechanisms for eliciting and maintaining prosociality and cooperation in primates. Social Justice Research, 25(3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0160-0
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice.
Funding
The research for Kinecting with Orangutans (KWO) was supported by funding from the Microsoft Research Centre for Social Natural User Interfaces.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coghlan, S., Webber, S. & Carter, M. Improving ethical attitudes to animals with digital technologies: the case of apes and zoos. Ethics Inf Technol 23, 825–839 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09618-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09618-7