I was born in Den Bosch, where the painter Hieronymus Bosch named himself after. And I've always been very fond of this painter who lived and worked in the 15th century. And what is interesting about him in relation to morality is that he lived at a time where religion's influence was waning, and he was sort of wondering, I think, what would happen with society if there was no religion or if there was less religion. And so he painted this famous painting, "The Garden of Earthly Delights," which some have interpreted as being humanity before the Fall, or being humanity without any Fall at all. And so it makes you wonder, what would happen if we hadn't tasted the fruit of knowledge, so to speak, and what kind of morality would we have.
Rodil sem se v mestu Den Bosch po katerem se je poimenoval slikar Hieronymus Bosch. Zato mi je bil ta slikar, ki je živel in deloval v 15. stoletju, zelo pri srcu. Pri njem mi je v povezavi z moralnostjo še posebej zanimivo, da je živel v času pojemanja vpliva vere in se je najbrž spraševal, kaj bi se z družbo zgodilo, če religije ne bi bilo ali če bi je bilo manj. Zato je naslikal znameniti "Vrt zemeljskih naslad," v katerem so nekateri videli človeštvo pred Propadom ali človeštvo brez vsakršnega Propada. Zato se včasih zamisliš, kaj bi se zgodilo, če tako rekoč ne bi nikoli okusili sadeža znanja, in kakšno moralo bi potem imeli?
Much later, as a student, I went to a very different garden, a zoological garden in Arnhem where we keep chimpanzees. This is me at an early age with a baby chimpanzee.
Mnogo kasneje sem kot študent obiskal zelo drugačen vrt. Bil je živalski vrt v Arnhemu, kjer skrbimo za šimpanze. Tukaj me lahko vidite v mladih letih skupaj z majhnim šimpanzom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And I discovered there that the chimpanzees are very power-hungry and wrote a book about it. And at that time the focus in a lot of animal research was on aggression and competition. I painted a whole picture of the animal kingdom and humanity included, was that deep down we are competitors, we are aggressive, we are all out for our own profit, basically. This is the launch of my book. I'm not sure how well the chimpanzees read it, but they surely seemed interested in the book.
Tam sem ugotovil, da so šimpanzi zelo oblastiželjni in sem o tem tudi napisal knjigo. Takrat so se raziskave o živalih močno osredotočale na agresijo in tekmovalnost. Celotna slika, ki sem si jo narisal o živalskem kraljestvu, vključno s človeštvom, je prikazovala, da smo globoko v sebi tekmeci. Agresivni smo, vedno iščemo priložnost, da bi se okoristili. To je izdaja moje knjige. Nisem prepričan, kako je šimpanzom šlo pri branju, vendar izgleda, da jim je bila knjiga zelo zanimiva.
(Laughter)
Med raziskovanjem
Now in the process of doing all this work on power and dominance and aggression and so on, I discovered that chimpanzees reconcile after fights. And so what you see here is two males who have had a fight. They ended up in a tree, and one of them holds out a hand to the other. And about a second after I took the picture, they came together in the fork of the tree and kissed and embraced each other.
moči, dominance in agresije in tako dalje, sem opazil, da se šimpanzi po prepirih pobotajo. Tukaj lahko vidite dva samca po prepiru. Končala sta na drevesu in eden od njiju ima k drugemu iztegnjeno roko. Takoj zatem, ko sem naredil posnetek, sta se srečala pri razcepu drevesa, nakar sta se poljubila in objela. To je zelo zanimivo,
And this is very interesting because at the time, everything was about competition and aggression, so it wouldn't make any sense. The only thing that matters is that you win or you lose. But why reconcile after a fight? That doesn't make any sense. This is the way bonobos do it. Bonobos do everything with sex. And so they also reconcile with sex. But the principle is exactly the same. The principle is that you have a valuable relationship that is damaged by conflict, so you need to do something about it. So my whole picture of the animal kingdom, and including humans also, started to change at that time.
ker se je takrat vse vrtelo okrog tekmovalnosti in agresije in kaj takšnega ni bilo preveč smiselno. Pomembno je le ali zmagaš ali zgubiš. Toda zakaj bi se po prepiru zopet spoprijateljil? To je popolnoma sprto z logiko. Tako to počnejo bonobi, ki vse dosežejo prek seksa. Zato se tudi spoprijateljijo s seksom. Toda princip ostane enak. Po principu imamo pomembno razmerje, ki ga poškoduje konflikt, in moraš glede tega nekaj storiti. Takrat se je začela moja celotna slika živalskega kraljestva in človeštva začela spreminjati.
So we have this image in political science, economics, the humanities, the philosophy for that matter, that man is a wolf to man. And so deep down, our nature is actually nasty. I think it's a very unfair image for the wolf. The wolf is, after all, a very cooperative animal. And that's why many of you have a dog at home, which has all these characteristics also. And it's really unfair to humanity, because humanity is actually much more cooperative and empathic than given credit for. So I started getting interested in those issues and studying that in other animals.
Tako imamo znotraj politologije, ekonomije, družboslovja in filozofije to idejo, da je človek človeku volk. Zato je globoko v nas naša narava prav nizkotna. Sem mnenja, da je to precej nepošteno do volka. Volk je navsezadnje zelo sodelovalna žival. Zato imate tudi mnogi doma psa, ki ima zelo podobne lastnosti. Je pa tudi zelo nepošteno do človeštva, ker je človeštvo veliko bolj sodelovalno in sočutno kot želimo priznati. Zato sem se začel zanimati za te zadeve in sem jih začel raziskovati pri drugih živalih.
So these are the pillars of morality. If you ask anyone, "What is morality based on?" these are the two factors that always come out. One is reciprocity, and associated with it is a sense of justice and a sense of fairness. And the other one is empathy and compassion. And human morality is more than this, but if you would remove these two pillars, there would be not much remaining, I think. So they're absolutely essential.
To sta stebra morale. Če bi nekoga vprašali: "Na čem temelji morala?", bi vedno na koncu prišli do teh dveh dejavnikov. Eden je vzajemnost, ki ga povezujemo z občutkom za pravico in občutkom za pravičnost. Drugi dejavnik pa je empatija in sočutje. Človeška moralnost je veliko več kot to. Toda če bi ta dva stebra odstranili, se mi zdi, da ne bi ostalo prav veliko. Zato sta bistvenega pomena.
So let me give you a few examples here. This is a very old video from the Yerkes Primate Center, where they trained chimpanzees to cooperate. So this is already about a hundred years ago that we were doing experiments on cooperation. What you have here is two young chimpanzees who have a box, and the box is too heavy for one chimp to pull in. And of course, there's food on the box. Otherwise they wouldn't be pulling so hard. And so they're bringing in the box. And you can see that they're synchronized. You can see that they work together, they pull at the same moment. It's already a big advance over many other animals who wouldn't be able to do that. Now you're going to get a more interesting picture, because now one of the two chimps has been fed. So one of the two is not really interested in the task anymore.
Naj vam dam par primerov. To je zelo star posnetek raziskovalnega centra Yerkes Primate Center, kjer učijo šimpanze sodelovanja. Torej smo že pred skoraj sto leti izvajali poskuse o sodelovanju. Tukaj imamo dva mlada šimpanza in škatlo, ki je pretežka, da bi jo lahko k sebi potegnil en sam šimpanz. Seveda je na škatli hrana, drugače se ne bi tako zelo trudila. In tako vlečeta škatlo k sebi. Kot lahko vidite, sta sinhronizirana. Vidite lahko tudi, da sodelujeta in vlečeta istočasno. Že to je velik nepredek pred drugimi živalskimi vrstami, ki tega niso zmožne. Zdaj pa boste videli nekaj še bolj zanimivega, ker je eden od šimpanzov že bil nahranjen. Enemu od njiju zato naloga ni več tako pomembna.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
[- and sometimes appears to convey its wishes and meanings by gestures.] Now look at what happens at the very end of this.
Poglejte, kaj se zgodi na koncu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
He takes basically everything.
Pojé enostavno vse.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
There are two interesting parts about this. One is that the chimp on the right has a full understanding he needs the partner -- so a full understanding of the need for cooperation. The second one is that the partner is willing to work even though he's not interested in the food. Why would that be? Well, that probably has to do with reciprocity. There's actually a lot of evidence in primates and other animals that they return favors. He will get a return favor at some point in the future. And so that's how this all operates.
Ta prizor lahko razdelimo na dva dela. Prvi je ta, da se šimpanz na desni popolnoma zaveda, da potrebuje partnerja -- torej zavedanje potrebe po sodelovanju. Drugi del pa je, da je partner pripravljen pomagati, čeprav ga hrana ne zanima. Zakaj je to tako? Najverjetneje gre za vzajemnost. Imamo že veliko dokazov, da si primati in ostale živali vračajo usluge. Torej bo njemu usluga nekoč v prihodnosti tudi povrnjena. In tako vse to deluje.
We do the same task with elephants. Now, it's very dangerous to work with elephants. Another problem with elephants is that you cannot make an apparatus that is too heavy for a single elephant. Now you can probably make it, but it's going to be a pretty clumsy apparatus, I think. And so what we did in that case -- we do these studies in Thailand for Josh Plotnik -- is we have an apparatus around which there is a rope, a single rope. And if you pull on this side of the rope, the rope disappears on the other side. So two elephants need to pick it up at exactly the same time, and pull. Otherwise nothing is going to happen and the rope disappears.
Enako nalogo smo dali slonom. Delo s sloni je lahko zelo nevarno. Drug problem pri slonih pa je, da ni možno narediti naprave, ki bi bila za enega slona pretežka. No, najbrž jo je možno narediti, ampak se mi zdi, da naprava ne bi bila zelo stabilna. Zato smo v tem primeru -- te študije opravljamo na Tajskem z Joshem Plotnikom -- sestavili smo napravo, okrog katere je navita ena sama vrv. Če vrv potegneš na enem koncu, bo konec na drugi strani izginil. Zato jo morata slona zagrabiti ob istem času in jo potegniti k sebi skupaj. Drugače se ne bi zgodilo nič in bi vrv izginila.
The first tape you're going to see is two elephants who are released together arrive at the apparatus. The apparatus is on the left, with food on it. And so they come together, they arrive together, they pick it up together, and they pull together. So it's actually fairly simple for them. There they are. So that's how they bring it in. But now we're going to make it more difficult. Because the purpose of this experiment is to see how well they understand cooperation. Do they understand that as well as the chimps, for example?
Na prvem posnetku boste videli dva slona, ki smo ju spustili istočasno in se približata napravi. Naprava je na levi strani in na njej je hrana. Tako odideta skupaj, skupaj prispeta, skupaj vrv dvigneta in jo skupaj potegneta. To je zanju v bistvu precej enostavno. Tukaj ju imamo. In tako jo potegneta k sebi. Zdaj pa bomo dvignili zahtevnost. Celoten namen poskusa je odkriti, do kolikšne mere sta sposobna razumevati sodelovanje. Torej, ali sta na primer zmožna istega razumevanja kot šimpanzi?
What we do in the next step is we release one elephant before the other and that elephant needs to be smart enough to stay there and wait and not pull at the rope -- because if he pulls at the rope, it disappears and the whole test is over. Now this elephant does something illegal that we did not teach it. But it shows the understanding he has, because he puts his big foot on the rope, stands on the rope and waits there for the other, and then the other is going to do all the work for him. So it's what we call freeloading.
Zato smo v naslednjem koraku spustili prvo enega in potem drugega slona. Prvi slon mora biti dovolj pameten, da se bo ustavil, počakal in ne bo potegnil vrvi -- če vrv potegne, bo ta izginila in se test s tem konča. Toda ta slon krši pravila igre, nekaj kar ga nismo naučili. Vendar pokaže, da se je nečesa le naučil, saj s svojo veliko nogo stopi na vrv, na njej stoji in počaka na drugega slona. Tako bo drugi slon opravil vso delo namesto njega. Tako rekoč živi na njegov račun.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But it shows the intelligence that the elephants have. They developed several of these alternative techniques that we did not approve of, necessarily.
Vendar vseeno pokaže, kako inteligentni so sloni. Zmožni so razviti te dodatne spretnosti, ki jih načeloma nismo dovolili.
(Laughter)
Zdaj že prihaja drugi slon
So the other elephant is now coming ... and is going to pull it in. Now look at the other; it doesn't forget to eat, of course.
in bo sedaj napravo potegnil k sebi. Zdaj pa poglejte še drugega. Seveda ne pozabi na hrano.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
This was the cooperation and reciprocity part.
To je bilo sodelovanje, vzajemnostni del.
Now something on empathy. Empathy is my main topic at the moment, of research. And empathy has two qualities: One is the understanding part of it. This is just a regular definition: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. And the emotional part. Empathy has basically two channels: One is the body channel, If you talk with a sad person, you're going to adopt a sad expression and a sad posture, and before you know it, you feel sad. And that's sort of the body channel of emotional empathy, which many animals have. Your average dog has that also. That's why people keep mammals in the home and not turtles or snakes or something like that, who don't have that kind of empathy. And then there's a cognitive channel, which is more that you can take the perspective of somebody else. And that's more limited. Very few animals, I think elephants and apes, can do that kind of thing.
Zdaj pa še empatija. Empatija je trenutno v raziskavah glavna tema in ima na nek način dve lastnosti. Ena je razumevanje. To je zgolj osnovna definicija: sposobnost razumevanja in deljenja čustev z drugimi. Imamo pa še čustveni del. Empatija tako deluje na dveh kanalih. Eden je kanal telesa. Če se pogovarjamo z žalostno osebo, bomo prevzeli žalosten izraz in žalostno držo in se bomo slej kot prej tudi počutili žalostno. To je nekakšen telesni kanal čustvene empatije, ki jo imajo mnoge živali. Najdemo jo tudi pri psih. Zato imajo ljudje doma rajši sesalce namesto želv, kač ali česa podobnega, ki niso zmožni tovrstne empatije. Drugi kanal pa je kognitivni, zaradi katerega smo zmožni prevzeti perspektivo nekoga drugega. To je zelo omejeno. Zelo malo živali -- mislim, da so tega sposobni sloni in človeku podobne opice -- toda zelo malo živali je tega sposobnih.
So synchronization, which is part of that whole empathy mechanism, is a very old one in the animal kingdom. In humans, of course, we can study that with yawn contagion. Humans yawn when others yawn. And it's related to empathy. It activates the same areas in the brain. Also, we know that people who have a lot of yawn contagion are highly empathic. People who have problems with empathy, such as autistic children, they don't have yawn contagion. So it is connected.
Torej sinhronizacija, ki je del celotnega mehanizma empatije, je v živalskem kraljsetvu prisotna že zelo dolgo. Pri ljudeh lahko to proučujemo z nalezovanjem zehanja. Človek zazeha, ko zazehajo drugi, kar je povezano z empatijo. Signali prihajajo iz istih delov možganov. Vemo tudi, da so ljudje, ki se zelo hitro nalezejo zehanja, zelo empatični. Ljudje, ki imajo z empatijo težave, na primer avtistični otroci, se zehanja ne nalezejo. Vse je torej povezano.
And we study that in our chimpanzees by presenting them with an animated head. So that's what you see on the upper-left, an animated head that yawns. And there's a chimpanzee watching, an actual real chimpanzee watching a computer screen on which we play these animations.
Pri naših šimpanzih to proučujemo tako, da jim predvajamo animirano glavo. Torej v zgornjem levem kotu lahko vidite animirano glavo, ki zeha. Animacijo pa gleda šimpanz, pravi živi šimpanz si ogleduje animacije na računalniškem zaslonu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So yawn contagion that you're probably all familiar with -- and maybe you're going to start yawning soon now -- is something that we share with other animals. And that's related to that whole body channel of synchronization that underlies empathy, and that is universal in the mammals, basically.
Nalezljivost zehanja, ki jo najbrž vsi poznate -- mogoče boste tudi vi začeli kmalu zehati -- je nekaj, kar si delimo z ostalimi živalmi. Povezana je tudi s celotnim telesnim kanalom sinhronizacije, ki tvori osnovo empatije in je praktično prisoten pri vseh sesalcih.
We also study more complex expressions -- This is consolation. This is a male chimpanzee who has lost a fight and he's screaming, and a juvenile comes over and puts an arm around him and calms him down. That's consolation. It's very similar to human consolation. And consolation behavior --
Proučujemo tudi nekoliko bolj zapletene izraze. To je tolažba. Ta samec je izgubil v boju in kriči. Do njega stopi mlajši šimpanz in ovije okrog njega roko, da bi ga pomiril. To je tolažba in je zelo podobna človeški tolažbi. Tolažba je uravnavana
(Laughter)
s strani empatije.
it's empathy driven. Actually, the way to study empathy in human children is to instruct a family member to act distressed, and then to see what young children do. And so it is related to empathy, and that's the kind of expressions we look at.
Pri človeških otrocih empatijo proučujemo s pomočjo družinskih članov, ki hlinijo žalost in potem opazujemo odziv otrok. Zato je povezana z empatijo in takšne odzive proučujemo. Pred kratkim smo objavili poskus, za katerega ste morda že slišali.
We also recently published an experiment you may have heard about. It's on altruism and chimpanzees, where the question is: Do chimpanzees care about the welfare of somebody else? And for decades it had been assumed that only humans can do that, that only humans worry about the welfare of somebody else. Now we did a very simple experiment. We do that on chimpanzees that live in Lawrenceville, in the field station of Yerkes. And so that's how they live. And we call them into a room and do experiments with them. In this case, we put two chimpanzees side-by-side, and one has a bucket full of tokens, and the tokens have different meanings. One kind of token feeds only the partner who chooses, the other one feeds both of them.
Bil je poskus o nesebičnosti in šimpanzih pri kateremu smo si postavili vprašanje, ali je šimpanzom mar za dobrobit drugih? Več desetletij smo predvidevali, da so tega zmožni samo ljudje, da bi se samo človek bal za dobrobit nekoga drugega. Opravili smo zelo enostaven poskus. Izvedli smo ga na šimpanzih v Lawrencevillu, na Yerkesovi terenski postaji. Tako živijo. Pokličemo jih v sobo in z njimi opravljamo poskuse. Tukaj smo imeli dva šimpanza enega ob drugem. Eden od njiju ima vedro polno žetonov, ki imajo različne pomene. Prva vrsta žetonov nahrani samo sodelujočega, ki izbira, druga vrsta nahrani oba.
So this is a study we did with Vicki Horner. And here, you have the two color tokens. So they have a whole bucket full of them. And they have to pick one of the two colors. You will see how that goes. So if this chimp makes the selfish choice, which is the red token in this case, he needs to give it to us, we pick it up, we put it on a table where there's two food rewards, but in this case, only the one on the right gets food. The one on the left walks away because she knows already that this is not a good test for her. Then the next one is the pro-social token.
To je raziskava, ki smo jo opravili z Vicky Horner. To so različno obarvani žetoni. Imata jih polno vedro. Izbrati morata eno od obeh barv. Videli boste, kako to poteka. Ta šimpanz torej sprejme sebično odločitev, v tem primeru je to rdeč žeton, ki ga mora dati nam. Vzamemo ga, in ga položimo na mizo, kjer sta dve nagradi v obliki hrane, vendar v tem primeru dobi hrano samo tisti na desni. Tista na levi odide, ker že ve, da ta poskus ni njej v prid. Naslednji bo prosocialen žeton.
So the one who makes the choices -- that's the interesting part here -- for the one who makes the choices, it doesn't really matter. So she gives us now a pro-social token and both chimps get fed. So the one who makes the choices always gets a reward. So it doesn't matter whatsoever. And she should actually be choosing blindly. But what we find is that they prefer the pro-social token. So this is the 50 percent line, that's the random expectation. And especially if the partner draws attention to itself, they choose more.
Torej tisti, ki izbira -- in zdaj prihaja zanimiv del -- za tistega, ki izbira, je v bistvu vseeno. Zdaj nam da prosocialen žeton in zato oba šimpanza dobita hrano. Tisti, ki izbira, je torej vedno nagrajen. Zato je povsem vseeno. Lahko bi izbirala na slepo. Vendar smo odkrili, da raje izberejo prosocialne žetone. Črta na 50 odstotkih označuje pričakovane naključne izbire. Če bo drugi sodelujoči nase pritegoval pozornost, bo izbir več.
And if the partner puts pressure on them -- so if the partner starts spitting water and intimidating them -- then the choices go down.
Če pa sodelujoči pritiska na drugega -- če bo na primer pljuval vodo ali začel z ustrahovanjem -- v tem primeru izbire upadejo.
(Laughter)
Kot bi želel povedati:
It's as if they're saying, "If you're not behaving, I'm not going to be pro-social today." And this is what happens without a partner, when there's no partner sitting there. So we found that the chimpanzees do care about the well-being of somebody else -- especially, these are other members of their own group.
"Če ne boš priden, potem danes ne bom prosocialen." To pa se zgodi, če je sam, če ni še enega udeleženca. Tako smo odkrili, da šimpanze skrbi za dobrobit nekoga drugega -- še posebej, če se gre za ostale člane njihove skupine.
So the final experiment that I want to mention to you is our fairness study. And so this became a very famous study. And there are now many more, because after we did this about 10 years ago, it became very well-known. And we did that originally with capuchin monkeys. And I'm going to show you the first experiment that we did. It has now been done with dogs and with birds and with chimpanzees. But with Sarah Brosnan, we started out with capuchin monkeys.
Zadnji poskus, ki sem ga želel omeniti, je naša raziskava poštenosti. Ta raziskava je zelo slavna. Danes jih je veliko več, ker smo jo opravili pred približno desetimi leti in je pozneje postala zelo znana. Prvotno smo ga izvajali na kapucinkah. Pokazal vam bom naš prvi poskus. Do sedaj je že bil opravljen na psih, ptičih in šimpanzih. Toda z Sarah Brosnan smo začeli s kapucinkami.
So what we did is we put two capuchin monkeys side-by-side. Again, these animals, live in a group, they know each other. We take them out of the group, put them in a test chamber. And there's a very simple task that they need to do. And if you give both of them cucumber for the task, the two monkeys side-by-side, they're perfectly willing to do this 25 times in a row. So cucumber, even though it's only really water in my opinion, but cucumber is perfectly fine for them. Now if you give the partner grapes -- the food preferences of my capuchin monkeys correspond exactly with the prices in the supermarket -- and so if you give them grapes -- it's a far better food -- then you create inequity between them. So that's the experiment we did.
To smo naredili tako, da smo dve kapucinki postavili eno ob drugo. Naj vas opomnim, da ti živali živita v skupini in se poznata. Vzeli smo ju iz skupine in ju postavili v poskusno sobo. Opraviti morata zelo enostavno nalogo. Če za to nalogo daš kumarico obema opicama, ki sta ena ob drugi, bosta nalogo z veseljem opravili 25-krat zaporedoma. Torej kumarica, ki je po mojem mnenju samo voda, je za njiju povsem v redu. Če pa ena opica dobi grozdno jagodo -- naklonjenost do hrane mojih kapucink ustrezajo cenam v trgovinah -- če ji torej damo grozdno jagodo -- mnogo boljšo hrano -- potem med njima ustvariš neenakost. To je bil naš poskus.
Recently, we videotaped it with new monkeys who'd never done the task, thinking that maybe they would have a stronger reaction, and that turned out to be right. The one on the left is the monkey who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The one who gets cucumber -- note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly fine. The first piece she eats. Then she sees the other one getting grape, and you will see what happens. So she gives a rock to us. That's the task. And we give her a piece of cucumber and she eats it. The other one needs to give a rock to us. And that's what she does. And she gets a grape ... and eats it. The other one sees that. She gives a rock to us now, gets, again, cucumber.
Nedolgo nazaj smo posneli opice, ki te naloge še niso opravljale, v upanju, da bo odziv nekoliko močnejši. Bila je prava odločitev. Opica na levi bo dobila kumarico. Tista na desni pa bo dobila grozdno jagodo. Tista, ki dobi kumarico -- videli boste, da s prvim kosom kumarice ni povsem nič narobe. Prvi kos bo pojedla. Bodite pozorni, kaj se zgodi, ko opazi, da druga dobi grozdno jagodo. Prvo nam da kamen. To je naloga. Zato ji damo kos kumarice in jo pojé. Zdaj nam mora dati kamen še druga. To tudi naredi. Zato dobi jagodo in jo pojé. Druga opica to vidi. Da nam kamen in zopet dobi kumarico.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Laughter ends)
Sedaj preveri kamen z udarcem ob zid.
She tests a rock now against the wall. She needs to give it to us. And she gets cucumber again.
Mora nam ga dati. In zopet dobi kumarico.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So this is basically the Wall Street protest that you see here.
V bistvu lahko tukaj vidimo protest na Wall Streetu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
I still have two minutes left -- let me tell you a funny story about this. This study became very famous and we got a lot of comments, especially anthropologists, economists, philosophers. They didn't like this at all. Because they had decided in their minds, I believe, that fairness is a very complex issue, and that animals cannot have it. And so one philosopher even wrote us that it was impossible that monkeys had a sense of fairness because fairness was invented during the French Revolution.
Naj vam povem -- ostali sta mi še dve minutki in bi vam povedal anekdoto o raziskavi. Ta raziskava je postala zelo slavna in smo prejeli veliko pripomb, še posebej s strani antropologov, ekonomistov, filozofov. Niti najmanj jim ni bil všeč. Zdi se mi, da so se preprosto odločili, da je pravičnost zelo zapleten problem, in je živali niso zmožne. Tako nam je nek filozof napisal, da občutek za pravičnost pri opicah preprosto ni mogoč, ker so pravičnost izumili med francosko revolucijo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And another one wrote a whole chapter saying that he would believe it had something to do with fairness, if the one who got grapes would refuse the grapes. Now the funny thing is that Sarah Brosnan, who's been doing this with chimpanzees, had a couple of combinations of chimpanzees where, indeed, the one who would get the grape would refuse the grape until the other guy also got a grape. So we're getting very close to the human sense of fairness. And I think philosophers need to rethink their philosophy for a while.
Nekdo drug nam je napisal celoten sestavek, da bi nam verjel, da je poskus povezan s pravičnostjo le, če bi opica, ki je dobila jagodo, jagodo zavrnila. Smešno pa je to, da je Sarah Brosnan, ki je ta poskus izvajala na šimpanzih, naletela na par kombinacij šimpanzov, pri katerih tisti, ki naj bi jagodo dobil, je ni želel pojesti dokler je ni dobil tudi drugi. Torej smo že zelo blizu človeškemu dojemanju pravičnosti. Mislim, da bi filozofi morali malo razmisliti o svoji filozofiji.
So let me summarize. I believe there's an evolved morality. I think morality is much more than what I've been talking about, but it would be impossible without these ingredients that we find in other primates, which are empathy and consolation, pro-social tendencies and reciprocity and a sense of fairness. And so we work on these particular issues to see if we can create a morality from the bottom up, so to speak, without necessarily god and religion involved, and to see how we can get to an evolved morality.
Naj povzamem. Sem mnenja, da obstaja razvita moralnost. Mislim, da se za moralnostjo skriva veliko več kot to, o čemer smo se pogovarjali. Vendar to bi bilo nemogoče brez sestavin, ki jih najdemo pri ostalih primatih, to so empatija in tolažba, nagnjenja k prosocialnosti in vzajemnost ter smisel za pravičnost. S temi določenimi problemi se ukvarjamo, da lahko vidimo, če je moralnost tako rekoč možno ustvariti od začetka, brez potrebnega vmešavanja Boga in vere. Želimo videti, kako lahko mi dosežemo razvito moralnost.
And I thank you for your attention.
Hvala za vašo pozornost.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)