[baudrunner]

There is a general propensity among humans to ascribe to humanity a special nature that transcends that of the animals. We certainly occupy a plateau of sorts in the topology of palaeontology which is shared by almost no other animal. We like to ascribe qualities to being human that are unique. Some propose that human uniqueness eclipses animals such that only humans are self-aware, that animals are guided by something called instinct, whereas humans are guided by intelligent reasoning, which faculty is not shared by animals. Then there are those who say that we, as animals, merely share this world with other animals, that we just happen to be endowed with greater intelligence and a greater potential for achievement. The arguments for the unique human supremacy premise are necessarily biased toward humans, because these claims are all made by humans. It is my considered opinion that were an animal to step forward to present its case, it would claim to be only representative of its kind, and that its arguments would therefore be necessarily biased in favor of its species. Therefore, I say let the case for each animal be taken on its own merit.

Do animals have choice? Most humans would probably assume that they do not. However, evolution has given traits through adaptation. Therefore, over time the animals' choices have allowed each species a monopoly of sorts over their particular environmental niche. Some animals' choices were more limited than others', but such is life. I maintain that it was choice that over time separated the seagull from the crow, the sparrow from the woodpecker, the blue jay from the eagle, etc. Each found a comfortable niche because the choices that they made agreed with their preferences. They fly, alone and unassisted. That is a superior attribute. They have far superior vision to that of humans. Humans can't profess to know how birds think, how they decide, what compels them, much less what they say. They can only make assumptions based on observations of their behaviours. I wonder what a bird's assumptions might be based on their observations of human behaviours? I have never seen a look of stupidity in a bird's eyes. I often wonder what could be their wisdom. Do they know that they are forced toward an ideal manifestation of their type through natural selection and that it follows that this should give them greater intellectual potential as a matter of course? What plateau in the topology of palaeontology do they perceive themselves to occupy? One thing is for certain: in the lives of the wild, there can be no adulteration of their way, lest they lose it to some poignant lesson and learn it too late, the hard way. That is one reason that a bird's brain is smaller, the elimination of needless complexity. But this in no way precludes their ability to think enough to have free will. They demonstrate that every moment of their lives. Therefore we can only conclude that they can think, that they are self-aware, that they can make decisions based on choice, that they can communicate, and so on, within the framework of their place in the cosmic scheme of things.