Some of his quotes, source Wikipedia:
"To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental, about both animals and us."
"In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much, even though they're large carnivores."
Well, that was a good reason why we initially liked them, but the last few millennia of genetic modification through selective breeding to alter their behavior and appearance for our benefit hasn't hurt either...
That is, they are probably good evidence for some emotions in animals, but fairly useless in their current incarnation as to whether it was naturally occurring. Interestingly, it's entirely possible (and likely, IMO) that they exhibited some of this behavior originally due to their social nature, and this is what causes humans to start the process of domestication in the first place (not that it was likely a decision like that).
What's really interesting is how quickly changes, both behavioral and physical happen during domestication (and how quickly domestication works, possibly on the order of a decade or so)[1].
Years ago I had a lurcher, raised from a pup. One day I noticed that if you spoke to him in a stern manner - even if he had done absolutely nothing wrong he would hang his head low and look up at you, and put his tail between his legs as if he was guilty of something bad and wanted to look contrite.
It seems to me that it may be a long ago learned, now instinctive, behaviour to react that way to a particular tone of human voice.
On that note, I'll leave you with this, which is wonderful: https://www.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/4rkdit/text_we_didnt_s...
It's also very easy to assume humans are more special than we actually are.
People just forget or don't know that the same spark that powers our physical bodies also powers the physical bodies of other living things.
I think that we also very easily 'anthropomorphize' human behavior; that is to say that we superimpose our own assumptions onto other people's behaviour.
We are animals too, and the rational part is only a thin, recent addition to our brains.
I believe many animals are just as intelligent as us in their own way.
It is also easy to assume that an animal's internal life is dumb and uninteresting.
When a certain type of great cat kills, say, an antelope, it will look around carefully. Humans first describing this behavior assumed the cats were feeling guilty for killing and wanted to check if there were any "witnesses".
Nowadays, this behavior is interpreted as checking for hyenas, who like to snatch away prey from other predators.
I would not consider this behavior dumb or uninteresting, but it is - probably - for a different reason than a human observer might naively assume.
Being aware that animals might do things for different reasons than humans is not dismissing the animal's motives, it can be a key to understanding its behavior. It is not at all the same as assuming an animal's internal life is dumb and uninteresting, at least I do not think the GP wanted to imply that.
With slightly less snark, altruism and other noble sentiments in humans are also likely due to genetics and learned behavior.
i thought it was Aquaman. the dolphins are his deputies.
Part of me says it is highly unlikely that Humpback whales have a vendetta against killer whales and are the policeman of the oceans, but the bigger part of me, wants to believe that they are exactly that!