Reflection on The Article "The ‘grieving’ Orca Mother" by Jules Howard

In Jules Howard’s article “The ‘grieving’ orca mother?’ Projecting emotion on animals is a sad mistake”, the author explains this view towards the concept of animals possessing emotion. He begins by explaining the recent documentation of a mother orca grieving her dead calf and questions the validity of the situation, confused whether animals truly do carry emotions.

Howard uses the article to pridefully promote his novel and his study within the field of animal grievance. He lists evidences of animal grievance such as police dogs mourning their officers, and even horses burying kennels in hay. In the eyes of Howard, this form of burying rituals and mourning within animals is not the animal equivalent of a funeral. Despite the differences of humans and singled celled prokaryotes there is the common similarity of the basic necessity to reproduce and respire, whether aerobic or anaerobic. Humans share many similarities with orcas such as having different languages and cultures, and simply just being the largest of the mammalians. All these similarities and the idea of these whales having emotions is not even considered?

This story may be of interest to non-scientists as it is strongly opinion based. The idea of animal emotions is often underplayed and not deemed to be as important in comparison to their genetic makeup. The genetics behind animals is of interest to scientist as further research within animals can potentially aid humans in the future. Howard’s piece completely counteracts movements protesting animal abuse and exploitation as these movements emphasize the fact that animals have feelings and experience pain as humans do.

The author continuously lists reasons against his argument and ends the article by stating that all animals should be respected. Decisions should be based on evidence. Data should be collected and analyzed in order to support a point. Howard’s indecisive statements and insufficient proof for his argument may appeal non-scientists as fiction interests many.

The article is interesting in the sense that it is a very explicit point of view many people may be afraid to address due to its controversy. Our canine counterparts are labeled to be a “man’s best friend” and this emotional attachment humans have developed over the years with animals may make it difficult to understand Howard’s point of view. Despite all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however Howard’s article may seemingly have more success on debate. org as supposed to The Guardian, as it is more accessible to non-scientists.