Should we continue understanding cetaceans and elephants as “animals” ?

The problem doesn’t root itself in biology : we are, obviously, all “animals” from a plain biological point of view - but is a social and conceptual one. Simply put, the current use of this notion in our societies and organisations devoted to the protection of non-humans is one where “animals” are by definition understood as usable and disposable property by humans, particularly states and companies, and as cut from any social and political reality. Non-humans are understood as goods, which can be traded and handled under a market logic, and while laws exist to regulate such trade, they are here precisely to minimize the impact of such politics, rather than stopping or disrupting it. 

Here again, the issue is far less a simple conceptual one - the problem isn’t that the term isn’t politically correct or moral - but that its current use implies and is linked to a stream of decisions and actions which clearly go against their autonomy as a people. Cetaceans and elephants alike are ruthlessly destroyed, captured and managed. Aside from the well known fate of captive cetaceans and
elephants worldwide, “free” populations are the subject of human pressures, and in particular elephant populations worldwide - as well as some coastal cetacean populations - are the subject of invasive management by national parks or research and conservation agencies, which include, for elephants, culling, hunting and captures for the captive industry, and for cetaceans, invasive tagging, marking, biopsies, captures for weighing, harassment, and near-systemic euthanasia of stranded individuals. Many “free” elephant populations worldwide are factually captives, particularly in southern African national parks and game reserves. Their spaces continue to be understood as a “wilderness”, meaning a disposable, usable space by humans, rather than as a socially and politically mediated areas used and modified by cetaceans or elephants, which should be recognized by states as integrally belonging to them. 

As such, we cannot continue to understand cetacean and elephants ; and arguably other species at a certain extent, such as great apes, as “animals”, simply because the kind of relation we’re ought to have with them imply consequences which directly contradict our traditional understanding of what an “animal” is. Unless we completely overturn our understanding of the term ; using it for instance to fully include us and all other species in a flat, horizontal network of relations, without a priori hierarchies and relations of property ; the notion cannot but be deemed as harmful in the current context. An activism which truly seeks the rightful autonomy and equality of these species cannot abide for such a notion and its corollaries without bumping into serious contradictions. 

This doesn’t mean obviously that the current understanding of “animals” in their globality is right. Sapiency or not, the current understanding of other species as usable and disposable property to be handled and destroyed at will is difficulty justifiable. One would be foolish to “include” some species into a very closed club of sapiency and then continue to understand a “mass” of non-human species as disposable and usable property as we traditionally did for centuries, ignoring everything these perceptions of non-humans brings in terms of suffering and destruction. For instance, continuing understanding the preys cetaceans hunt (say, mullets or flounders) as simple “resources” under a market logic, without any consideration for what they may feel or live through. Nonetheless, if the notion constitutes a clear issue in any case for any species, its use for what clearly are people or at the very least species with a degree of awareness and insight close to ours is even less understandable and justifiable.

In the same way, context forces us to admit that, for instance, the problem of feeding cetaceans, fishing with and for cetaceans, or the destruction and robbing of the preys cetaceans hunt is an issue of property and theft at a certain degree. The idea of having law understood the preys cetacean hunt as their “property” and “resources”, even loosely, isn’t necessarily a wrong, although it is clear that the notion of property and resources in the west are extremely different from the one of traditional indigenous people and obey to a market logic which is far from the way cetaceans undoubtedly understand the issue. It is arguable that the very concept of property and resource must be destroyed precisely so the preys cetaceans hunt won’t be understood as usable and disposable at will by humans anymore. 

As such, it could for instance be beneficial for cetaceans and elephants for their spaces and “resources” they use to be understood under the very rules and concepts they use. It is easily arguable that if those species possess an understanding of some spaces and elements as « theirs » such an understanding of ownership is far more fluid and complex than in ours, and comparable to what we find in many indigenous and/or nomadic populations, where certain goods and spaces are generally understood as shareable to certain degree.

The principle behind the device

Toothed cetaceans such as dolphins hear and communicate between roughly 5khz to sometimes up to 160khz or more. On the other hand, humans can only hear up to 20khz. This means that communication between humans and cetaceans is in practice extremely difficult if not impossible because of this gap, or at least a pipedream without an eager will from both ends to close that gap.

The idea brought by Russell Hockins is to create a radio-like device capable of taking what we say between the 0-20khz range, and extrapolating it at a higher frequency with a similar range, for instance between 60khz and 80khz, 70khz and 90khz, and so on, depending on the preferences of the other end. This also means that the interlocutors - which usually communicate in quite large ranges, need to adapt their speech to the quite narrow range used by humans before speaking. This idea wasn’t initially created by Russel but rather took the principle from previous existing devices or attempts, particularly radio like systems used by the military for communication between divers or submarines, such as the UQC. 

It is possible if not probable that cetaceans, in order to accomplish this feat, will simultaneously speak and emit a lower frequency sound which will effectively mix both, generating something which could be heard in our range. Russel hypothesize that, in the long term, cetaceans may learn how to use such a process in order to effectively be understandable without the use of a device, making the last obsolete.

The idea could also be extrapolated to elephant and baleen whales, which on the other hand communicate with infrasounds, meaning far below our audible range and on the hertz level. This would involve a simpler process of frequency dropping, meaning that whatever will say will be and sound way lower to them, and everything they say could be heightened to have a higher pitch similar to how we speak. This would involve bigger devices with subwoofer-like megaphones and a microphone capable of receiving extremely low frequencies. In their case, though, devices may be necessary at all times, as they cannot mix sounds like toothed cetaceans can. On the other hand, two cases of captive elephants ; one in Kazakhstan and another in South Korea ; suggest that the last may learn to speak at our level by blowing in their trunk and releasing the trapped air as a modulated sound, effectively imitating our speech. 

Also see :

https://www.kintocetaceans.org/human-cetacean-communications.html