If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity - eye-opening and entertaining popular science

by Justin Gregg

CHOSEN AS A BOOK OF THE YEAR BY WATERSTONES AND THE TIMES

'Nothing less than brilliant'
Wall Street Journal

'Entertaining and original'
Guardian

'Accessible and insightful, it's a thought-provoking read'
Observer

'Highly readable'
The Times

__________

What's it like to be a bat, a bee, or a bed bug?

From narwhals to slugs, Dr Justin Gregg offers a window into the minds of other creatures and debunks many of the myths of human exceptionalism. With the latest research on animal minds and cognitive psychology, he shows us what animal minds can teach us about humanity's shortcomings.

Mind-bending, humbling and hilarious, If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal will change how you think about animals, humans, and the meaning of life itself.

__________

'Provides real insight into how we think'
Financial Times

'Witty and instructive'
New Statesman

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Philosophy, Animals, Psychology, Nature, Audiobook

236 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 9, 2022

About the author

Justin Gregg is science writer and author of the books Twenty-Two Fantastical Facts about Dolphins and Are Dolphins Really Smart? He writes about animal behavior and cognition, with articles and blog posts appearing in The Wall Street Journal, Aeon Magazine, Scientific American, BBC Focus, Slate, Diver Magazine, and other print and online publications. Justin produced and hosted the dolphin science podcast The Dolphin Pod, and has provided voices for characters in a number of animated films. Justin regularly lectures on topics related to animal/dolphin cognition. He also blogs about science and humor/nerd/pop culture topics on his personal blog at justingregg.com

Justin received his PhD from the School of Psychology at Trinity College Dublin in Dublin Ireland in 2008 having studied dolphin social cognition. He is currently an Adjunct Professor at St. Francis Xavier University, and a Senior Research Associate with the Dolphin Communication Project. Justin has a research focus in dolphin social cognition, and a background/interest in linguistic and the evolution of language. A list of Justin’s academic publications can be found at this link.

Follow Justin on twitter: @justindgregg

Reviews

[Krista · Rating 4 out of 5]

For narwhals to suffer a Nietzsche-like psychotic break, they would need to have a sophisticated level of awareness of their own existence. They’d need to know that they were mortal — destined to die one day in the not-so-distant future. But the evidence that narwhals or any animals other than humans have the intellectual muscle to conceptualize their own mortality is, as we’ll see in this book, thin on the ground. And that, it turns out, is a good thing.

It would seem that author Justin Gregg chose the narwhal more or less randomly for the fetching cover art and title of If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal (as an Adjunct Professor at St. Francis Xavier University and a Senior Research Associate with the Dolphin Communication Project, I accept that narwhals are simply one of Gregg’s “favorite marine mammals”, even if I was slightly disappointed not to actually read about the enchanting sea unicorns in the book itself), but counterpointing narwhals with Nietzsche does make for an intriguing title and serves to underline the fact that this book is equal parts biology and philosophy. By exploring the latest research into animal intelligence, and comparing the results to what we know about the human experience, it’s hard not to share Gregg’s conclusion that human intelligence — and the undeniable harm we cause to each other and the planet through its unique powers — can be more curse than gift. If only, as Nietzche lamented, we were all as stupid as cattle — living in the moment, neither melancholy nor bored — we would have no existential angst. More cynically, as Gregg writes, “Narwhals do not build gas chambers.” This is a fascinating work of comparative biology that eventually pulls itself out of the misanthropic muck (human intelligence is capable of some good if we choose to use it that way), but when Gregg repeats a few times that there’s a 9.5% chance that humanity will be responsible for our own extinction by the end of this century, it’s hard not to default to Nietzchean nihilism. Interesting and thought-provoking (if a little bleak), rounding up to four stars. (Note: I read an ARC through NetGalley and passages quoted may not be in their final forms.)

Like most human cognitive achievements, language is a double-edged sword responsible for as much misery as pleasure. Would we, as a species, be happier without it? Quite possibly. Would the world have experienced as much death and misery had humans remained a nonlinguistic ape? Probably not. Language might generate more misery than pleasure for the animal kingdom as a whole. Language falls victim to the Exceptionalism Paradox: It is the ultimate symbol of the uniqueness of the human mind, and yet despite its wondrousness, it has helped generate more misery for the creatures on this planet (including ourselves) than pleasure.

Over the course of seven chapters that explore phenomena that we think of as uniquely human traits (not just deception but “bullshitting”, the awareness of our own eventual deaths, morality, etc.), Gregg demonstrates the limits of these traits in non-human animals, and then goes on to explain why the dumb beasts of the field and air are better off without them. In evolutionary terms, Gregg argues against humanity thinking of ourselves as the peak of creation: not only does our unique intelligence cause existential angst and genocide and climate-changing catastrophe, but we’ve been here as a species on Earth for the blink of an eye and will likely wink ourselves out — while bugs and bacteria and crocodilia continue on with their millions of years of existence unaffected by our incidental flashing in the pan. (And as our sun will eventually die anyway, none of us — collectively or individually — will matter in the unimaginably long history of the universe. Cheers.) The science writing is often humorous and always accessible — featuring quotes by Steven Pinker and Malcolm Gladwell and Greta Thunberg — and as an animal-loving scientist who rescues slugs from his driveway before taking his daughter to school every morning, Gregg mostly laments the ecological damage our intelligence has effected:

Our hankering for a snack in the twenty-first century is identical to what it was ten thousand years ago, but our complex cognition allows us to engage in activities (e.g., oil and gas extraction, mechanized farming, soil depletion) on a massive scale, which is transforming this planet into an uninhabitable shithole. Our kitchens are full of foods that come from a global agricultural-industrial complex that is fundamentally problematic to the survival of the human species.

But again, If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal isn’t all doom and gloom. By the end, Gregg concedes that human intelligence has the capability to produce great works of lasting beauty. And if we can eventually get together and decide to save ourselves, we’re capable of that beautiful act, too. The tie-ins with Nietzsche makes this different from other books I’ve read on animal intelligence (Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, Aesop’s Animals, The Soul of an Octopus, etc.), and it adds a valuable contribution to the fascinating conversation about our place in the universe.

[Jill H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have no idea how to review this book which I truly enjoyed as it is difficult to capture all the information contained in it. The author looks at the difference between human and animal behavior and how they relate. Are animals intelligent or or just reacting to the things in their world? For that matter, how does one define intelligence.

He uses quotes from Nietzsche as as heading for each chapter and then refutes them. He begins the book with a statement from the philosopher....."animals cling to life, blindly and madly, with no other aim........ Of course, he disagrees with that, as do I, and provides some excellent arguments to prove that animals are smarter than man thinks they are.

I do not always agree with some of his conclusions but in the main, he comes as close as anything I have ever read about animal intelligence. He writes with humor and in sections where the information is scientific, he goes on to explain it further which I appreciated.

It is a rather delightful book, although there are a couple of slow spots but very few. Recommended.

[Cher 'N Books · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars = Fantastic and easy to recommend.

Intelligence sometimes results in very stupid behavior.

A fascinating book that is a mixture of philosophy and comparative biology regarding the intelligence of humans versus other animals. It was informative without being preachy, and the author has a colloquial style of writing that is easy to understand, even when he is breaking down the results of recent studies and experiments.

The absurdity of a narwhal experiencing an existential crisis is the key to understanding everything that is wrong about human thinking, and everything that is right about animal thinking.

It is filled with interesting facts about animals, but the one that was most impactful to me was that studies have shown that bees have consciousness. For us to share this trait with insects, the implication is that consciousness was developed in a common ancestor an incredibly long time ago, meaning that almost all animals experience consciousness.

Is the world a better place thanks to our species’ intelligence? If we are honest about the answers to those questions, then there’s good reason to tone down our smugness. Because, depending on where we go from here, human intelligence may just be the stupidest thing that has ever happened.

What makes a species successful from an evolutionary standpoint? If it is the ability to rapidly reproduce, while 8 billion humans seems like a shoo-in, bacteria would win the trophy. If it is how long a species has existed due to their adaptability, crocodiles would get first place. If it is a species’ ability to maximize pleasure while limiting misery, humans shine in this category in a multitude of ways, but can we claim this title when one considers that humans have generated more death and destruction for life on Earth than any other animal that has ever existed?

It’s the happy and healthy animals that pop out the best babies, and that’s all that evolution cares about. Evolution values love because we value love, even if the universe has no real use for it...Love is just pleasure writ with a fancier pen.

The general premise is that humans are exceptional in that we have complex cognitive gifts that so far, have not been able to be observed in other animals. These abilities have led to our production of awe-inspiring arts, life-changing healthcare, and for the average human, an easier life when it comes to meeting our basic needs such as shelter and food. But are they actually gifts, or could they be afflictions that will ultimately lead to our downfall? Would we be happier animals if we did not constantly wonder “why”, and if we did not have the ability to create technology that benefits us in the short-term, while damning us in the long run?

Not only does anti-gay sentiment have no real counterpart in the behavior of any other species, but it actively creates barriers to our species’ success. It not only sows societal discord but leads to the suffering of a large swath of the human population. What biological benefit has been given to our species through our bizarre moral posturing around the non-problem “problem” of homosexuality? Precisely none. It is a sad testament to the cruelty of human moral reasoning.

Narwhals do not build gas chambers to kill one another, but humans have. There is a 9.5% chance that humanity will be the cause of our own extinction by the end of this century, most likely due to the harmful effects of human caused climate change or nuclear war. If there was close to a 10% chance you would die every time you drove somewhere, I bet a lot of us would find another means of transportation.

A child born today is five times more likely to die in a global extinction event than in a car crash.

This book was very thought-provoking but also depressing and left me feeling helpless about the future, despite the author’s use of humor, approachable style, and his personal belief that humans are capable of achieving great feats, including reversing the damage we have wrecked on the environment. I am pessimistic about humanity collectively doing the right things in time, so this sentiment for me was cold comfort. Our short history suggests that humans have an exceptional mind that is also self-destructive.

I am hopeful that we will find a solution to the existential threats marching towards us. I believe that we can create laws that bypass our decision-making blind spots and channel our collective actions into stopping the threats of climate change and ecological collapse. I hope that the Star Trek utopia that is within us becomes a reality. I’m just not sure when that hope bleeds into delusion.
-------------------------------------------
First Sentence: Fredrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) had a magnificent mustache and a peculiar relationship with animals.

Favorite Quote: Our many intellectual accomplishments are currently on track to produce our own extinction, which is exactly how evolution gets rid of adaptations that suck.

[Maggie Gray · Rating 1 out of 5]

There were a handful of interesting animal facts but not enough to make up for the author’s obnoxious preachyness and oversimplification of politics and climate

[Angie Boyter · Rating 4 out of 5]

NOTE: I originally rated this as 3 stars for the reasons cited below but changed it to 4 stars because of how much I have mentioned it to others!
Entertaining, thought-provoking, and informative but not convincing
Justin Gregg studies dolphin communication for a living, and, given dolphins’ reputation for intelligent behavior, it is not surprising that he has thought a lot about how animals think or if they think or even if they are conscious. In If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal, Gregg explores the human mind and compares us to other animals to try to determine whether the human mind is exceptional and whether we would be better off with the mind of some other animal.
Each chapter begins with a quote from Nietzsche, then discusses some aspect of the human mind and looks at the degree, if any, that aspect also is present in other animals. Not surprisingly, he finds that many of the traits of our minds are also present in many animals, such as consciousness. Others, though, he argues are purely human, such as our ability to ask “why”, which can be a significant advantage in problem-solving.
I do not always agree with his conclusions about what traits other animals have. For example, he seems to think animals lack imagination, but any cat owner who has watched their pet play with a toy mouse knows that imagination is at play. The discussions did provoke me to think about the traits, though, and Gregg’s straightforward, conversational style made the exploration entertaining and enjoyable as well as informative.( This would be a nice choice for many book groups.) My friends all heard my recommendation that they change their investment advisors after I read of a study that compared the investment success of three wealth advisors, a group of students, and a cat named Orlando. Orlando won after a year of investing. My cats are now available to manage your portfolio in return for treats! There were also a wealth of fun factoids, like the number of bacteria in poop and when the lawn mower was invented.
The conversational style may have weakened the impact of the book on me, though, as I had to question some of the arguments and the terminology. In a simple example, a man died after he jumped off a trestle hooked to bungee cords but forgot that the elasticity of the cords would make him smack down on the surface below. Gregg calls this a math error. It is not; it is a misunderstanding of the nature of the equipment he was using. Other issues I had were more significant.
As the book progresses, the author spends more attention on extended discussion of some of the serious consequences of our mental flaws rather than concentrating on the flaw itself. He perhaps rightly labels “prognostic myopia” the most dangerous flaw in human thinking. Prognostic myopia is “the human capacity to think about and alter the future coupled with an inability to actually care all that much about what happens in the future”. The example he chooses is our role in causing climate change coupled with our inadequate attention to addressing it. I tend to agree with him, but the lengthy discussion of climate change, in my opinion, really belongs in a different book.
Gregg’s final verdict is that homo sapiens are no more likely to experience pleasure than other species, and pleasure is the ultimate objective. Despite my disagreements with a number of his positions during the book, this is one I cannot really dispute. And it did, indeed, bring a lot of pleasure to me along the way.
I received an advance review copy of this book from NetGalley and Little, Brown

[Kayla Oswald · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Human intelligence may be the stupidest thing to ever happen” I don’t see a lie

[Corvus · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I appreciate the deviation from the polar opposite arguments often heard that animals are/not as smart as us and instead discussing the problems with valuing human cognitive abilities,I was overall unimpressed by this book for a few reasons. 1. It's very evolution focused and for a reason I will never understand, science minded people focusing on evolution think there needs to be an evolutionary "fitness" cause for each attribute of an organism despite evolution being known to be a collection of often random mutations that may or may not proliferate over millions of years. The idea that entire organisms are 100% fit for their environments is ridiculous so why are we looking at everything through that lens? 2. I've read a lot on animal behavior and intelligence from a variety of sources and his estimations are conservative and even dated at best. 3. He seems very proud of his knowledge of animals he clearly doesn't understand including his own backyard chickens (who he believes have no individual differences and all need a 1:10 rooster hen ratio and neglects to attend to the other 9 roosters that go into the grinder for backyard farmers to pat themselves on the back as ethical.) He then has a bunch of stuff about his own hypocrisy as if it's quirky and how the only reason greta thunberg cares enough to take action now is aspergers syndrome. 4. I assumed there'd be ableism from the title and in some ways there's less than other books about these topics which is good. I really do like the usurping of human intelligence as the greatest thing on Earth. But ableism and speciesism are so intertwined that it's all throughout this book. 5. His characterization of the lives of others with less privilege than him ends up being more insulting than i think he realizes.

So, if you're an average white middle class Western person ethically and in regards to animals, you love your dog but just can't bring yourself to stop eating pigs, have a book of the Darwin awards you laugh at, and think that not doing the absolute worst means you're the best you can be, then this book will probably make you feel good about yourself and other animals. If you respect animals even less, maybe this will be a stepping stone. But if you read about these things a lot and have kept up with the research, I'd pass on this one.

[simona.citeste · Rating 4 out of 5]

O carte foarte interesantă despre cogniția animală.

Mi-a plăcut alcătuirea ei, în special paralela făcută între viața și creierul diverselor animale vs. ale noastre.

Noi oamenii credem că suntem buricul pământului și că nici o altă vietate nu este mai presus de noi. Depinde la ce ne raportăm dar pe mine m-a făcut să mă gândesc că nu suntem chiar atât de privilegiați și norocoși.

Ceea ce ne diferențiază pe noi de restul animalelor nu a fost întotdeauna un plus și din exemplele pe care le-am primit în carte pot să spun că mi-am dorit de câteva ori să fac schimb cu alte viețuitoare; și acum sincer, nu au fost dăți în care și tu ți-ai dorit să fii o pisică, un câine sau mai știu eu ce animăluț cu o existență privilegiată?

[Janet · Rating 2 out of 5]

Part of my problem with this book was probably a mismatch of expectations. I thought it was about science, but it is really about philosophy. It is fairly easy to read, and is written in a humorous, informal style. For me, I couldn't get past the reliance on anecdote and opinion and the lack of scientific and scholarly rigor.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lively, highly accessible, informative, and thought-provoking examination of what we mean when we speak of "human intelligence," how the language and concepts we use to frame questions of cognition are frequently misleading, and how animal cognition is far more like ours (and far less costly) than we admit. Rather than repeat what others have said about the book, I direct you to the brilliant and insightful GR review posted by Krista.

Let me share some general observations. Gregg begins with two key points. The first is that the word "intelligence" is largely without meaning: Despite our utter confidence in the exceptionalism of human intelligence, nobody really has a clue as to what intelligence is. That’s not just a glib statement to say that we don’t have a good working definition. I mean that we’re not sure if intelligence even exists as a quantifiable concept… If you want to highlight the slipperiness of intelligence as a concept, just ask an animal behavior researcher to explain why crows are more intelligent than pigeons. You’ll often get an answer from folks like me along the lines of, “Well, you can’t really compare the intelligence of different species like this.” Which is code for “the question doesn’t make sense because nobody knows what the hell intelligence is or how to measure it.”

The second -- the reason for the narwhal in the title -- is this: that for all the great value we assign to "human intelligence," we never ask the question of 'toward what end?': Human cognition and animal cognition are not all that different, but where human cognition is more complex, it does not always produce a better outcome.

There is a paragraph early in the book that captures, I think, where Gregg is coming from: If Nietzsche’s mind had been more narwhal-like—had he not been intelligent enough to ruminate on his impending death—his madness might have been less potent if not entirely absent. That would have not just been better for him, but also for the rest of us. If Nietzsche had been born a narwhal, the world might never have had to endure the horrors of the Second World War or the holocaust—events that, through no fault of his own, Nietzsche helped create.

"If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal" looks at how "intelligence" ("cognition" is a better term, Gregg explains) expresses in both humans and animals -- communication, awareness of time and death, norms and morality, and more. One is repeatedly struck by how similar in form, if not necessarily degree, human and animal cognition are. Yes, animals do demonstrate foresight and planning, the ability to deceive, some kind of awareness of mortality, and even an affinity for getting drunk. Along the way, Gregg explores the evolutionary ignificance such things as

Our ability to lie: As a species, humans are both wired for credulity and for telling lies. It’s that combination of traits — this bizarre mismatch between the human ability to lie and spot lies — that makes us a danger to ourselves. This discussion looks at basic lying, bullshitting, and (inevitably) the growth of disinformation and misinformation in our culture. He calls it "a firehouse of falsehood." (One might wonder if Gregg had in the back of his mind Steve Bannon's infamous and all too prescient observation about politics: “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”)

Consciousness and what philosophers call "the problem of other minds." Do animals "think"? Do they think about themselves? (Surely not as much as humans do.) “Self-awareness and consciousness are not synonymous.”

"Episodic foresight," which is “the ability to mentally project yourself into the future to simulate imagined events and potential outcomes.”

Moral reasoning (not the same thing as norms): Norms, Gregg says, are unspoken rules guiding behavior and are plentiful in both animal and human communities. Moral positions, on the other hand, are “explicitly considered, evaluated, and decided upon by either the individual [or] society/culture.” We speak highly of morality, but should we? Not necessarily, according to Gregg: Human moral reasoning often leads to more death, violence, and destruction than we find in the normative behavior of nonhuman animals. Which is why human morality, as I will argue, kind of sucks.

And then there's what he calls Prognostic Myopia,"the most dangerous flaw in human thinking." Gregg characterizes it as the human capacity to think about and alter the future coupled with an inability to actually care all that much about what happens in the future. Something we see all the time, to our dismay, when thinking about global climate change and environmental degradation. To make his point, he talks about the American infatuation with lawns (“a giant middle finger to the environmental movement”). Nearly twenty percent of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut are covered by lawns. Lawn maintenance accounts for nearly 1/3 of all domestic water use in the US, despite the fact that most of the water never reaches the roots of the grass. Then there are the chemicals we use to make our lawns beautiful, the runoff into rivers and the oceans, the gasoline used to mow the lawns, etc. It's not that we don't know this is bad for the environment and, in the end, very bad for human existence. It's just that we just don't care. That's not how our brains work: "our minds evolved primarily to deal with immediate — not future — outcomes."

There's lots to ponder here. Lots of information, cautions, and arguments for humility, all made engaging by a decidedly informal writing style and the frequent use of humor. For readers (like me) who often find themselves skeptical about using the words "human" and "intelligent" in the same sentence, I suspect you'll find a kindred soul in Justin Gregg. One quibble I have has to do with Gregg's usage of the word "know," as in 'the dog/cat/dolphin/bee knows... Not to get all philosophical, but "knowing" has connotations Gregg might not intend. (Having finished this book, I am tempted to reread Timothy Ferris's similarly focused work, The Mind's Sky: Human Intelligence in a Cosmic Context. I don't remember it very well but I recall that I liked it a lot.)

My thanks to Little, Brown publishers and NetGalley for providing a digital review copy in return for an honest review.

A mostly but not entirely non sequitur postscript: Should you be so inclined, I encourage you to seek out a children's book called "Nothing Rhymes with Orange," by Adam Rex. One of its many delights is the reference to Nietzsche it makes. And yes, although "orange" presents obstacles to rhyme, the name Nietzsche does not. See for yourself. It's really funny for adults and a pleasure to read aloud.

[Sandra Deaconu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Știați că, în 1970, un tip a inventat (deși nu e potrivit termenul) o pietricică, pe care a pus-o pe un strat de paie și a numit-o Pet Rock, câștigând astfel milioane de dolari pe seama celor care o cumpărau și o tratau ca pe un animal de companie? Că oamenii de știință au găsit un posibil tratament pentru stafilococul auriu meticilino-rezistent într-un text medical din secolul al IX-lea? Sau că o pisică a câștigat la bursa de valori? Informații interesante, întrebări pertinente, documentare, cam tot ce trebuie să aibă o carte despre știință. Și un mare bonus pentru dragostea și respectul autorului pentru animale! Recenzia aici: https://shorturl.at/SqJE6.

,,Plăcerea este deopotrivă intrinsec profitabilă pentru creierul care o resimte și biologic profitabilă întrucât stimulează animalele să urmărească scopuri care le sporesc calitățile adaptive. Din perspectivă etică se poate susține că acele comportamente care produc cea mai mare plăcere din lume celui mai mare număr de ființe conștiente sunt cele mai valoroase."

[Bon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think perhaps the narrator's kind of droning voice had me tuning out for periods of this audiobook, but overall some very interesting material and takeaways here.

Chapter four's sharp analysis of normative systems in humanity was revelatory, explaining things from anti-queer rhetoric/action to cases like residential schools in Canada.

There was also discussion of Prognostic Myopia, humanity's inability to see where its progress could lead in a malignant way, as with climate change. Cognitive biases contributing to decision paralysis as we scroll Netflix, or look at a food menu with too many options - that passage really struck me as relatable.

The idea of simple cognition living better...What a mood. Let me be a worm without power bills or petty human drama.

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Entertaining but not very reflective. We are, after all, not narwahls. It did make some mildly interesting statements about the nature of human intelligence, but other works in that vein are far superior.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a little iffy on starting this one, just because I have read many a book on animal intelligence.
However, I would say this book surprised me in that it was much more palatable than I thought it would be.

The central premise is this: the author describes how unique human intelligence is. Then he argues that many of our cerebral gifts are not gifts at all and will lead eventually to the destruction of our species, or at least highlight our less likable side.

Honestly, it's a pretty bold statement for one to make given the pedestal in which we put human intelligence. But I think he does a pretty satisfying job making his point.

The way this book is written is a bit Malcolm Gladwell. He has a lot of interesting anecdotes that prove his points, but seem a bit off the path of your typical animal intelligence book. It's a very casual, colloquial way of narrating.

Among the topics he covers are deceitfulness, violence, and short sighted thinking. He also does a decent job explaining the limits of non-human intelligence WITHOUT the annoying anthropocentric bent of denying or reducing their intelligence that is readily apparent. In other words, I think some biologists do undermine animal intelligence to elevate human intelligence and that isn't even necessary because we KNOW we are unique without having to expand the differences between our species and every other species.

Did I agree with his premise? In some areas, yes. But I do think that Gregg did a disservice by basically ignoring how our intelligence CAN expand our moral circle. For example, adoption is rare outside of human population and so is giving charity to strangers we will never see. A wonder those topics are never addressed.

But yes, I agree that you certainly don't need human intelligence to be 'successful'. I agree that bacteria and insects are 'successful' as well. So teasing those ideas out is an interesting thought experiment.

This was a light and enjoyable read. I would recommend this if you're curious about human or animal intelligence.

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

كان فريدريك فيلهلم نيتشه (1844-1900) يمتلك شاربًا رائعًا وعلاقة غريبة بالحيوانات. من ناحية ، كان يشفق على الحيوانات لأنها ، كما كتب في تأملات في غير وقتها : "تتشبث بالحياة ، بشكل أعمى وبجنون ، بلا هدف آخر ... برغبة حمقاء". كان يعتقد أن الحيوانات تتعثر بالحياة غير مدركة لما تفعله أو لماذا تفعل ذلك. والأسوأ من ذلك ، أنه يعتقد بأنهم يفتقرون إلى الذكاء لتجربة المتعة أو المعاناة بعمق مثلنا كبشر.

إيجاد معنى في المعاناة كانت خدعة نيتشه الكاملة. لكنه أيضًا يحسدهم على عدم قلقهم ، فقد كتب:

"ضع في اعتبارك الماشية ، وهي ترعى أثناء مرورها بك: فهي لا تعرف ما هو المقصود بالأمس أو اليوم ، تقفز وتأكل وتستريح وتهضم وتقفز مرة أخرى ، وهكذا من الصباح حتى الليل ومن النهار إلى النهار ، غير مقيدة للحظة بلطفها أو استيائها ، وبالتالي لا حزن ولا ملل. هذا مشهد يصعب على الإنسان رؤيته ؛ لأنه ، على الرغم من أنه يعتقد بأنه أفضل من الحيوانات لأنه إنسان ، لا يمكنه إلا أن يحسدها على سعادتها."
.
Justin Gregg
If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal
Translated By #Maher_Razouk

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book feels like a bit of an amateurish philosophy book to me. In some ways I feel hesitant to judge people harshly for stepping outside of their lane, since I am not a philosopher and I like to discuss and write about philosophy, but I think it's worth categorizing the quality of philosophy in these kinds of books: this is not one of those books where I go, "Oh wow I had never thought of it that way" or "I didn't understand the arguments he was making", it's more one where I thought, "Hm, it doesn't seem like he's thought this all the way through." It felt like he was doing "philosophy-by-vibes", and unfortunately the vibes he seems to have absorbed are doom-and-gloom mainstream media narratives and a general pessimistic view of humanity.

The main thesis he seems to return to is that "Oh maybe intelligence in humans is bad and humans are bad." for a whole bunch of reasons. To his credit, Gregg does a surprisingly good job at putting together a sort of history of how you would evaluate this kind of question; he points to different moral philosophies that might underlie such a conviction, but at the end of the day I didn't find his arguments compelling — both on the facts and on the moral philosophy.

One example that I found striking was a chapter where he goes into detail about some sort of moral relativism; he tells a story about French soldiers taking Japanese prisoners where the Japanese feel that the only honorable thing is to commit seppuku. The French figure it's better than executing them I guess, but then they are horrified to find the Japanese disemboweling themselves and chopping each others' heads off, so — horrified — the French commute their sentences. I think the point of this story was that different cultures develop their own rules about morality, and it's not necessarily right to impose our own morality on other cultures, but then he pivots to a weird conclusion that when we develop elaborate systems or morality, we get caught up in the details trying to be consistent and end up doing evil. But he fails to ground his idea of "doing evil" anywhere — he acts as if it's a universally recognized concept, even though he just spent half a chapter explaining moral relativism!

Another place that I think his narrative falls short is in his neglect of non-anthropogenic existential threats. It is true that humans might have introduced new existential threats, but I think it is also true that advanced technological societies are the only chance we have to mitigate long-tail existential threats like Gamma Ray Bursts, asteroid strikes, and (long term) the eventual death of our sun. And on the other side of the ledger, you don't need to be smart to accidentally obsolete yourself, as happend with cyanobacteria oxygenating the Earth's atmosphere; the main difference is that we as humans are capable of recognizing this and might be capable of mitigating it. This also neglects the question of Kelly Bets on Civilization — there's some chance we destroy ourselves, but also some chance that we create an absurdly utopian society (even more so than we already have); it's worth at least engaging with this viewpoint.

This book is better than your standard Luddite tract, but I'm still not terribly impressed by the level of philosophy I found in this book.

2.5 of 5 stars

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick and current read. I've actually thought about the premise a lot, for many many years. Goes back to that old joke about aliens not being able to find intelligent life on Earth. Clever does not equal wise, and neither means we'll last as long as other species have done.

I love the organization of the book, too. The first main chapter lays out that we humans are "why specialists" and what does that mean for our ultimate survival. And I'm thinking particularly how we used to be curious, and nowadays too many of us are too passive. I mean, I don't know if I actually agree with Gregg's premise or not, but I am thinking about one immediate bad thing about being passive, about *not* asking why. People are passively taking perspectives given to them by the vocal liars currently running the gov't in the US. And one headline result of parents not asking "why are most kids vaccinated, and why are deadly diseases like measles rare?" is that at least one child has died of measles already.

So, I think there's more going on with the question than Gregg is going to explore in this concise book. It's not just how clever we are in the different ways explored in the respective chapters, but it's also whether we *use* our brains.

We'll see. I'm less than half done with the book atm.
---
Ok done. I will admit Chapter 5, on consciousness, was a bit difficult to understand. But it didn't matter. And when you get to Chapter 6, if you've ever set a goal or resolution you'll know exactly what he's talking about and be ready for the epilogue, which all by itself is well worth reading.

Is there a grand conclusion? No, not really. Yes, Gregg and I agree that there's a fair chance we'll go extinct in the next hundred years or so. Meaning we'll have been around just long enough to screw up the ecosystem for everything else. But basically his conclusion is that we just have to carry on doing the best we can to at least love our children.

Well anyway, you should read his own words. Here are some of them:

" grief... is not synonymous with an understanding of death."

" while same-sex attraction is not unique to humans, homophobia is."

"Human moral reasoning might be a bug and not a feature - an evolutionary spandrel that cropped up as our unique cognitive skills blossomed, but not itself a trait that natural selection selected for. Humans might currently be succeeding as a species not because of, but despite, our moral aptitude. We have taken this universal normative system that governs and constrains social behavior for most animals to weird extremes. Animals, with their less sophisticated normative systems, are the ones living the good life."

"Because octopus arms operate autonomously, ... information possibly stays in her arm for processing and might never make it to her central brain."

A dog named Denver,has a YouTube video in which he looks guilty. But apparently, his behavior is actually "what submissive body language looks like in dogs, and... Denver's behavior can be elicited from any dog when in the presence of a confrontational owner regardless of whether they did something wrong."

" metacognition... is the bedrock of human thinking. We clearly have conscious awareness of our metacognition, which inspires us to pinpoint gaps and problems in our thinking and seek out solutions using all the other cognitive abilities at our disposal. We use math and language to consciously organize our thoughts, and thanks to our capacity for causal inference and episodic foresight, we can imagine infinite solutions to the problems we face." (Again, I'd argue that only some of do this. Too many of us passively take the easy way out of just doing what their idols tell them to, etc.)

I do like the chapter on "prognostic myopia." I'm going to try to use operant conditioning on myself when I next set a new goal. After all, it worked for Gregg and his tween girl when she needed a bit of help to not be so whiny. (To be clear, he sat down with her, explained what operant conditioning was, and got her permission; he wasn't manipulative. And the 'bribe' was a single piece of cheesy popcorn, nothing more significant.)

Perhaps the most conclusive statement that Gregg makes is the following: "Human cognition and animal cognition are not all that different, but where human cognition is more complex, it does not always produce a better outcome."

But I only gave you a sample of the book. I do recommend it. I'm going to look for more by him, and also look up some of books from which he quoted.

The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals
How Animals Grieve
Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars rounded up to 4, because, while there was nothing super exciting to find here, there was also nothing objectionable. I'm assuming this book will be mostly preaching to the choir, as I'd guess most of the the people who pick this up are already pretty underwhelmed by theories of human exceptionalism. It was fun for me to read this fairly shortly after reading When We Cease To Understand the World. Although they are very different books in almost every way, including non fiction versus a blending of non fiction and fiction, and a matter of fact conversational tone versus an edgy, almost poetic sensibility, there was a nice thematic overlap.

[Briana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I typically cringe when I read books that are marked as philosophy, especially philosophy that is not by a classic philosopher. However, I’ve been interested in giving contemporary books a chance even though so many are self-help cash grabs or a-holes screaming into a void. Coming across If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity by Justin Gregg made me fascinated immediately because of the title alone. I had a great time with this one, it’s as simple as that.

Justin Gregg is a senior research associate with the Dolphin Communication Project and a self-proclaimed animal empath. He asks questions about human exceptionalism and what is the value of human intelligence. I’m of the belief that humans don’t add much of anything to benefit the greater good of the biological structure of Earth. That’s not to say that great human feats should go ignored and unappreciated but the human race at large could learn more from animals. This book kind of reaffirms my initial thoughts. I enjoy books that challenge my way of thinking or those that make me more informed and this book totally did that.

In my daily life, I don’t ask questions about animal intelligence and how it’s the same and differs from human intelligence. I was interested in some of the arguments presented in this book. Are humans as fascinating and smart as we think we are? Even when we look at the projected impacts of climate catastrophe, people think that the whole world will end when really the natural world will keep going as normal.

This is a relatively short book of 7 chapters with ranging topics like lying, knowing the future, human morality, exceptionalism, and our ability to be far-sighted. We read about animal consciousness and the different ways humans and animals learn. I appreciate the excitement when talking about animals and I enjoy the way that it makes me want to tell other people about this book.

More importantly, I found this read to be thought-provoking, engaging, entertaining, and funny. I didn’t feel like I was being preached to. Justin Gregg ruminates on the consequences of human behaviors and exceptionalism in a way that I think is important to think about moving forward. With that being said, this is highly accessible and doesn’t alienate people who have different viewpoints or less education. Anyone can get into this whether they’re well-versed in philosophy or not!

[Христо Блажев · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ако Ницше беше нарвал, щеше да е намусен кит (примерно): http://knigolandia.info/book-review/a...

Тази книга е посветена на проблемите на интелекта, на въпроса дали той е нещо хубаво или лошо.

И допълва: “Това е реалност, в която Земята гъмжи от животински видове, намерили такива удачни решения как да живеят по-добре, че да ни засрамят.” И в тази си част книгата определено е интересна, Грег описва множество куриозни факти от света на животните, като например успехите на един котарак във вземането на решения за инвестиции или как гълъби могат да бъдат обучени да откриват ракови образувания по снимки. Той проследява и как трябва да се предпазваме от залъгващ антропоморфизъм – да влагаме в разбирането си за действията на животните човешки черти и да им вменяваме характерни за нас чувства или действия. Авторът се спуска в еволюционна разходка из развитието на хората, обърща внимание на уникални за нас способности, като например причинно-следственото мислене, което според него не винаги е от полза за развитието на човека, защото води до вземане на погрешни решения.

Издателство Обсидиан
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/a...

[Irene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic. Gregg does a beautiful job of pointing out all the ways we think we’re very smart when we are, in fact, sadly deluded.

This shouldn’t be news, but it turns out that thinking about things is sometimes worse. Like when entire groups of people manage to rationalise genocide for the good of the species. It’s a big downside.

We have created very complicated lives for ourselves, and our brains like shortcuts. This also has interesting consequences, like the disparities in the percentage of population in different countries that are organ donors depending on whether people are asked to opt in or out of it. It seems like the option that doesn’t require checking a box is overwhelmingly the one we pick, regardless of the enormity of the question. And this isn’t even half of what this book goes into. Strongly recommended!

[Gabe Olivo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview of what we know about both animal and human cognition. Gregg does a good job of balancing anecdotes with research to back it up. For the most part, he avoids making sweeping claims that require significant leaps from the actual information he presents, though I think he kind of loses that thread towards the end (naturally as he’s attempting to wrap up his work in a coherent conclusion).

“Humans have the power to create a life of pleasure maximization for chickens. But we typically use that power to create far more misery for them than you would find for an “average” chicken living in the wild”

[Priya · Rating 4 out of 5]

The quirky title was what drew me to this book and it turned out to be a fascinating read, full of cool facts about animal intelligence that question the assertion that humans are at the top of the pecking order because we have evolved to have superior intellect, better cognition and more consciousness than all other species.

While there is no doubt that the human intellect has produced lots of wonders like works of art, technological innovations, medical advances and more importantly, the ability to derive pleasure for ourselves and others from these achievements, the counter argument presented here is that these very abilities are paradoxically also responsible for the ruin of the world that we share with so many other non human inhabitants.

The greatest advantage that we possess, language, helps us express ourselves and our ideas about an infinite number of subjects. It also leads to lying, deception and propaganda that leads to horrific events like the Holocaust and the residential schools that separated indigenous children from their parents in Canada to give just two examples. Violence in the name of religion and differing ideologies is something we are very familiar with; violence instigated by humans with the very same cognition and language that set us apart! Animals on the other hand do not possess language skills but that means they do not practice intentional deception either. Even though they may mimic objects or other more dangerous animals in appearance to save themselves from predators, this is not done with the explicit knowledge that they are being conniving. For example, stick bugs that resemble twigs, drone flies that look like honeybees even though they do not have a stinger.

A look at such varied species like cuttlefish and plover birds and chimpanzees and bonobos in comparison to humans on the basis of death wisdom(what do they know about death and what do they feel), the all important morality question and the act of self preservation tells us that animals may actually be faring better precisely because they are not as intelligent or not intelligent in the same way as humans. I loved all the examples from the animal kingdom that the author used to illustrate his ideas and these were extremely informative too.

While it may be bleak to consider that we are using our strongest asset, our minds, to work towards destroying ourselves by not having a long term view, the consolation is that we have proven that we also have the wherewithal to recognise this about ourselves and begin to put corrective measures in place.

One thing that reading this book has taught me is a new way of looking at all the other living beings I share this earth with. They don't have the existential angst that plagued Nietzsche( whose writing was used by his sister without his knowledge or permission to propagate Nazi ideals)nor can they appreciate Beethoven or the Mona Lisa but their way of life may be better in lots of ways that I had not thought of before! The question of whether Nietzsche might have been better off as a narwhal, the marine mammal that does not in any way engage in the profound contemplation that ruined him, is certainly one to ponder!

This is comparative biology at its best and written in a very entertaining way too. I certainly enjoyed reading Science presented in this way.

[Sara Krajczyńska · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wartościowa pozycja, napisana zrozumiałym i przystępnym językiem. Autor rzetelnie opisał i wyjaśniał zjawiska, pojęcia i problemy, przy czym dając czytelnikowi czas na refleksje, zostawiając wiele niewyjaśnionych tematów podlegających dyskusji.

⭐️4.5 Zmieniła ona moje zdanie na kilka tematów.
Świat byłby piękniejszy gdyby każdy ją przeczytał!

[Dana Schroeder · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were times where it appeared the author was getting paid by the word count.... it felt very labored and repetitive in some sections. Overall I liked the thoughts and ideas, but some sections were very drawn out.

[Rae Nason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to say, this book really wasn't what I expected. But I enjoyed it immensely. Mr. Gregg did his research impeccably and the book read more like a conversation with a friend than a piece of science based literature. I found myself pondering things that I really hadn't given much though to in the past and I was curious to read further. I laughed through most of it. I also really appreciated how succinct and thorough the author was with explaining concepts that a lay-person might not have heard of before without making them overly complicated. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in psychology or behavioral science or zoology.

Thank you to NetGalley and Little, Brown, and Company for providing me with a digital copy for review. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect those of the author or publisher.

[Regan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Packed with fun anecdotes and trivia about animal and human behavior and consciousness—I’m really coming away feeling like I’ve learned so much—but I don’t know that I always bought the author’s overarching “animals vs humans” comparisons and conclusions that would come at the end of each chapter and bring us back to the book’s thesis (along the lines of maybe animals truly are better off because they could never build an atomic bomb xyz). But! The final chapter was intriguing and we ended on a good note. I’ve brought this book up to so many people since reading it—a very solid 4 stars.

[Doctor Moss · Rating 4 out of 5]

A couple of my favorite questions! How do human and (non-human) animal intelligence compare? Is human intelligence truly an advantage, either in terms of our ability to live ‘better” lives or in terms of evolutionary success?

The title refers to Nietzsche’s remarks, spread throughout his works, about the peculiarity of the human condition by contrast with other animals, that humans are the only animals who must decide what to be and how to live. Other animals, e.g., narwhals, have a “nature” that gives them answers to these questions, but humans have to collectively or individually come up with their own.

Gregg, not to give anything away since he says this on page 6, favors the other animals : “The absurdity of a narwhal experiencing an existential crisis is the key to understanding everything that is wrong about human thinking, and everything that is right about animal thinking.”

The problem with humans is exactly the thing that we believe to be our advantage — our flexible, analytical, generalized, wide-ranging, free-flowing intelligence.

Gregg starts with one attribute. We are, he says, “why specialists.” We are always asking why something is the way it is or works the way it does. “Why” questions lead us to cause and effect thinking, which leads us to the ability to understand the workings of the world and its regularities and even to invent new cause and effect chains, in technology.

Great. That gives us fire. It gives us the wheel. It gives us electricity. It gives us automobiles. It gives us guns. It gives us nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

It gives us . . . . hey, wait a minute. It gives us the ability to amplify violence to truly impressive and horrifying scales. It gives us the ability to alter our environment in ways that could destroy our species, and take a lot of other ones down for good measure.

Gregg calls this the “exceptionalism parados” — “It’s the idea that even though humans are indeed exceptional when it comes to our cognition, it does not mean we are better at the game of life than other animals. In fact, because of this paradox, humans might be a less successful species , precisely because of our amazing, complex intelligence.”

Humans are newcomers to the evolutionary stage. Gregg mentions some far more tried and true species and types of life — bacteria and crocodiles (or “crocodilians” more generally). These have stood the test of millions and even billions of years of evolutionary challenges. Modern humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. We are an experiment in progress, and there’s good reason to suppose we will fail.

I’m not sure about Gregg’s “game of life” metaphor in the quote above, although I think that’s kind of a quibble with respect to the larger point he is making. Is there a game of life? Are we playing the same game that bacteria and crocodiles are playing?

I’m certainly not sure that we are, that, rather, bacteria, crocodiles, and humans are playing their own games of life with different criteria of success and value.
(By the way, I suspect that Nietzsche would think the same way.)

But like I said, none of that mitigates the damage that human intelligence and human activity have done to the remainder of life on earth, and the potential for damage far outweighing what we’ve already seen in extinctions, loss of habitats, etc.

At times, it feels like we are a Chiczulub meteor strike happening in slow motion.

Gregg’s attention is pretty much focused on evolutionary success, but I think Nietzsche had another aspect of human nature in mind — the quality of our lives, not just our evolutionary fate.

As Gregg said, the idea of a narwhal experiencing an existential crisis is absurd. That again is Nietzsche’s point that narwhals and other animals don’t need to make decisions about how to live, what life is best for them, what they want to be . . .

For Nietzsche, that “crisis” is a challenge, a challenge to create, to create the lives that we live and the values we live for. But it is also a crisis — even a “sickness” in his terms. It’s a challenge that we can fail at, and that also produces suffering.

Other animals certainly suffer, but the quality is different. Certainly to Nietzsche, our lives are built around that challenge and the struggles that go with it.

Is that a better life than the life of another animal, one who certainly may have challenges and struggles, just of a different type?

Coming back to Gregg, the book really does narrow down to problems associated with an intelligence that seemingly runs away with itself, one that creates environmental crises, wars, and violence against ourselves and others. That’s his message, and the question he’s posing, can we tame our intelligence?

His answer is pessimistic, and he has reason to be pessimistic. Our record isn’t good.

He also offers sobering reminders that humanity is limited in any case. Earth has a lifetime, the Sun has a lifetime. It will end sometime. The question is whether or not we will do ourselves in (and others around us) first.

[Carolina · Rating 2 out of 5]

This guy sets up such a strange question about whether human intelligence is a "good thing" or not, then spends the last quarter of the book bending over backwards to defend his ultimate judgment that it's more-or-less bad for us and the planet at-large (i.e. harmful, destructive, suffering-inducing) even though no one asked him to do that because a) it's not a meaningful question, b) it's impossible to answer, and c) what utility is there in claiming that intelligence is a net negative? How can anybody seriously conclude that the reality we live in is worse than a hypothetical world in which humans didn't evolve to communicate with language, understand theory of mind, conceptualize death, etc.? There's no sense at all in speculating as to how much "better-off" humans would be if we didn’t have this huge host of complex cognitive abilities because there would be no book to read or creature capable of reading it. It’s so confusingly reductive to me that half the time I couldn’t focus on the actually interesting information presented because Gregg constantly brings it back to this question of “so who’s really more successful/happier - humans or animals?” I’m probably being overly literal, but it’s difficult for me to get on board with a guy who's asking me to think of how much nicer the world would be if I didn’t have higher order cognition, in a world where I can only consider that hypothetical because I have higher order cognition. I feel like the author thinks people are too stupid (intelligent?) to notice the obvious paradox here. Anything useful he has to say is obscured by this weird forced argument (and not even getting into his apparent misanthropy).

Also, writing "Nietzsche embraced suffering as a path to meaning [...] In the end, Nietzsche would have been better off as a narwhal" non-ironically is absolutely wild!!!

[Laura Bone · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

This was an insightful, entertaining, informative, (and at times depressing) read.

I have a psychology and animal behavior background, so many of the mentioned scientific studies and references I had seen before. However, I enjoyed the way he synthesized the data to support his argument. Gregg made a lot of thought provoking points that can really make a person question both human and non-human animal "intelligence." He also loves to point out when our "cognitive advances" have actually set our species behind, or on the wrong track. I also enjoyed how he mentions our "exceptionalism," without lending it any qualitatively special place above other species. And in fact, our so called "exceptionalism," may actually be the downfall of our species. Gregg was not afraid to talk about human stupidity and remind the reader that humans are not inherently "better" than any other species.

A few of my favorite chapters were as follows:
To be honest: The Power and Pitfalls of Lying
The Gay Albatross Around Our Necks: The Problem with Human Morality
The Mystery of the Happy Bee: It's Time to Talk about the "C" word