What do you think?
Rate this book
Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Science & Technology (2019)New York Times best-selling author and primatologist Frans de Waal explores the fascinating world of animal and human emotions.
Frans de Waal has spent four decades at the forefront of animal research. Following up on the best-selling Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, which investigated animal intelligence, Mama’s Last Hug delivers a fascinating exploration of the rich emotional lives of animals.
Mama’s Last Hug begins with the death of Mama, a chimpanzee matriarch who formed a deep bond with biologist Jan van Hooff. When Mama was dying, van Hooff took the unusual step of visiting her in her night cage for a last hug. Their goodbyes were filmed and went viral. Millions of people were deeply moved by the way Mama embraced the professor, welcoming him with a big smile while reassuring him by patting his neck, in a gesture often considered typically human but that is in fact common to all primates. This story and others like it form the core of de Waal’s argument, showing that humans are not the only species with the capacity for love, hate, fear, shame, guilt, joy, disgust, and empathy.
De Waal discusses facial expressions, the emotions behind human politics, the illusion of free will, animal sentience, and, of course, Mama’s life and death. The message is one of continuity between us and other species, such as the radical proposal that emotions are like organs: we don’t have a single organ that other animals don’t have, and the same is true for our emotions. Mama’s Last Hug opens our hearts and minds to the many ways in which humans and other animals are connected, transforming how we view the living world around us.
Frans de Waal has spent four decades at the forefront of animal research. Following up on the best-selling Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, which investigated animal intelligence, Mama’s Last Hug delivers a fascinating exploration of the rich emotional lives of animals.
Mama’s Last Hug begins with the death of Mama, a chimpanzee matriarch who formed a deep bond with biologist Jan van Hooff. When Mama was dying, van Hooff took the unusual step of visiting her in her night cage for a last hug. Their goodbyes were filmed and went viral. Millions of people were deeply moved by the way Mama embraced the professor, welcoming him with a big smile while reassuring him by patting his neck, in a gesture often considered typically human but that is in fact common to all primates. This story and others like it form the core of de Waal’s argument, showing that humans are not the only species with the capacity for love, hate, fear, shame, guilt, joy, disgust, and empathy.
De Waal discusses facial expressions, the emotions behind human politics, the illusion of free will, animal sentience, and, of course, Mama’s life and death. The message is one of continuity between us and other species, such as the radical proposal that emotions are like organs: we don’t have a single organ that other animals don’t have, and the same is true for our emotions. Mama’s Last Hug opens our hearts and minds to the many ways in which humans and other animals are connected, transforming how we view the living world around us.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published March 5, 2019
1318 people are currently reading
28940 people want to read
About the author
Frans de Waal
45 books1,726 followersFrans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 740 reviews
May 29, 2025
As a student, realizing that my biology books were of little help explaining chimpanzee behavior, I picked up a copy of Machiavelli’s The Prince. It offered an insightful, unadorned account of human behavior based on real-life observations of the Borgias, the Medici, and the popes. The book put me in the right frame of mind to write about ape politics at the zoo.----------------------------------------
We know our own inner states imperfectly and often mislead both ourselves and those around us. We’re masters of fake happiness, suppressed fear, and misguided love. This is why I’m pleased to work with nonlinguistic creatures. I’m forced to guess their feelings, but at least they never lead me astray by what they tell me about themselves.
Jan van Hoof - image from Utrechtse Bilologen Vereniging
Jan van Hoof was two months shy of eighty years old and Mama was one month shy of fifty nine when they said their goodbyes. They had known each other for forty years. She’d been sleeping a lot, had lost considerable weight, which was not surprising for one of the world’s oldest zoo chimpanzees, but she finally wakes up, spots Jan, and beams with a smile far wider than any human could produce. She bleats out a high-pitched call of greeting while reaching up for Jan’s head, pats the back of his neck and strokes his hair, pulling him closer. It is a moving moment that most of us might struggle to get through without releasing at least one or two tears of recognition. And why not? There are many more ties that bind us than there are those that divide us. And with this tearful scene we are delivered to a key question. Just how different are humans from apes, from animals, in terms of our emotional lives?
Mama - image from Royal Burgers Zoo
In 1980, the Dutch-born author learned that a favorite chimpanzee alpha had been murdered by two male rivals in the colony. It became a life-changing event for him. He was about to move to the USA and continue his study of apes, but he realized that there was far too much that was not known about the roles of cooperation, reconciliation, pro-social behavior, and fairness in the animals’ relationships. He redirected his life studies toward gaining a better understanding of such long-neglected areas of animal behavioral research.
Frans de Waal - 1948-2024 - image from wikipedia
Franciscus Bernardus Maria "Frans" de Waal is now a world-renowned primatologist and social psychologist who has broken much new ground in our understanding of animal psychology and emotion. Competition was always studied in his field, but de Waal was the first to establish intentional deception, conflict resolution, and a non-human basis for empathy and morality. A serious scientist, whose popular writing has brought his theories to a wide readership, his list of awards and recognitions would fill the page. His most recent book is Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are? Hopefully, enough of us are. The question here is whether we are perceptive enough to be able to recognize and appreciate animal emotions.
Mama, the long-time matriarch of the Burgers Zoo chimpanzee colony, with her daughter Moniek. At the time of this photo Mama was at the height of her power – Image and text from the book
This is not a book about Mama, although her story does illustrate de Waal’s point. Many researchers appear to have an irresistible impulse to portray animals as entirely separate from people. De Waal is interested in showing us that there is far less difference than human exceptionalists would like to think. Are we really so different? There have been many lines scientists have drawn that supposedly separate humans from animals, that separate us from our biological roots. Once it was claimed that humans are different because we use tools. That lasted until researchers discovered that diverse sorts of creatures also use tools. Brain size? Number of neurons? Nope, nope. More recently, a difference-maker has been claimed in our experiencing of emotions, portraying animals as virtually mechanical. Anyone with cats, dogs, or most other sorts of pets can assure you that our companion animals do indeed have emotions. As do, apparently other animals as well. Now there is research to back up what is obvious to many of us.
The anthropomorphism argument [that we merely project our emotions onto the animals being studied] is rooted in human exceptionalism. It reflects the desire to set humans apart and deny our animality. To do so remains customary in the humanities and much of the social sciences, which thrive on the notion that the human mind is somehow our own invention…Modern neuroscience makes it impossible to maintain a sharp human-animal dualism.
Bonobos are huggers - Image by Jutta Hof – taken from de Waal’s FB
And if we are not so different, then what might be our common roots? How did our emotions, and how we behave come to be? And by we I am not limiting that to people. The work portrayed here raises many questions, about the origin of some characteristics of human beings, about animals having a sense of time, about the nutritional needs of hunter-gatherers, the role of neuron-count in consciousness, a definition of consciousness, the role of individualism and socialization in species survival, the impact of affection in early life on development, [ok, take a breath]
We have trouble imagining fairness as an evolved trait partly due to how we depict nature. Using evocative phrases such as “survival of the fittest” and “nature red in tooth and claw,” we stress nature’s cruelty, leaving no room for fairness, only the right of the strongest. In the meantime, we forget that animals often depend on each other and survive through cooperation. In fact, they struggle far more against their environment or against hunger and disease than against each other.
Orangutan mother holding juvenile - image by Max Block – taken from de Waal’s FB
[Rested now? Ok, back to it]…whether humans are alone in having free will, the impact of increasing inequality on longevity. Is there a human instinct for war? Do animals laugh or smile? Can animals commit murder? What is the relationship between intellect and emotion? What does it mean to be an alpha male? And where did our notion of that term originate? What is the relationship between emotions and free will? The difference between feelings and emotions? I could go on, but you get the picture.
The idea that we can achieve optimal sociality only by subduing human biology is antiquated. It doesn’t fit with what we know about hunter-gatherers, other primates, or modern neuroscience. It also promotes a sequential view—first we had human biology, then we got civilization—whereas in reality the two have always gone hand in hand.
Grooming bonobo - image by Jutta Hof – taken from de Waal’s FB
There is an entire chapter on smiling and laughter, (yes, they do) which is a real revelation regarding what the source of humor might be.
We may not be in full control of our emotions, but we aren’t their slaves either. This is why you should never say “my emotions took over” as an excuse for something stupid you did, because you let your emotions take over. Getting emotional has a voluntary side. You let yourself fall in love with the wrong person, you let yourself hate certain others, you allowed greed to cloud your judgment or imagination to feed your jealousy. Emotions are never just emotions, and they are never fully automated. Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding about emotions is that they are the opposite of cognition. We have translated the dualism between body and mind into one between emotion and intelligence, but the two actually go together and cannot operate without each other.What has been learned from the lessons discussed here can be used to improve not only how we treat animals that are housed in zoos, and used in research, but in how livestock can be treated more humanely, reinforcing the work of researchers in this field, such Temple Grandin.
Baby Love - image by Jutta Maue Kay – taken from de Waal’s FB
De Waal is a first-rate writer, bringing to his books an engaging style, and an ability to make complex subjects accessible to the average reader. He even exposes, on occasion, a sense of humor, which is always welcome in popular science writing. De Waal makes a strong case that our emotions not only do not separate us from other beings, but show our deep connection to them. He shows how emotions+intellect is a formula that has been very successful for the survival of many species, and offers a far more flexible approach to solving new problems than rigid instinctual responses ever could. He gives us good reason to recognize our shared inheritance, our fellowship and sisterhood with a vast array of earth’s creatures, and in so doing, offers us tools to better understand our behavior as a species, and the behavior of non-human living things all around us. It is an intellectual whirlwind, with many new ideas flying around. Plenty there to grab and inspect. Mama’s Last Hug should be the beginning of a new widespread appreciation for our own social, emotional and psychological roots, and empathy for the experience of others. Embrace it.
I will only rarely refer to other species as “other animals” or “non-human animals.” For simplicity’s sake, I will mostly call them just “animals,” even though for me, as a biologist, nothing is more self-evident than that we are part of the same kingdom. We are animals. Since I don’t look at our species as emotionally much different from other mammals, and in fact would be hard-pressed to pinpoint uniquely human emotions, we had better pay careful attention to the emotional background we share with our fellow travelers on this planet. - Frans De Waal
Gorillas live in family groups with a dominant silverback male and several females and offspring. Gorilla dads sometimes groom and play with their infants, even stepping in as surrogate mothers if need be. – image by Diane Fossey – taken from de Waal’s FB
Review posted – March 8, 2019
Publication date
----------March 12, 2019 - hardcover
----------March 10, 2020 - trade paperback
November 28, 2019 - Mama’s Last Hug is named to the NY Times list of 100 Notable Books of 2019
December 2019 - Mama's Last Hug is named one of Amazon 's Best Books of 2019 (Science), which it absolutely is
March 2020 - Mama's Last Hug is awarded the PEN/E.O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Award
=============================EXTRA STUFF
De Waal
-----his FB page
-----he is head of Living Links – Center for the Advanced Study of Ape and Human Evolution - There are many informative articles, including interviews with de Waal, linked on the Publications Page – Definitely a rabbit hole worth exploring
-----TED Talk - Moral Behavior in Animals
-----another TED Talk - The Surprising Science of Alpha Males
-----March 9, 2019 - NY Times - Your Dog Feels as Guilty as She Looks
-----An excerpt from the book - What Do We Really Know About Animals’ Emotions?
Other items of interest
----- The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals - by Charles Darwin – on Gutenberg
-----Video of Jan and Mama saying goodbye
-----Royal Burgers’ Zoo page about Mama and Jan
-----my review of Among the Great Apes - a very different sort of ape-related book
January 29, 2020 - Mama's Last Hug is a short list nominee for a Pen/Faulkner award - winners to be announced on March 2
February 24, 2020
It´s interesting, if one gets a score of over 90 percent or even, let´s just say, hm 98,8 percent, the person would say that this is close to absolute. No matter if it is a test, a comparison or whatever. But as soon as it goes like "You know, those missing 1,2 percent are the difference between you and a sh$§trhowing chimpanzee, the person goes like WTF and so on. So, as I always say, we are naked apes and each emotional and brain reaction that is explored in monkeys gives deep insights into our collective and individual nature. The knowledge could lead to a better social design from international organizations to small villages with just a hand full of houses.
Checklists are great, so let´s put monkeys vs humans on a kind of partner finding match list with the same interest. Violent without reason against the own people which harms the whole society? Check. Manipulate and lie around anything that comes just a mile close so some sexy time? Done. The tendency to despotism, genocide and determination wars? Getting closer to a full match. Same emotional reactions concerning love, fear, hate, etc? Got it, monkey owned. Excuse me, but could someone please explain the difference to me again? I mean, even the throwing sh$3 thing seems to be matching, be it verbally or in some rare cases, ahem.
Both the neurological and social development are so closely related that the functioning systems kept growing inside our heads and got probably a little bit modified regarding impulse control, subtleness and intelligence, but nature didn´t change much in this running system. Take away food, shelter and punishment and we are again where we were millions of years ago, extremely dangerous group raiders with an integrated attitude to madness. This is especially funny, because there are no lesser intelligent animals, especially biological very similar mammals, that have the same rate of lunatics that naturally occur because something like a human brain can´t be constructed or civilized without some damage. When there are millions of rabbits, deer, mice or cows, their behavioral anomalies are so few compared to when one puts a few million people together in one place.
One implication is, that like bonobos and chimpanzees, human society has different attitudes depending on the social structure. And as both humans and monkeys keep evolving, many new variants may grow out of the few concepts with the main difference that humans could form an environment for many experiments and plentiful family and social structures instead of the few monocultures we see today. With each acceptable ideology, that doesn´t include harming, discriminating or erasing other groups, many experiments would be possible with volunteer groups of environmentalists, futurists, etc. that want to try out something new. How to prevent them from going the way of sects and extremists might be a tricky topic, but at least the indoctrinated way of how to live would fall apart.
A huge misuse of anthropomorphism has been the tendency to think that we great humans should project our superior properties onto other, "lower" animals instead of considering that it might be that many animals are much smarter, complex and emotional than we thought or wanted to think. Just because human communication got overcomplicated with language, mimics and stuff that doesn´t mean that communications that are based on smell, varying sounds or just hormones aren´t as good, effective and a sign of higher intelligence instead of just instincts, as thought for a long time. With the help of neuroscience and biological markers, the truth can be shown. Tragically, the bad and wrong science of the past was used to discriminate animals and other humans that were both deemed inferior.
The work is primarily focused on apes, but let´s think about other animals, for instance, pigs, cows and chicken or, if they are on the dinner table and the imagination is too irritating, dolphins, octopi, crows, well, anything that has the intelligence and/ or social life to feel. And here comes the cornucopia of ethical, philosophical and sociological questions regarding both our connection to and behavior regarding many animals. Let´s say a scientist would find out or has already found out a long time ago that especially the tortured animals in the meat factories have not just more complex feelings and higher intelligence than supposed but understand the whole context of their situation at each moment.
The work of this outstanding author should be read and spread by everybody, because it opens new, interdisciplinary fields of both natural sciences and humanities and leads to a better understanding of both real and human nature and could help to stop repeating the construction errors and behaving like aggressive alpha males after a few million years of a wild, human adolescence and become adult and wise instead.
Finally, let´s try a self-test that is prooving all theories right. Look, I made this funny, for the sake of your mental sanity censored, list of emotions that would completely control me with full intensity if I wouldn´t be such a highly developed, smart super-duper alpha predator (meditation and mindfulness really help a tiny little bit): bored, stressed, happy, hungry, evil, scared, tired, excited, hungry again, dishonest, sensitive,...
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
Checklists are great, so let´s put monkeys vs humans on a kind of partner finding match list with the same interest. Violent without reason against the own people which harms the whole society? Check. Manipulate and lie around anything that comes just a mile close so some sexy time? Done. The tendency to despotism, genocide and determination wars? Getting closer to a full match. Same emotional reactions concerning love, fear, hate, etc? Got it, monkey owned. Excuse me, but could someone please explain the difference to me again? I mean, even the throwing sh$3 thing seems to be matching, be it verbally or in some rare cases, ahem.
Both the neurological and social development are so closely related that the functioning systems kept growing inside our heads and got probably a little bit modified regarding impulse control, subtleness and intelligence, but nature didn´t change much in this running system. Take away food, shelter and punishment and we are again where we were millions of years ago, extremely dangerous group raiders with an integrated attitude to madness. This is especially funny, because there are no lesser intelligent animals, especially biological very similar mammals, that have the same rate of lunatics that naturally occur because something like a human brain can´t be constructed or civilized without some damage. When there are millions of rabbits, deer, mice or cows, their behavioral anomalies are so few compared to when one puts a few million people together in one place.
One implication is, that like bonobos and chimpanzees, human society has different attitudes depending on the social structure. And as both humans and monkeys keep evolving, many new variants may grow out of the few concepts with the main difference that humans could form an environment for many experiments and plentiful family and social structures instead of the few monocultures we see today. With each acceptable ideology, that doesn´t include harming, discriminating or erasing other groups, many experiments would be possible with volunteer groups of environmentalists, futurists, etc. that want to try out something new. How to prevent them from going the way of sects and extremists might be a tricky topic, but at least the indoctrinated way of how to live would fall apart.
A huge misuse of anthropomorphism has been the tendency to think that we great humans should project our superior properties onto other, "lower" animals instead of considering that it might be that many animals are much smarter, complex and emotional than we thought or wanted to think. Just because human communication got overcomplicated with language, mimics and stuff that doesn´t mean that communications that are based on smell, varying sounds or just hormones aren´t as good, effective and a sign of higher intelligence instead of just instincts, as thought for a long time. With the help of neuroscience and biological markers, the truth can be shown. Tragically, the bad and wrong science of the past was used to discriminate animals and other humans that were both deemed inferior.
The work is primarily focused on apes, but let´s think about other animals, for instance, pigs, cows and chicken or, if they are on the dinner table and the imagination is too irritating, dolphins, octopi, crows, well, anything that has the intelligence and/ or social life to feel. And here comes the cornucopia of ethical, philosophical and sociological questions regarding both our connection to and behavior regarding many animals. Let´s say a scientist would find out or has already found out a long time ago that especially the tortured animals in the meat factories have not just more complex feelings and higher intelligence than supposed but understand the whole context of their situation at each moment.
The work of this outstanding author should be read and spread by everybody, because it opens new, interdisciplinary fields of both natural sciences and humanities and leads to a better understanding of both real and human nature and could help to stop repeating the construction errors and behaving like aggressive alpha males after a few million years of a wild, human adolescence and become adult and wise instead.
Finally, let´s try a self-test that is prooving all theories right. Look, I made this funny, for the sake of your mental sanity censored, list of emotions that would completely control me with full intensity if I wouldn´t be such a highly developed, smart super-duper alpha predator (meditation and mindfulness really help a tiny little bit): bored, stressed, happy, hungry, evil, scared, tired, excited, hungry again, dishonest, sensitive,...
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
October 7, 2019
Animal emotions. Human emotions. Can they, in any way share commanalties? The author makes a convincing and illuminating arguement, that yes they can, and they can also tell us much about ourselves. He shares the relationship between various chimp behaviors, the emotions they have and how they are shown in various situations. While most of the book cover this group, their are also sections on birds, horses and even comparisons of human behavior, notably Trump and Spicer, that directly correlates to the animal world.
My favorite parts were the Bonobos, who he calls the hippies of the chimp world. They would rather make love, not war. Plus, a rarity in that it is a female who has the most power. Also enjoyed the bits of humor scattered throughout, such as when the author notes, that chimps are very familiar with each other's derrieres. Parts are sad, such as Mama's passing, but it is also informative and enjoyable. Our human makeup, emotionally, so closely tied to many other animals should make us kinder to those animals who share our environment, or so I hope. Understanding should bring kindness and empathy, which by the way are other emotions we share.
Good book, wonderful delivery and I enjoyed the narrator L. J. Ganser.
My favorite parts were the Bonobos, who he calls the hippies of the chimp world. They would rather make love, not war. Plus, a rarity in that it is a female who has the most power. Also enjoyed the bits of humor scattered throughout, such as when the author notes, that chimps are very familiar with each other's derrieres. Parts are sad, such as Mama's passing, but it is also informative and enjoyable. Our human makeup, emotionally, so closely tied to many other animals should make us kinder to those animals who share our environment, or so I hope. Understanding should bring kindness and empathy, which by the way are other emotions we share.
Good book, wonderful delivery and I enjoyed the narrator L. J. Ganser.
February 27, 2021
Two or three stars--which represents best how I react to this book? Is the book good or is it OK? As a whole, it feels more OK than good--so two stars it will be. I will explain why I react in this way.
I have trouble with how the book is told, and I am not referring in any way to the narration of the audiobook. It is not the central content concerning animals’ emotions that is the stumbling block for me. I am certain that animals do have emotions and the similarity between human and animal emotions is striking. The information provided on this topic is interesting. When the book sticks to the topic it is good. Too often it gets off track.
I must start at the end—it is in this way easiest to explain what I observe. The audiobook ends with a short summation of what the author intended with his book. The author speaks to us directly; we hear his voice, his words. It is not the audiobook’s narrator that reads the afterword of the audiobook. The words Waal uses are completely different from the language used in the book. He proposes his ideas in a quiet and understated manner. The tone of the book, the language used there, has the air of being modern and hip, cool, amicable and convivial. It is the language so often used in books of popular science. The language employed in the book compared to the language in the afterword are is as different as night and day! I cannot help but wonder if revisions have been made to the author’s writing. The language of the afterword is what I prefer.
There are other problems related to how the book is told. The prologue does not explain how the book is set up, and it is too detailed. The chapter and subchapter titles are not informative; they give little guidance as to what will follow. Here are five title examples— The Yuck Factor, Pride and Prejudice, Murder, Power, Emotions Are Like Organs. The content of each chapter flows without pause from subject to subject, mixing anecdotes, theorizing and citings of scientific experiments. What the experiments show are stated as given facts with little said concerning chosen methods or procedures. The chapters end abruptly; they lack a final paragraph that summarizes the conclusions that should be drawn.
There are statements made that I questioned, one example being that animals instinctively know what they can and cannot eat. My dog certainly doesn’t—he eats spoiled meat from carcasses and then vomits it up! Often, I felt the need to question what is said; background information is inadequate. Topics sometimes are simply dropped in midair. Much can be interpreted in alternate ways. Too much theorizing and quibbling over semantics. One example--over and over again the author insists on distinguishing between emotions and feelings. The author states that the first are shown and arise physically from our bodies, while the second are spoken of and are a product of language. What we say can be deceptive; to achieve our goals, we do not always say what we truly think. Then at the end, it is stated that the two, emotions and feelings, are very close! So why all the fuss about stressing the difference? This is a topic returned to many times throughout the book, each time I felt uncomfortable because what is said is too theoretical, built on a construct, diffuse, quite simply unclear! I felt the author was playing with words.
What I do like is when theorizing is put aside and we are told interesting tidbits about animal behavior, their emotions and intellect. This is what I was looking for in the book. Animals do have emotions and numerous examples are spoken of. The differences among bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and some monkeys are fascinating. There is information here I had not heard before. Elephants, birds, cats and dogs, horses, mice and fish--a wide assortment of animals are discussed.
In the text, the author expresses frequently his personal point of view and stresses often what he has done, in a tone so very different from his words in the afterword. On closing the book, I was jarred at the incongruity between the afterword and all that had preceded it.
I have no proof of this, but the book seems to me to have been revised by another person than the author. Has somebody else gotten involved? Have sections been added to enhance the popularity of the book? The book spreads out over popular themes, into philosophy, politics and even Trump! Vegetarianism, zoos and the proper and fair treatment of animals in general are additional themes. There is very little about Mama, the matriarchal chimpanzee of the title. She’s there on the cover to pull at your heartstrings.
The audiobook is narrated by L.J. Ganser. His narration I have given three stars. He reads at times a bit too fast. I need time to consider that which is stated. I do not automatically swallow what I am being told. There is nothing wrong with Ganser’s narration, but I would recommend reading the paper book. With the paper format it is easier to stop and think.
I don’t regret reading this for the facts it provides about animals, but how it is told gave me trouble. A book viewed by me as OK is OK, not bad!
*****************
*Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves 2 stars
*Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? 3 stars
Both by Frans de Waal
Related books which could be of interest:
*Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel 4 stars
*Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds 4 stars
*The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think 4 stars
*Wesley the Owl: The Remarkable Love Story of an Owl and His Girl 5 stars
*Two Owls At Eton 5 stars
*Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence—and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process 3 stars
*Love, Life, and Elephants: An African Love Story 3 stars
I have trouble with how the book is told, and I am not referring in any way to the narration of the audiobook. It is not the central content concerning animals’ emotions that is the stumbling block for me. I am certain that animals do have emotions and the similarity between human and animal emotions is striking. The information provided on this topic is interesting. When the book sticks to the topic it is good. Too often it gets off track.
I must start at the end—it is in this way easiest to explain what I observe. The audiobook ends with a short summation of what the author intended with his book. The author speaks to us directly; we hear his voice, his words. It is not the audiobook’s narrator that reads the afterword of the audiobook. The words Waal uses are completely different from the language used in the book. He proposes his ideas in a quiet and understated manner. The tone of the book, the language used there, has the air of being modern and hip, cool, amicable and convivial. It is the language so often used in books of popular science. The language employed in the book compared to the language in the afterword are is as different as night and day! I cannot help but wonder if revisions have been made to the author’s writing. The language of the afterword is what I prefer.
There are other problems related to how the book is told. The prologue does not explain how the book is set up, and it is too detailed. The chapter and subchapter titles are not informative; they give little guidance as to what will follow. Here are five title examples— The Yuck Factor, Pride and Prejudice, Murder, Power, Emotions Are Like Organs. The content of each chapter flows without pause from subject to subject, mixing anecdotes, theorizing and citings of scientific experiments. What the experiments show are stated as given facts with little said concerning chosen methods or procedures. The chapters end abruptly; they lack a final paragraph that summarizes the conclusions that should be drawn.
There are statements made that I questioned, one example being that animals instinctively know what they can and cannot eat. My dog certainly doesn’t—he eats spoiled meat from carcasses and then vomits it up! Often, I felt the need to question what is said; background information is inadequate. Topics sometimes are simply dropped in midair. Much can be interpreted in alternate ways. Too much theorizing and quibbling over semantics. One example--over and over again the author insists on distinguishing between emotions and feelings. The author states that the first are shown and arise physically from our bodies, while the second are spoken of and are a product of language. What we say can be deceptive; to achieve our goals, we do not always say what we truly think. Then at the end, it is stated that the two, emotions and feelings, are very close! So why all the fuss about stressing the difference? This is a topic returned to many times throughout the book, each time I felt uncomfortable because what is said is too theoretical, built on a construct, diffuse, quite simply unclear! I felt the author was playing with words.
What I do like is when theorizing is put aside and we are told interesting tidbits about animal behavior, their emotions and intellect. This is what I was looking for in the book. Animals do have emotions and numerous examples are spoken of. The differences among bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and some monkeys are fascinating. There is information here I had not heard before. Elephants, birds, cats and dogs, horses, mice and fish--a wide assortment of animals are discussed.
In the text, the author expresses frequently his personal point of view and stresses often what he has done, in a tone so very different from his words in the afterword. On closing the book, I was jarred at the incongruity between the afterword and all that had preceded it.
I have no proof of this, but the book seems to me to have been revised by another person than the author. Has somebody else gotten involved? Have sections been added to enhance the popularity of the book? The book spreads out over popular themes, into philosophy, politics and even Trump! Vegetarianism, zoos and the proper and fair treatment of animals in general are additional themes. There is very little about Mama, the matriarchal chimpanzee of the title. She’s there on the cover to pull at your heartstrings.
The audiobook is narrated by L.J. Ganser. His narration I have given three stars. He reads at times a bit too fast. I need time to consider that which is stated. I do not automatically swallow what I am being told. There is nothing wrong with Ganser’s narration, but I would recommend reading the paper book. With the paper format it is easier to stop and think.
I don’t regret reading this for the facts it provides about animals, but how it is told gave me trouble. A book viewed by me as OK is OK, not bad!
*****************
*Mama's Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves 2 stars
*Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? 3 stars
Both by Frans de Waal
Related books which could be of interest:
*Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel 4 stars
*Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds 4 stars
*The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think 4 stars
*Wesley the Owl: The Remarkable Love Story of an Owl and His Girl 5 stars
*Two Owls At Eton 5 stars
*Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence—and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process 3 stars
*Love, Life, and Elephants: An African Love Story 3 stars
December 27, 2018
Frans de Waal’s latest book, Mama’s Last Hug: Animal and Human Emotions, is a survey of various emotions — what they are, when they arise, and how they are identified — in both animals and humans. Each chapter covers a different set of emotions or concepts related to them, such as emotional intelligence and sentience, described with a plentiful assortment of de Waal’s firsthand anecdotes from his decades studying primates as well as summaries of other scientific publications. In short, he asserts (and with much credible evidence) that not only do animals have rich emotional lives, but they very much parallel that of humans.
Anyone who has a pet at home perhaps will shrug at why this is such a big deal. Like other people who own pets, I’m no stranger to describing the behavior of my cats in emotional terms: they become mopey and depressed when my suitcases come out and they know I’m going to be gone for a while; when I come home from work or a trip they’re ecstatic to see me; they get frustrated when their food or water dish has been empty too long; etc. This is just what the average person tends to do, and we don’t think twice about it. The thing is, scientific reasoning has discredited this for ages as anthropomorphism (and the topic gets a nice overview early on in Mama’s Last Hug), which has long been the “silly foolish thing” humans do that’s just plain nonsense. As Frans de Waal and other scientists have worked hard to prove over the years this is actually not the case. Hard, irrefutable, scientific evidence is now coming out to show that we humans are not on a magnificent pedestal above the rest of the animal kingdom after all. Advances in neuroscience and a growing awareness of and accounting for once-ignored variables in experimental data (like social animals being tested in isolation versus in a social environment, or the very distinct differences in rat behavior when lab technicians are male or female) have only shown that we humans are far more similar to the rest of the animals than we are dissimilar. Turns out, we humans aren’t actually bad at correctly assessing the emotional states of animals, either.
Personally, I devoured this book as quickly as I could. I’ve highlighted so many passages, and discussed the stories and conclusions with anyone that will listen. I’ve always been endlessly fascinated with where scientists are going with their studies of emotions, and usually find myself skimming some psychology publications just for fun. In fact, I even participated in research myself — partly to see how experiments were run, partly to get a free MRI of my brain (why not?). But I always come away from it all a bit perplexed by the over-reliance on linguistics. A brain scan and one’s body language/facial expressions will always depict what one’s emotions are regardless of what they may say to the contrary. Furthermore, humans simply have a tendency to not understand their own emotions, or at the very least struggle to communicate them in a way that’s fully understood from one person to the next, if they aren’t outright lying about what their emotions are. Language is an abstraction over the more complicated mess contained within. Sure, I can tell you something made me “sad” with my fancy human language skills, but do you really know what I experience if you can’t see my expressions or behavior?
Mama’s Last Hug has made me think rather deeply about what really does differentiate us from the other animals on our planet. I’ve never questioned if animals are actually clever, or if they have emotions (and by extension feelings), but I didn’t quite realize just how tremendously much we share until finishing this book. When I look at my species, I see our differences from the other species on this planet in our artistic works and creative endeavors. But in uniquely human traits, I also see a dark side: an endless appetite for destruction and a capacity for doubting, questioning, and ultimately ignoring our own emotions as if they were somehow not an intricate part of us. The capability for empathy and self-sacrifice isn’t uniquely human; instead, it is a life-preserving tendency shared amongst most if not all animals. There is life-giving, life-preserving wisdom in what we’ve long considered primitive or basic, and it stares right back at us when we slow down long enough to really see our animal cousins and what they innately know and do that we so readily resist.
I couldn’t recommend Mama’s Last Hug: Animal and Human Emotions by Frans de Waal enough. From the wonderful stories of observed animal emotions, to the thoughtfulness spurred regarding how we treat animals and how we think about ourselves, there’s a lot of to be gained from reading this book. It was delightful to read and I am looking forward to reading Frans de Waal’s prior works as well!
*** I received an advance reading copy from the publisher, W. W. Norton ***
Anyone who has a pet at home perhaps will shrug at why this is such a big deal. Like other people who own pets, I’m no stranger to describing the behavior of my cats in emotional terms: they become mopey and depressed when my suitcases come out and they know I’m going to be gone for a while; when I come home from work or a trip they’re ecstatic to see me; they get frustrated when their food or water dish has been empty too long; etc. This is just what the average person tends to do, and we don’t think twice about it. The thing is, scientific reasoning has discredited this for ages as anthropomorphism (and the topic gets a nice overview early on in Mama’s Last Hug), which has long been the “silly foolish thing” humans do that’s just plain nonsense. As Frans de Waal and other scientists have worked hard to prove over the years this is actually not the case. Hard, irrefutable, scientific evidence is now coming out to show that we humans are not on a magnificent pedestal above the rest of the animal kingdom after all. Advances in neuroscience and a growing awareness of and accounting for once-ignored variables in experimental data (like social animals being tested in isolation versus in a social environment, or the very distinct differences in rat behavior when lab technicians are male or female) have only shown that we humans are far more similar to the rest of the animals than we are dissimilar. Turns out, we humans aren’t actually bad at correctly assessing the emotional states of animals, either.
Personally, I devoured this book as quickly as I could. I’ve highlighted so many passages, and discussed the stories and conclusions with anyone that will listen. I’ve always been endlessly fascinated with where scientists are going with their studies of emotions, and usually find myself skimming some psychology publications just for fun. In fact, I even participated in research myself — partly to see how experiments were run, partly to get a free MRI of my brain (why not?). But I always come away from it all a bit perplexed by the over-reliance on linguistics. A brain scan and one’s body language/facial expressions will always depict what one’s emotions are regardless of what they may say to the contrary. Furthermore, humans simply have a tendency to not understand their own emotions, or at the very least struggle to communicate them in a way that’s fully understood from one person to the next, if they aren’t outright lying about what their emotions are. Language is an abstraction over the more complicated mess contained within. Sure, I can tell you something made me “sad” with my fancy human language skills, but do you really know what I experience if you can’t see my expressions or behavior?
Mama’s Last Hug has made me think rather deeply about what really does differentiate us from the other animals on our planet. I’ve never questioned if animals are actually clever, or if they have emotions (and by extension feelings), but I didn’t quite realize just how tremendously much we share until finishing this book. When I look at my species, I see our differences from the other species on this planet in our artistic works and creative endeavors. But in uniquely human traits, I also see a dark side: an endless appetite for destruction and a capacity for doubting, questioning, and ultimately ignoring our own emotions as if they were somehow not an intricate part of us. The capability for empathy and self-sacrifice isn’t uniquely human; instead, it is a life-preserving tendency shared amongst most if not all animals. There is life-giving, life-preserving wisdom in what we’ve long considered primitive or basic, and it stares right back at us when we slow down long enough to really see our animal cousins and what they innately know and do that we so readily resist.
I couldn’t recommend Mama’s Last Hug: Animal and Human Emotions by Frans de Waal enough. From the wonderful stories of observed animal emotions, to the thoughtfulness spurred regarding how we treat animals and how we think about ourselves, there’s a lot of to be gained from reading this book. It was delightful to read and I am looking forward to reading Frans de Waal’s prior works as well!
*** I received an advance reading copy from the publisher, W. W. Norton ***
January 5, 2022
Very interesting look at animal emotions making distinctions between emotions and feelings with explanations on how these things are measured while trying not to anthropomorphize the measurements. Really enjoyed this. Mostly about apes (deWaal studies apes) with several other animals behaviors to enhance explanations. One of the behaviors that de Waal mentioned was about fairness and how what causes discontent among apes is the inequity in treatment. When they all get cucumbers everybody is content. When some get grapes while other get cucumbers, the becomes a conflict and the apes that feel slighted stop behaving civilly and through tantrums and act out until equity is restored. More to come...
4+ Stars
Listened to Audible. L. J. Ganser was an excellent narrator
4+ Stars
Listened to Audible. L. J. Ganser was an excellent narrator
July 15, 2019
Frans DeWaal is a primatologist who has studied animal emotions for decades. This fascinating book explores the rich emotional lives of animals. Relating observations and laboratory experiments we are told of emotions found not only in primates, but rats, moles, and fish. Due to a lack of language in these groups (at least a language humans understand), science has been skeptical about the existence of emotions. They can't tell us when they are sad, joyful, envious. They, unlike humans, cannot lie about what they are experiencing. De Waal also believes that reluctance to accept their emotions may stem from an unwillingness to grant complex emotions to lower life forms. After all, isn't that what makes us superior? Thankfully, science is changing and that will trickle down to the general public. We should respect all life. We should care about their habitats and their handling and quality of life if used for consumption. Some progress is being made, but we have a long way still to go.
DeWaal is not just extremely knowledgeable and passionate about his subject, but he is an engaging writer. I highly recommend this book.
"We tend to underestimate the emotions that organize our lives and institutions, but they are at the core of everything we do and are. The desire to control others is a driving force behind many social processes and imposes structure on primate societies. From Trump and Clinton's quest to lead the nation to bonobo mothers who come to blows over their sons, the power motive is pervasive and plain to see. It has led to some of our highest achievements under inspiring leaders, but it also has a disturbing track record of violence, including the political assassinations to which our own species is no stranger.
Emotions can be good, bad, and ugly, which is as true for animals as it is for us."
DeWaal is not just extremely knowledgeable and passionate about his subject, but he is an engaging writer. I highly recommend this book.
"We tend to underestimate the emotions that organize our lives and institutions, but they are at the core of everything we do and are. The desire to control others is a driving force behind many social processes and imposes structure on primate societies. From Trump and Clinton's quest to lead the nation to bonobo mothers who come to blows over their sons, the power motive is pervasive and plain to see. It has led to some of our highest achievements under inspiring leaders, but it also has a disturbing track record of violence, including the political assassinations to which our own species is no stranger.
Emotions can be good, bad, and ugly, which is as true for animals as it is for us."
May 11, 2025
Emoțiile orchestrează comportamentul. Luate în sine, emoțiile sunt destul de nefolositoare: a-ți fi pur și simplu frică nu ajută organismul cu nimic. Dar dacă starea de teamă mobilizează organismul să fugă, să se ascundă sau să contracareze, poate să salveze viața respectivului individ. Emoțiile au evoluat datorită capacității lor de a induce reacții adaptative la pericol, competiție, ocazii de împerechere etc. Emoțiile sunt predispuse la acțiune. Cuvântul "emoție" provine din verbul francez "emouvoir" ce înseamnă "a mișca", "a stârni".
În cartea "Expresia emoțiilor la om și animale", Charles Darwin consideră îmbujorarea și încruntarea expresii exclusiv umane. În privința îmbujorării, are perfectă dreptate. Îmbujorarea este o reacție greu de produs la comandă care apare la rușine și stinghereală. Îmbujorarea rămâne un mister al evoluției.
Cu privire la încruntare, cimpanzeii și urangutanii au oase proeminente la nivelul sprâncenelor, care le protejează ochii și fac încruntarea mai dificil de executat și mai greu de observat de alții. Dar bonobo, care au figurile mai plate, se încruntă cu ușurință și fac acest lucru în situații asemănătoare cu cele care provoacă la noi încruntarea.
Circa 90% din emoțiile umane au antecedente sau paralelisme cu emoțíile animalelor. Gâdilatul unui pui de cimpanzeu este foarte asemănător cu gâdilatul unui copil. Maimuța are aceleași puncte sensibile: subsuara, părțile laterale ale abdomenului, burta. Deschide gura larg, cu buzele relaxate, gâfâind audibil, în același ritm familiar hah-hah-hah de inspirare și expirare ca râsul omenesc.
Zâmbetul uman își are originea în rânjetul primatelor ce semnalizează supunerea și trădează nervozitatea.
Așadar, râsul a început ca un indicator de joc, sensibil la hârjoneală și gâdilat, transformându-se într-un semnal de asociere și bine, chair de amuzament și bucurie. Zâmbetul a început prin a fi expresia fricii și a supunerii, pentru ca apoi să devină semnalizare a lipsei de ostilitate și, în cele din urmă, a afecțiunii.
Recomand
În cartea "Expresia emoțiilor la om și animale", Charles Darwin consideră îmbujorarea și încruntarea expresii exclusiv umane. În privința îmbujorării, are perfectă dreptate. Îmbujorarea este o reacție greu de produs la comandă care apare la rușine și stinghereală. Îmbujorarea rămâne un mister al evoluției.
Cu privire la încruntare, cimpanzeii și urangutanii au oase proeminente la nivelul sprâncenelor, care le protejează ochii și fac încruntarea mai dificil de executat și mai greu de observat de alții. Dar bonobo, care au figurile mai plate, se încruntă cu ușurință și fac acest lucru în situații asemănătoare cu cele care provoacă la noi încruntarea.
Circa 90% din emoțiile umane au antecedente sau paralelisme cu emoțíile animalelor. Gâdilatul unui pui de cimpanzeu este foarte asemănător cu gâdilatul unui copil. Maimuța are aceleași puncte sensibile: subsuara, părțile laterale ale abdomenului, burta. Deschide gura larg, cu buzele relaxate, gâfâind audibil, în același ritm familiar hah-hah-hah de inspirare și expirare ca râsul omenesc.
Zâmbetul uman își are originea în rânjetul primatelor ce semnalizează supunerea și trădează nervozitatea.
Așadar, râsul a început ca un indicator de joc, sensibil la hârjoneală și gâdilat, transformându-se într-un semnal de asociere și bine, chair de amuzament și bucurie. Zâmbetul a început prin a fi expresia fricii și a supunerii, pentru ca apoi să devină semnalizare a lipsei de ostilitate și, în cele din urmă, a afecțiunii.
Recomand
March 7, 2020
Frans de Waal is one of that generation of biologists who, when starting in their field, had to struggle with an intellectual climate more or less opposed on principle to thinking about the inner lives or emotions of animals. Like Jane Goodall (who violated norms by naming, rather than numbering, the chimpanzees she was observing), he was somewhat of a revolutionary for advocating the patently obvious position that humans are not the only mammals to have emotions and distinct personalities. But then, in the mid-20th century, even research in the emotions of humans was somewhat suspect, as the more extreme Behaviorists considered anything other than behavior to be improper for scientific consideration.
Fortunately, times have changed, but de Waal is still a bit angry about it. Not that his writing is, by and large, ranty or angry (if I may engage in a bit of speculation about his internal mental state for a moment). But, from time to time he does get just a tiny bit curmudgeonly about the fact that he had to spend a good bit of his early career battling the intellectual headwinds that hit anyone who thought that non-human animals thought, and more importantly felt.
Which is a bit odd, because not only is this common knowledge which any farmer, veterinarian, or pet owner could have told you, but it is also very much in line with the Copernican Principle. This is the pattern (not as precise as a scientific law, more a rule of thumb) that scientific progress tends to move in the direction of "You Are Not So Special, Humanity". Earth is not the center of the Universe. Neither is the Sun. Humans came about long after the universe had been going, and we are related to every other living thing on earth, some of whom are relatively close relations. It is predictable from the Copernican Principle that just about anything that humans can do (language, toolmaking, feeling emotions) has antecedents in other species.
There are a few times when I was a bit skeptical of his arguments, if not of his conclusions. For example, he makes reference to the now famous "pencil held in your teeth makes you find things to be funnier because it forces you into a smile" study, without acknowledging that there has been quite a bit of trouble in replications of this finding. Now it may be that this result will be upheld upon closer study, but given all the attention paid to replication in the social sciences in recent years, you would think that it would at least be acknowledged that there was a question.
Still, there is clearly a lot in common between human emotions and those of other mammals, and perhaps even in some cases non-mammalian species. The "Mama" of the title refers to a chimpanzee matriarch, who managed to retain her alpha female status for many years largely by deftly managing the emotions of herself and others in her troop. Very late in her life, she was visited by Jan van Hooff, an (also elderly) researcher who supervised de Waal's dissertation decades before. The video accumulated several million views (you can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa-o... ). The reason is that the emotional content is not difficult to interpret; the chimpanzee is surprised, and enthusiastic, about seeing the familiar human face. Chimpanzees are far stronger than humans, and unless you have raised one from infancy it is dangerous to be near one without some form of protection from mood swings. If we are told that this was the first ever time that they had met without bars in between, even though they had been interacting for forty years, it certainly adds something to our understanding of the event, but I think even without this knowledge the emotional content of the chimpanzee's reaction is pretty clear.
One could, of course, come up with some sort of explanation of the various physical acts that did not mention the word "emotion" or any related concept. You could also probably come up with an explanation of why the planets move across the sky in the way they do, without referencing the fact that they and the Earth are all in orbit around the Sun. But, the simplest explanation by far is that they feel many of the same emotions that humans do, and so for the same reason that (well before we had rocketry enough to literally prove it) we accepted Copernicus' heliocentric model, we should probably assume that mammals have emotions unless there is some advantage (in predictive power) in assuming otherwise.
If I have any criticism of this book, it would be that much of the same ground was covered in his previous book, "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?" But, it is still a good read, and the overlap is not so complete as to make reading this book superfluous.
I have to say, also, that I found de Waal's sketches and drawings to be charming. More scientists should attempt to draw; it's a humanizing touch. Also, their knowledge (some of it subconscious) of which features matter most, can at times make their drawings more informative than a photograph.
All told, a worthy, if imperfect, book on a topic that anyone with emotions can learn from.
Fortunately, times have changed, but de Waal is still a bit angry about it. Not that his writing is, by and large, ranty or angry (if I may engage in a bit of speculation about his internal mental state for a moment). But, from time to time he does get just a tiny bit curmudgeonly about the fact that he had to spend a good bit of his early career battling the intellectual headwinds that hit anyone who thought that non-human animals thought, and more importantly felt.
Which is a bit odd, because not only is this common knowledge which any farmer, veterinarian, or pet owner could have told you, but it is also very much in line with the Copernican Principle. This is the pattern (not as precise as a scientific law, more a rule of thumb) that scientific progress tends to move in the direction of "You Are Not So Special, Humanity". Earth is not the center of the Universe. Neither is the Sun. Humans came about long after the universe had been going, and we are related to every other living thing on earth, some of whom are relatively close relations. It is predictable from the Copernican Principle that just about anything that humans can do (language, toolmaking, feeling emotions) has antecedents in other species.
There are a few times when I was a bit skeptical of his arguments, if not of his conclusions. For example, he makes reference to the now famous "pencil held in your teeth makes you find things to be funnier because it forces you into a smile" study, without acknowledging that there has been quite a bit of trouble in replications of this finding. Now it may be that this result will be upheld upon closer study, but given all the attention paid to replication in the social sciences in recent years, you would think that it would at least be acknowledged that there was a question.
Still, there is clearly a lot in common between human emotions and those of other mammals, and perhaps even in some cases non-mammalian species. The "Mama" of the title refers to a chimpanzee matriarch, who managed to retain her alpha female status for many years largely by deftly managing the emotions of herself and others in her troop. Very late in her life, she was visited by Jan van Hooff, an (also elderly) researcher who supervised de Waal's dissertation decades before. The video accumulated several million views (you can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa-o... ). The reason is that the emotional content is not difficult to interpret; the chimpanzee is surprised, and enthusiastic, about seeing the familiar human face. Chimpanzees are far stronger than humans, and unless you have raised one from infancy it is dangerous to be near one without some form of protection from mood swings. If we are told that this was the first ever time that they had met without bars in between, even though they had been interacting for forty years, it certainly adds something to our understanding of the event, but I think even without this knowledge the emotional content of the chimpanzee's reaction is pretty clear.
One could, of course, come up with some sort of explanation of the various physical acts that did not mention the word "emotion" or any related concept. You could also probably come up with an explanation of why the planets move across the sky in the way they do, without referencing the fact that they and the Earth are all in orbit around the Sun. But, the simplest explanation by far is that they feel many of the same emotions that humans do, and so for the same reason that (well before we had rocketry enough to literally prove it) we accepted Copernicus' heliocentric model, we should probably assume that mammals have emotions unless there is some advantage (in predictive power) in assuming otherwise.
If I have any criticism of this book, it would be that much of the same ground was covered in his previous book, "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?" But, it is still a good read, and the overlap is not so complete as to make reading this book superfluous.
I have to say, also, that I found de Waal's sketches and drawings to be charming. More scientists should attempt to draw; it's a humanizing touch. Also, their knowledge (some of it subconscious) of which features matter most, can at times make their drawings more informative than a photograph.
All told, a worthy, if imperfect, book on a topic that anyone with emotions can learn from.
December 14, 2019
I wanted to like this, I really did. De Waal is such a nice guy, and such a thoughtful writer, and a brilliant primate scientist. But Mama's Last Hug is not, IMHO, de Waal at his best. While I agree with the vast majority of the arguments he puts about the role of emotion and the social interactions that largely drive them, I found it increasingly difficult to abide the generalisations and exaggerations that pepper de Waal's approach to studies that are not his own. Consistently, de Waal makes a grand statement (e.g. "the idea that behavior is invariably self-serving has died an inglorious death. Science has confirmed that cooperation is our species’s first and foremost inclination, at least with members of the in-group") and then provides a single example or study as evidence (in this case, one pop science book published in 2011). Now, to be clear, I *agree* with de Waal on cooperation, absolutely - and I would love to be able to say scientific consensus now exists on this issue. But I don't think it does - and certainly what is cited here is not enough for me to feel comfortable quoting de Waal, no matter how much I want to.
I don't so much agree with de Waal on his insistence of sharp, biological gendered differences in humans, and it is a topic in which I am reasonably well read. I would have liked to engage more with de Waal on this - most primates show sharp social differential by gender, and given the importance recognises in culture in primates, this discussion about how culture plays a role, inextricably entwined with biology (primates biology changes in line with the assumption of social roles), but instead de Waal relies on discredited studies, generalisations and eventually absurd statements like: "Modern female heads of state have all been postmenopausal, such as Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher." (Jacinda Ardern and Benazir Bhutto, both of whom gave birth in office, would find this puzzling). This then justifies the eaually ridiculous: "
While being attractive and good-looking is great for men (think of John F. Kennedy or Justin Trudeau), it doesn’t work out equally well for women. This is related to how sexual competition interacts with an electorate that is half male and half female. Attractive women, especially those of childbearing age, are perceived as rivals by other women, which makes it hard for them to get their vote. When John McCain ran against Barack Obama in 2008, he selected a relatively young woman, Sarah Palin, as his running mate. Men in the media regarded it as a brilliant move, calling Palin “hot” and a “MIL F,” but no one seemed to realize how much male enthusiasm might harm Palin’s standing among women. Obama barely won the male vote (49 to 48 percent), but he ran away with the female vote (56 to 43 percent)." I could point out that gendered voting patterns have consistently run along party lines in the USA, but I'm getting tired, and frankly take little joy in poking at a scholar whose work has been so justifiably influential in his own field. Suffice to say when I started rigourously checking the references, I found many statements supported by scant research, and would shelve more as opinion than science.
De Waal has transformed our views on Bonobos, and I do hope his future publications return to stronger ground.
I don't so much agree with de Waal on his insistence of sharp, biological gendered differences in humans, and it is a topic in which I am reasonably well read. I would have liked to engage more with de Waal on this - most primates show sharp social differential by gender, and given the importance recognises in culture in primates, this discussion about how culture plays a role, inextricably entwined with biology (primates biology changes in line with the assumption of social roles), but instead de Waal relies on discredited studies, generalisations and eventually absurd statements like: "Modern female heads of state have all been postmenopausal, such as Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher." (Jacinda Ardern and Benazir Bhutto, both of whom gave birth in office, would find this puzzling). This then justifies the eaually ridiculous: "
While being attractive and good-looking is great for men (think of John F. Kennedy or Justin Trudeau), it doesn’t work out equally well for women. This is related to how sexual competition interacts with an electorate that is half male and half female. Attractive women, especially those of childbearing age, are perceived as rivals by other women, which makes it hard for them to get their vote. When John McCain ran against Barack Obama in 2008, he selected a relatively young woman, Sarah Palin, as his running mate. Men in the media regarded it as a brilliant move, calling Palin “hot” and a “MIL F,” but no one seemed to realize how much male enthusiasm might harm Palin’s standing among women. Obama barely won the male vote (49 to 48 percent), but he ran away with the female vote (56 to 43 percent)." I could point out that gendered voting patterns have consistently run along party lines in the USA, but I'm getting tired, and frankly take little joy in poking at a scholar whose work has been so justifiably influential in his own field. Suffice to say when I started rigourously checking the references, I found many statements supported by scant research, and would shelve more as opinion than science.
De Waal has transformed our views on Bonobos, and I do hope his future publications return to stronger ground.
March 30, 2019
I recently went to the zoo at the behest of a friend of mine (I hadn’t been to a proper zoo since I was a child) and was reminded why I hadn’t been in such a long time. Animals in small enclosures, appearing listless with nothing to stimulate them, was for me the opposite of entertaining. It was profoundly moving but not perhaps in the sense that my acquaintance might have wished. Particularly disturbing to me was seeing the macaques, gorillas, chimpanzees, and other primates. When my friend sensed that I was not happy to see them despite my love of bonobos and chimpanzees in particular, I explained how sad it was to see these profoundly social animals with intricate friendship and family bonds be isolated by themselves in a small cage.
In “Mama’s Last Hug”, Frans De Waal doesn’t go deeply into how zoos are problematic (he does briefly touch on it) but he does ask and defend the question as to whether primates in particular are capable of emotions. If you’ve read De Waal before you are probably familiar with his answer but here he uses his and others research as well as entertaining and fascinating anecdotes to answer that he believes they do.
He gives wonderful examples of a wide variety of facial expressions that correlate with our own (our facial structures are remarkably similar), how primates feel and show shame, bargain amongst themselves and others (he cites macaques at a temple of Bali who often steal particular items such as cell phones from tourists. Rather than run away with them, the monkeys sit a safe distance away until the tourists hands over a sufficient amount of food, at which point the monkey will put down the valuables and walk away with its bounty).
In his perhaps most touching story, De Waal recounts the story of Mama, a female chimp who was the alpha female for decades at the colony De Waal supervised in Holland. As she became sick and near death, one of the staff members who had been with her for years went into her cage to say goodbye (a quite dangerous thing to do and one that he freely admitted later he would never do with any other chimp). Mama on seeing and clearly remembering their relationship over the years, gave him a long hug as if to say goodbye that can been seen on Youtube (highly recommended you have some kleenex handy).
Was she aware of her impending death? Maybe. Maybe not. But even the most hardened cynic would have to admit that there was at a bare minimum recognition on her part and more likely warmth that we as humans like to assign solely to ourselves.
Why do so many scientists still refuse to acknowledge that beings other than humans are capable of complex emotions?
Is it that it would complicate experimentation on them? Make eating them extremely problematic?
We do not know for sure. De Waal writes we cannot ask animals directly what they are feeling. This is undoubtedly true. And yet through simple observation it is increasingly difficult to deny they are feeling something intensely recognizable and universal to all living beings.
In “Mama’s Last Hug”, Frans De Waal doesn’t go deeply into how zoos are problematic (he does briefly touch on it) but he does ask and defend the question as to whether primates in particular are capable of emotions. If you’ve read De Waal before you are probably familiar with his answer but here he uses his and others research as well as entertaining and fascinating anecdotes to answer that he believes they do.
He gives wonderful examples of a wide variety of facial expressions that correlate with our own (our facial structures are remarkably similar), how primates feel and show shame, bargain amongst themselves and others (he cites macaques at a temple of Bali who often steal particular items such as cell phones from tourists. Rather than run away with them, the monkeys sit a safe distance away until the tourists hands over a sufficient amount of food, at which point the monkey will put down the valuables and walk away with its bounty).
In his perhaps most touching story, De Waal recounts the story of Mama, a female chimp who was the alpha female for decades at the colony De Waal supervised in Holland. As she became sick and near death, one of the staff members who had been with her for years went into her cage to say goodbye (a quite dangerous thing to do and one that he freely admitted later he would never do with any other chimp). Mama on seeing and clearly remembering their relationship over the years, gave him a long hug as if to say goodbye that can been seen on Youtube (highly recommended you have some kleenex handy).
Was she aware of her impending death? Maybe. Maybe not. But even the most hardened cynic would have to admit that there was at a bare minimum recognition on her part and more likely warmth that we as humans like to assign solely to ourselves.
Why do so many scientists still refuse to acknowledge that beings other than humans are capable of complex emotions?
Is it that it would complicate experimentation on them? Make eating them extremely problematic?
We do not know for sure. De Waal writes we cannot ask animals directly what they are feeling. This is undoubtedly true. And yet through simple observation it is increasingly difficult to deny they are feeling something intensely recognizable and universal to all living beings.
September 21, 2022
Explores how much emotions animals have. Much of the presented data was from research on Chimps since that is what the author has studied for decades. This is not a cute book though, although there are some very tender moments. It is quite a deep exploration and explanation of years of observing or participating in animal behavior. The biggest message is that the reason humans fail to acknowledge much of animal behavior is b/c it offends us. Humans are higher and better then animals, so behaviors we attribute as emotions and then hear spoken as feeling by humans, we often dismiss in animals or call it just instinct. The author is very versed about information and provides so much information to conclude that animals behave in ways that are in fact emotions and are aware of their environment beyond just base level survival.
September 10, 2019
An engaging examination of primate emotions (though, de Waal carefully distinguishes these from feelings) and social constructs and what they teach us about human emotions and interactions. Every now and then it seems his analogies oversimplify human reactions (ex. he compared Bonobo female reproductive jealousy to the majority of women who chose Obama over the McCain/Palin ticket, which of course disregards the many, MANY other reasons that a woman might choose to support Obama over Palin, and fails to account for the broad female support of other young female politicians like AOC and Ayanna Pressley). I suppose these analogies are meant to be illustrative and not intended to be sole reason a person reacts the way they do, but that one especially was off putting.
July 31, 2019
You might also enjoy:
Primates
✱ Next of Kin: My Conversations with Chimpanzees
✱ A Primate's Memoir
✱ Through a Window
✱ Bonobo Handshake
✱ Almost Human: The Astonishing Tale of Homo Naledi
✱ Reflections of Eden: My Years with the Orangutans of Borneo
✱ Walking with the Great Apes: Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Birute Galdikas
Other Animals
✱ The Inner Life of Animals
✱ The Secret Wisdom of Nature
✱ Alex & Me
✱ Mind of the Raven
✱ One Wild Bird at a Time
✱ Spying on Whales
✱ Animals in Translation
✱ Animals Make Us Human
✱ The Soul of an Octopus
✱ Animal Wise
✱ The Inner World of Farm Animals
✱ Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
✱ When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals
✱ The Pig Who Sang to the Moon
On occasion, the author makes statements comparing female apes and women. While I understand what he is trying to accomplish, his wording comes off as sexist. An example, from Chapter 1:
I can't say I agree. Many young women don't want this attention, nor do they they use their bodies to leverage power with men. Makeup and beauty treatments are not always about looking younger or attracting a mate, either. Ugh. Point made, but rather poorly.
Primates
✱ Next of Kin: My Conversations with Chimpanzees
✱ A Primate's Memoir
✱ Through a Window
✱ Bonobo Handshake
✱ Almost Human: The Astonishing Tale of Homo Naledi
✱ Reflections of Eden: My Years with the Orangutans of Borneo
✱ Walking with the Great Apes: Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Birute Galdikas
Other Animals
✱ The Inner Life of Animals
✱ The Secret Wisdom of Nature
✱ Alex & Me
✱ Mind of the Raven
✱ One Wild Bird at a Time
✱ Spying on Whales
✱ Animals in Translation
✱ Animals Make Us Human
✱ The Soul of an Octopus
✱ Animal Wise
✱ The Inner World of Farm Animals
✱ Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals
✱ When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals
✱ The Pig Who Sang to the Moon
On occasion, the author makes statements comparing female apes and women. While I understand what he is trying to accomplish, his wording comes off as sexist. An example, from Chapter 1:
While a young woman’s bosom gradually expands, often aided by push-up bras and padding, she, too, becomes a magnet of male attention. She learns the power of cleavage, which gives her clout she’s never enjoyed before, while also opening her up to jealousy and nasty comments from other women. This complex period in a girl’s life, with its massive emotional upheavals and insecurities, reflects the same interplay between power, sex, and rivalry that adolescent female apes also go through.
(and, a few paragraphs later)
Young women are both more available and more valuable because of the reproductive life that lies in front of them. Hence women’s eternal quest to look young via hair-dyeing, makeup, implants, facelifts, and so on.
I can't say I agree. Many young women don't want this attention, nor do they they use their bodies to leverage power with men. Makeup and beauty treatments are not always about looking younger or attracting a mate, either. Ugh. Point made, but rather poorly.
June 8, 2021
I was fooled by the deluge of positive reviews here on Goodreads. What a huge disappointment. De Waal is clearly a great self-promoter, with his confrontational and energetic style, but listen to me: this book is really vapid and weak.
The chimp “Mama” that we can see on the cover disappears after the first chapter.
The book provides some interesting, although very fragmented and superficially presented, tidbits of information about animal behavior, especially related to specific experiments. Unfortunately, this is the only positive thing I can say about this book.
And so that you don’t think that I’m simply here to roast this book, let me say quite frankly: I am ecstatic that our human “collective consciousness” is currently experiencing a slow but undeniable sort of awakening towards animals’ sensitivity.
Leonardo Da Vinci once said “There will come a day when killing an animal will be judged just as harshly as killing a human being”, and I don’t think he was far from the truth. We will see. But in the last 100 years we, as a society, have been waking up to other important issues related to our humanity and empathy, so why not this one?
So I welcome any book that makes a case for animals’ sensitivity. They DO feel like us. They DO have a heart, like we do. And we need to respect them much more than what we currently do. For example: with legislation that punishes people who get a dog and then bring it to a pound after 6 months because they got bored.
But I knew all this before. I felt like I learned very little new information from this book.
Because for the most part, it doesn’t read like an instructive piece of writing. It reads like a grumpy rant - by the author - about the following three points:
1). “all those people” (who??) who insist that social life is the selfish exploitation of others and that selfishness is the driving force of life are DEAD WRONG! And if you haven’t quite paid attention the first time De Waal told you, do not worry, because he will repeat it for you 76 times throughout the book.
2). “all those people” (who??) who say that animals don’t have emotions and feelings are DEAD WRONG! No risk of missing this point either, trust me. A fully dead horse by the end of the book, De Waal will keep kicking it with a certain anger.
3). “all those people” (WHO, FRANS, WHO??) who say that human beings are unique and special and different from other animals are DEAD WRONG!!! Blind with unarticulated anger against these “people”, not even once De Waal remembers to mention the undeniably UNIQUE biology and structure of our brain, which might have given to his argument at least a vague sense of balance.
Now, the first “issue” is obviously and annoyingly NOT an issue. It takes only a pinch of common sense to realize that the point itself is lacking any sort of depth.
The second issue has nothing to do with the study of primates, and everything to do with the PEOPLE who study primates, just like De Waal, and their boring internal diatribes and arguments. It’s not even about primates’ behavior: it’s about philosophy and about what we actually mean by “selfish” and “unselfish”. Like the first issue, this is a complete non-issue, not only for me, but for most of the normal people who have watched at least a couple of youtube videos showing animal behavior. Or even for anyone who ever lived with a dog!
On the third issue, I’m not even going to waste any words. It would make for a lively beer-fueled pub banter conversation, but absolutely nothing else.
If all this doesn’t convince you that this book is not worth your time or money, let me add that in many, many, many, many portions De Waal goes off on a tangent to lecture you about human behavior, philosophy, human psychology, history, POLITICS (yes!), as if being a primatologist had made him an expert in all these fields as well (you guessed: he is not).
And he doesn’t come across as a subtle thinker, either. His arguments are relentlessly shallow: see his example about the female electorate rebelling against Sarah Palin for female competitiveness because she was a good-looking fertile female, and his argument about Angela Merkl, Benazir Bhutto and Margaret Thatcher having achieved political success because “post-menopausal”. Yuck!
(What about the very good-looking and relatively young Yulia Tymoshenko, or Kamala Harris, or Nicola Sturgeon, who rose as leader of the Scottish National Party when she was younger than what Palin was when she ran in 2008?)
But no, seriously, go ahead! Spend your money if you wish to listen to all the raving reviews that conflict with mine. You’ll end up with a tiny sprinkle of interesting examples of primatologist experiments, a whole lot of common sense that your 14 year old daughter could articulate for you, and a whole lot of venting about arguments that, if you are not a primatologist, you shouldn’t care about in a million years.
The chimp “Mama” that we can see on the cover disappears after the first chapter.
The book provides some interesting, although very fragmented and superficially presented, tidbits of information about animal behavior, especially related to specific experiments. Unfortunately, this is the only positive thing I can say about this book.
And so that you don’t think that I’m simply here to roast this book, let me say quite frankly: I am ecstatic that our human “collective consciousness” is currently experiencing a slow but undeniable sort of awakening towards animals’ sensitivity.
Leonardo Da Vinci once said “There will come a day when killing an animal will be judged just as harshly as killing a human being”, and I don’t think he was far from the truth. We will see. But in the last 100 years we, as a society, have been waking up to other important issues related to our humanity and empathy, so why not this one?
So I welcome any book that makes a case for animals’ sensitivity. They DO feel like us. They DO have a heart, like we do. And we need to respect them much more than what we currently do. For example: with legislation that punishes people who get a dog and then bring it to a pound after 6 months because they got bored.
But I knew all this before. I felt like I learned very little new information from this book.
Because for the most part, it doesn’t read like an instructive piece of writing. It reads like a grumpy rant - by the author - about the following three points:
1). “all those people” (who??) who insist that social life is the selfish exploitation of others and that selfishness is the driving force of life are DEAD WRONG! And if you haven’t quite paid attention the first time De Waal told you, do not worry, because he will repeat it for you 76 times throughout the book.
2). “all those people” (who??) who say that animals don’t have emotions and feelings are DEAD WRONG! No risk of missing this point either, trust me. A fully dead horse by the end of the book, De Waal will keep kicking it with a certain anger.
3). “all those people” (WHO, FRANS, WHO??) who say that human beings are unique and special and different from other animals are DEAD WRONG!!! Blind with unarticulated anger against these “people”, not even once De Waal remembers to mention the undeniably UNIQUE biology and structure of our brain, which might have given to his argument at least a vague sense of balance.
Now, the first “issue” is obviously and annoyingly NOT an issue. It takes only a pinch of common sense to realize that the point itself is lacking any sort of depth.
The second issue has nothing to do with the study of primates, and everything to do with the PEOPLE who study primates, just like De Waal, and their boring internal diatribes and arguments. It’s not even about primates’ behavior: it’s about philosophy and about what we actually mean by “selfish” and “unselfish”. Like the first issue, this is a complete non-issue, not only for me, but for most of the normal people who have watched at least a couple of youtube videos showing animal behavior. Or even for anyone who ever lived with a dog!
On the third issue, I’m not even going to waste any words. It would make for a lively beer-fueled pub banter conversation, but absolutely nothing else.
If all this doesn’t convince you that this book is not worth your time or money, let me add that in many, many, many, many portions De Waal goes off on a tangent to lecture you about human behavior, philosophy, human psychology, history, POLITICS (yes!), as if being a primatologist had made him an expert in all these fields as well (you guessed: he is not).
And he doesn’t come across as a subtle thinker, either. His arguments are relentlessly shallow: see his example about the female electorate rebelling against Sarah Palin for female competitiveness because she was a good-looking fertile female, and his argument about Angela Merkl, Benazir Bhutto and Margaret Thatcher having achieved political success because “post-menopausal”. Yuck!
(What about the very good-looking and relatively young Yulia Tymoshenko, or Kamala Harris, or Nicola Sturgeon, who rose as leader of the Scottish National Party when she was younger than what Palin was when she ran in 2008?)
But no, seriously, go ahead! Spend your money if you wish to listen to all the raving reviews that conflict with mine. You’ll end up with a tiny sprinkle of interesting examples of primatologist experiments, a whole lot of common sense that your 14 year old daughter could articulate for you, and a whole lot of venting about arguments that, if you are not a primatologist, you shouldn’t care about in a million years.
January 9, 2025
An informative book about animal emotions and cognition with interesting and charming examples.
"We are animals. Since I don’t look at our own species as emotionally much different from other mammals, and in fact would be hard-pressed to pinpoint uniquely human emotions, we had better pay careful attention to the emotional background we share with our fellow travelers on this planet."
"We are animals. Since I don’t look at our own species as emotionally much different from other mammals, and in fact would be hard-pressed to pinpoint uniquely human emotions, we had better pay careful attention to the emotional background we share with our fellow travelers on this planet."
March 16, 2020
Cuando cada vez más estudios confirman que los animales tienen inteligencia- aspecto que había sido menospreciado relativamente poco-, el autor se pregunta: ¿podemos obtener la misma evidencia sobre las emociones y los sentimientos de los animales? Este libro aporta estudios, observaciones y reflexiones acerca de lo cómo pueden sentir de una forma que nos recuerda mucho a nosotros.
Considero que este libro centrado en las emociones es complementario a Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, en el sentido en el que el anterior libro ya analizaba los mecanismos racionales. Se abre con una descripción de la muerte de Mama, una chimpancé de edad avanzada que había sido toda una referencia para su grupo y con la cual su cuidador humano había entablado una relación especial. Este es "el último abrazo" de Mama y el cuidador, como si la primate debilitada ya intuyese que su final estaba cerca y sería la última vez que viese al humano, lo que efectivamente ocurrió.
Este testimonio tan conmovedor sirve de aterrizaje a muchos otros donde observaremos a animales ejerciendo capacidad de liderazgo amable, apenados por la muerte de un ser querido o interpretando conceptos como la equidad o la envidia respecto a los demás. Frans de Waal escribe desde el conocimiento de las situaciones que ha vivido entre primates y de la bibliografía más actual sobre emociones en animales (no solo en primates, aunque sí es la mayor parte del tiempo). Explica cómo ellos producen emociones e interpretan las de su grupo, para valorar la mejor solución a sus problemas. Indaga también en la producción de sentimientos muy complejos.
Contribuye a acercarnos aún más entre especies, a darnos un abrazo.
Considero que este libro centrado en las emociones es complementario a Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, en el sentido en el que el anterior libro ya analizaba los mecanismos racionales. Se abre con una descripción de la muerte de Mama, una chimpancé de edad avanzada que había sido toda una referencia para su grupo y con la cual su cuidador humano había entablado una relación especial. Este es "el último abrazo" de Mama y el cuidador, como si la primate debilitada ya intuyese que su final estaba cerca y sería la última vez que viese al humano, lo que efectivamente ocurrió.
Este testimonio tan conmovedor sirve de aterrizaje a muchos otros donde observaremos a animales ejerciendo capacidad de liderazgo amable, apenados por la muerte de un ser querido o interpretando conceptos como la equidad o la envidia respecto a los demás. Frans de Waal escribe desde el conocimiento de las situaciones que ha vivido entre primates y de la bibliografía más actual sobre emociones en animales (no solo en primates, aunque sí es la mayor parte del tiempo). Explica cómo ellos producen emociones e interpretan las de su grupo, para valorar la mejor solución a sus problemas. Indaga también en la producción de sentimientos muy complejos.
Contribuye a acercarnos aún más entre especies, a darnos un abrazo.
July 3, 2019
I loved this book, although I found it very similar to another of Frans de Waal's books, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, which deals with animal intelligence while this one deals with emotions. As the author points out, the two are intertwined. Apparently the fact that other animals have feelings and emotions very similar to our own comes as a surprise to many people, including scientists. I, like the author, think it's obvious that they do, as would anyone who had any kind of close relationship with a dog, horse, primate or bird. The author gives solid evidence of sentience in fish, and the intelligence of octopuses is well documented.
So, while I enjoyed this book immensely, loved the anecdotes this seasoned primatologist colorfully presents, and found his views regarding our treatment of other living things logically flawless, the whole point of the book is, to me, blindingly obvious. Unfortunately, this is evidently not true for much of the human race, which is very disturbing. If it's because they lack the opportunity for close relationships with animals, perhaps reading this book will encourage us to get to know our fellow earthlings. If it's just that many people are numb nuts and lack what we cavalierly term "humanity," the only answer is for our society as a whole to change its attitude and customs, so that mistreatment of animals will be unacceptable, even if certain cretins don't get it.
So, while I enjoyed this book immensely, loved the anecdotes this seasoned primatologist colorfully presents, and found his views regarding our treatment of other living things logically flawless, the whole point of the book is, to me, blindingly obvious. Unfortunately, this is evidently not true for much of the human race, which is very disturbing. If it's because they lack the opportunity for close relationships with animals, perhaps reading this book will encourage us to get to know our fellow earthlings. If it's just that many people are numb nuts and lack what we cavalierly term "humanity," the only answer is for our society as a whole to change its attitude and customs, so that mistreatment of animals will be unacceptable, even if certain cretins don't get it.
September 24, 2020
Because I loved Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, I was delighted to find out that Frans de Waal was coming to the National Book Festival in D.C. in 2019. I attended to his talk and had my copy of Mama's Last Hug signed.
Mama's Last Hug is about animal emotions, while Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is about animal intelligence. The author draws a line between emotions and feelings, where emotions are observable and "feelings arise when emotions penetrate our consciousness, and we become aware of them". He argues that animals have the full set of emotions, not only the "basic" anger, happiness and fear, but also "high-order" emotions including disgust, proud, guilt and fairness. The animals discussed extensively in the book are primates, but the author also gives solid evidence in dogs, pigs and fish. In the chapter of Emotional Intelligence, free-will is discussed.
Unlike intelligence (which is why Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? such an eye-opener to me), animals having emotions never seems a problem to me. Giving the importance of emotions in human life, it's unfathomable to think them as unique to homo sapiens and without a deep evolution path. Naturally, the implication of animal emotions brings forward important questions: what do they mean to us and how they will affect our treatment of animals?
Mama's Last Hug is about animal emotions, while Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is about animal intelligence. The author draws a line between emotions and feelings, where emotions are observable and "feelings arise when emotions penetrate our consciousness, and we become aware of them". He argues that animals have the full set of emotions, not only the "basic" anger, happiness and fear, but also "high-order" emotions including disgust, proud, guilt and fairness. The animals discussed extensively in the book are primates, but the author also gives solid evidence in dogs, pigs and fish. In the chapter of Emotional Intelligence, free-will is discussed.
Unlike intelligence (which is why Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? such an eye-opener to me), animals having emotions never seems a problem to me. Giving the importance of emotions in human life, it's unfathomable to think them as unique to homo sapiens and without a deep evolution path. Naturally, the implication of animal emotions brings forward important questions: what do they mean to us and how they will affect our treatment of animals?
March 23, 2019
Educational, entertaining, enlightening, evidentiary. de Waal is devoted to his subject both intellectually and emotionally, and once you've read the book, you might believe (as I do) that that's the same fidelity. It took me all of the book to grasp that emotions are not feelings, and it's taken the behaviorist, psychologist, biologist schools decades to sort it as well. We (and this we perhaps has an arrow pointed at American studies for the perpetuation of this misconception) accept that animals are lower on the evolutionary ladder than the venerated us. Humans talk. And talk and talk. Other sentient beings don't. Not to us, which disqualifies them from apex status. But then we aren't all that great at observing without being told what to see. For this reason alone, I've never been sure that homo sapiens earned its pedestal-topping roost. Fierce listening, as my friend says, is what we need more. Observation and listening are conjacent.
de Waal sorts sentience into tiers, and you will be fascinated by the way he sticks this knowledge so you won't soon forget. All the old saws about the reasons animals are so far below us don't hold water. Or air either. Do orangutans plan ahead? Are chimpanzees empathetic? Do dolphins remember? Does a rat like being tickled? Does a community of primates understand death? How do battling chimps achieve accord? Do alpha females seek revenge?
The answers are all here for those who wish to observe and listen. This is a joyful book. I wish you as pleasant an experience.
de Waal sorts sentience into tiers, and you will be fascinated by the way he sticks this knowledge so you won't soon forget. All the old saws about the reasons animals are so far below us don't hold water. Or air either. Do orangutans plan ahead? Are chimpanzees empathetic? Do dolphins remember? Does a rat like being tickled? Does a community of primates understand death? How do battling chimps achieve accord? Do alpha females seek revenge?
The answers are all here for those who wish to observe and listen. This is a joyful book. I wish you as pleasant an experience.
February 2, 2019
I won this in a Goodreads giveaway. What a wonderful book! I enjoyed it and would highly recommend it!
April 6, 2019
Animal Emotions
Early ethologists studied animal behavior to understand a shared motivation. Their experimental setup was elegant and objective, but the underlying motivation for animal behavior was ignored. For example, fear and anger, and the animal reactions to it were carefully examined and conclusions were drawn. The prevailing assumption in these studies were that animals had instincts that gave inborn actions triggered by a situation. Behavioral biologists have changed this approach because the instincts are inflexible, and they have started to look from the point of emotions which allow flexibility. They prime body and mind, but do not dictate any specific course of actions. Emotions are neither invisible nor impossible to study; they can be measured. Levels of biomolecules associated with emotional experiences, from the “cuddle hormone” oxytocin to the stress hormone cortisol, can easily be determined. The hormones are virtually identical across the board; from humans to birds to invertebrates.
The artificial intelligence (AI) recognize the importance of emotions. AI with emotions would interact with humans with empathy and human-like emotions, and hopefully do not destroy mankind when they become too powerful. It is expected to facilitate engagement and working together for common good.
In this book, the author, a well-known primatologist proposes that animals experience emotions in the same way as humans do. Emotions infuse everything that inspire cognition and drives all animals and humans. By examining emotions, this book puts these vivid of mental experiences in evolutionary context, revealing how their richness, power and utility stretch across species and back into the history of animal kingdom.
Early ethologists studied animal behavior to understand a shared motivation. Their experimental setup was elegant and objective, but the underlying motivation for animal behavior was ignored. For example, fear and anger, and the animal reactions to it were carefully examined and conclusions were drawn. The prevailing assumption in these studies were that animals had instincts that gave inborn actions triggered by a situation. Behavioral biologists have changed this approach because the instincts are inflexible, and they have started to look from the point of emotions which allow flexibility. They prime body and mind, but do not dictate any specific course of actions. Emotions are neither invisible nor impossible to study; they can be measured. Levels of biomolecules associated with emotional experiences, from the “cuddle hormone” oxytocin to the stress hormone cortisol, can easily be determined. The hormones are virtually identical across the board; from humans to birds to invertebrates.
The artificial intelligence (AI) recognize the importance of emotions. AI with emotions would interact with humans with empathy and human-like emotions, and hopefully do not destroy mankind when they become too powerful. It is expected to facilitate engagement and working together for common good.
In this book, the author, a well-known primatologist proposes that animals experience emotions in the same way as humans do. Emotions infuse everything that inspire cognition and drives all animals and humans. By examining emotions, this book puts these vivid of mental experiences in evolutionary context, revealing how their richness, power and utility stretch across species and back into the history of animal kingdom.
April 24, 2022
"Mama's Last Hug" (2018) é uma defesa, apoiada por décadas de ciência empírica, da existência efectiva de emoções nos animais não-humanos. Contudo, como livro, não vai além de uma conversa ligeira sobre o assunto, serve mais quem apenas quiser introduzir-se ao tema. O título do livro surgiu a De Wall pela visita realizada pelo professor Jan van Hooff à chimpanzé Mama, quando esta estava às portas da morte, originando um reencontro intensamente emocional, um momento mágico e profundamente humano entre seres de duas espécies.
Links e excertos no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Links e excertos no blog:
https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
December 21, 2020
El nombre original del libro hace referencia a un antropoide llamado "Mama". Mama era una matriarca que al final de su vida, cerca de sus 59 años, estaba en agonía, y su video se viralizó al ser sumamente emotivo: la expresión que muestra al ver a Jan van Hooff cuando la visita en su lecho de muerte es un video exquisito para la empatía.
Este es el video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa-o...
Con eso al inicio, podemos ya conjeturar de qué trata el libro. No es un alegato estilo PETA; es un resumen muy claro sobre las emociones de los animales. Para poder leer este libro sin problemas, hay que dar por sentada la evolución. Sin la evolución no existen los vestigios evolutivos, no existiría la antrozoología, ni la psicología evolutiva; el hombre fuera el fiel reflejo de Dios, a su imagen y semejanza. Y eso evitaría que siquiera hagamos comparaciones entre cualquier otra especie animal y el hombre.
El libro es muy claro y exponen argumentos que puedes leerlos en libros de Jane Goodall, en Carl Sagan, Yuval Noah Harari y en Desmond Morris. Me pareció increíble que una fotografía muestre a un Frans de Waal joven, y cuyos créditos de la fotografía pertenezcan a Desmond Morris, me pareció bestial.
Este libro lo leí justo cuando por primera vez en mi vida tenga en mi casa como un hijo a un peludito de la especie Canis Lupus Familiaris. Se llama Nikolai Pechi Puyol Astudillo, y parece a veces Shih Tzu, a veces Lhasa Apso, a veces French Poodle, pero nació el 23 de agosto de 2020, y tiene cerca de 4 meses al escribir esta reseña. No puedo jamás negar que tener a un peludito te hace, no más "humano", pero te hace más "terráqueo", en el sentido de que no debo humanizarlo, sino que sé que es un ser vivo como yo, con órganos muy parecidos, y que incluso los humanos en su formación dentro del útero tienen una cola vestigial que se elimina con el desarrollo embrionario. Por eso es que decía (entre otras razones) que el libro debe de ser leído sin un credo previo, sea este islámico o judío o cristiano.
Es un libro que te va a acercar mucho con los animales, no solo con los gatos y perros, sino también con los cerdos, los peces, las aves y los antropoides particularmente. Como etólogo, está repleto de experimentos y argumentos sustentados en la observación, y toca diversos puntos clave con el consumo de carne, y me agradó que logremos coincidir. Frans de Waal estipula que el -veganismo- es un cuento de hadas que no existe porque no es real. Como he visitado granjas de cría, reproducción y faenamiento, coincido con el punto de vista de que no se trata de consumir la carne, sino del ethos de hacerlo, sin cuidado por la manera de cómo acabar con la vida del animal, sin embargo, el factor crucial para mí siempre será la sobrepoblación. Creo yo (en vísperas de la elección fraudulenta de USA y el hackeo de sistemas militares nucleares de USA) que China, que es país comunista, con un régimen totalitario, causará estragos al futuro de la humanidad porque son una máquina de consumo de más de mil millones de personas; la guerra última será justamente por carne para consumo.
No se puede decir que se ama a los animales sin poder haberle dedicado tiempo a este libro. Es sumamente recomendable, y te abrirá la brecha para poder estudiar diversas ramas de la biología, e incentiva mucho a cuidar más a los animales, sabiendo que ellos sienten mucho igual que nosotros, que no somos muy distintos de ellos; solo tenemos ropa y texto.
Este es el video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INa-o...
Con eso al inicio, podemos ya conjeturar de qué trata el libro. No es un alegato estilo PETA; es un resumen muy claro sobre las emociones de los animales. Para poder leer este libro sin problemas, hay que dar por sentada la evolución. Sin la evolución no existen los vestigios evolutivos, no existiría la antrozoología, ni la psicología evolutiva; el hombre fuera el fiel reflejo de Dios, a su imagen y semejanza. Y eso evitaría que siquiera hagamos comparaciones entre cualquier otra especie animal y el hombre.
El libro es muy claro y exponen argumentos que puedes leerlos en libros de Jane Goodall, en Carl Sagan, Yuval Noah Harari y en Desmond Morris. Me pareció increíble que una fotografía muestre a un Frans de Waal joven, y cuyos créditos de la fotografía pertenezcan a Desmond Morris, me pareció bestial.
Este libro lo leí justo cuando por primera vez en mi vida tenga en mi casa como un hijo a un peludito de la especie Canis Lupus Familiaris. Se llama Nikolai Pechi Puyol Astudillo, y parece a veces Shih Tzu, a veces Lhasa Apso, a veces French Poodle, pero nació el 23 de agosto de 2020, y tiene cerca de 4 meses al escribir esta reseña. No puedo jamás negar que tener a un peludito te hace, no más "humano", pero te hace más "terráqueo", en el sentido de que no debo humanizarlo, sino que sé que es un ser vivo como yo, con órganos muy parecidos, y que incluso los humanos en su formación dentro del útero tienen una cola vestigial que se elimina con el desarrollo embrionario. Por eso es que decía (entre otras razones) que el libro debe de ser leído sin un credo previo, sea este islámico o judío o cristiano.
Es un libro que te va a acercar mucho con los animales, no solo con los gatos y perros, sino también con los cerdos, los peces, las aves y los antropoides particularmente. Como etólogo, está repleto de experimentos y argumentos sustentados en la observación, y toca diversos puntos clave con el consumo de carne, y me agradó que logremos coincidir. Frans de Waal estipula que el -veganismo- es un cuento de hadas que no existe porque no es real. Como he visitado granjas de cría, reproducción y faenamiento, coincido con el punto de vista de que no se trata de consumir la carne, sino del ethos de hacerlo, sin cuidado por la manera de cómo acabar con la vida del animal, sin embargo, el factor crucial para mí siempre será la sobrepoblación. Creo yo (en vísperas de la elección fraudulenta de USA y el hackeo de sistemas militares nucleares de USA) que China, que es país comunista, con un régimen totalitario, causará estragos al futuro de la humanidad porque son una máquina de consumo de más de mil millones de personas; la guerra última será justamente por carne para consumo.
No se puede decir que se ama a los animales sin poder haberle dedicado tiempo a este libro. Es sumamente recomendable, y te abrirá la brecha para poder estudiar diversas ramas de la biología, e incentiva mucho a cuidar más a los animales, sabiendo que ellos sienten mucho igual que nosotros, que no somos muy distintos de ellos; solo tenemos ropa y texto.
July 29, 2022
Darwin defined evolution as descent with modification, which is another way of saying that evolution rarely creates anything completely new. All evolution does is refurbish old traits, turning them into ones that suit current needs. And this could be the story of all human emotions; they are variations on ancient emotions that we share with other animals and specifically mammals.
The anthropomorphism argument is rooted in human exceptionalism. It reflects the desire to set humans apart and deny our animality. The rejection of similarity between human and other animals invites greater problem than the assumption of it. The proposal put forth by author is pretty simple- Emotions are like organs. They are all needed and we share them with all the mammals. Emotions are both biological and essential. None is more basic than the others, and none are uniquely human. More importantly emotions can be good, bad and ugly, which is true for animals as it is for us.
Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding about emotions is that they are the opposite of cognition. We have translated the dualism between the body and mind into one between emotion and intelligence, but they actually go together and cannot operate without each other. The author has discussed more about the distinction between emotions and feelings too. This book does repeat some of the central ideas which were present in de waal's previous books.
Scientific pursuit has clearly accepted the continuum principle in all spheres of biology. But somehow there is still reluctance when it comes to cognition or intelligence or sentience or consciousness. The author tries to answer all this with various examples from primate studies or corvid studies or with examples of domesticated species behavior. As Charles Darwin had said succinctly -" Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work ,worthy of the interposition of a deity. More humble and I believe truer, to consider him created from animals."
The anthropomorphism argument is rooted in human exceptionalism. It reflects the desire to set humans apart and deny our animality. The rejection of similarity between human and other animals invites greater problem than the assumption of it. The proposal put forth by author is pretty simple- Emotions are like organs. They are all needed and we share them with all the mammals. Emotions are both biological and essential. None is more basic than the others, and none are uniquely human. More importantly emotions can be good, bad and ugly, which is true for animals as it is for us.
Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding about emotions is that they are the opposite of cognition. We have translated the dualism between the body and mind into one between emotion and intelligence, but they actually go together and cannot operate without each other. The author has discussed more about the distinction between emotions and feelings too. This book does repeat some of the central ideas which were present in de waal's previous books.
Scientific pursuit has clearly accepted the continuum principle in all spheres of biology. But somehow there is still reluctance when it comes to cognition or intelligence or sentience or consciousness. The author tries to answer all this with various examples from primate studies or corvid studies or with examples of domesticated species behavior. As Charles Darwin had said succinctly -" Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work ,worthy of the interposition of a deity. More humble and I believe truer, to consider him created from animals."
April 29, 2020
Good book dealing with animal emotions. For those of us who have animals in our lives, it is not surprising that animals are able to express human emotions and do that regularly. Mama, the animal of the book's title, was the matriarch of the chimpanzee colony at Burgers Zoo in Arnhem, the Netherlands who exerted a great deal of influence over her tribe.
The author developed a long term relationship with the ape over decades and his studies formed the basis for this heart warming book.
Sometimes pedantic in a few spots; while other parts of the book (if you are interested in animals and their innate abilities) are so revealing as to how very much animals are attuned to humans and have many of the same emotional connections and feelings.
The book shows the connectivity of all of the species on Earth and the depths of those emotional threads. A worthwhile read of a New York Times bestseller.
The author developed a long term relationship with the ape over decades and his studies formed the basis for this heart warming book.
Sometimes pedantic in a few spots; while other parts of the book (if you are interested in animals and their innate abilities) are so revealing as to how very much animals are attuned to humans and have many of the same emotional connections and feelings.
The book shows the connectivity of all of the species on Earth and the depths of those emotional threads. A worthwhile read of a New York Times bestseller.
June 2, 2019
Wonderfully written book about animal emotions. The main focus is on apes, but lots about other animals as well. He has a good way of labeling some things as not quite facts but as well-supported scientific conjectures.
June 17, 2023
Lyg įdomus vadovėlis, kuriame persipina neurologijos, sociologijos, psichologijos, istorijos ir biologijos mokslai.
“Gėda paprastai priklauso nuo individų grupės vertinimo, o kaltė- nuo paties individo savęs vertinimo.“
Man atrodo, savaime akivaizdu, kad gyvūnai turi jausmus, tačiau suprantu, kad mokslas juos nori kažkaip atskirti nuo žmogiškų jausmų, lyg mes būtume išskirtiniai, o gyvūnai menkesni. Vat ir ne- knygoje atrandamas taurumas, empatija, žiaurumas, geismas ir kaltė, net moralės kodeksas - visa tai ir daug daugiau galima apažinti ir gyvūnų pasaulyje. Ši knyga nuostabiai veda paraleles mūsų ir gyvūnų elgsenoje, kūno išraiškose, emocijose- kokie mes vis tik panašūs!
Man pagaliau susidėliojo galvoje skirtumas tarp emocijų, instinktų ir jausmų. “Instinktai yra nevalinga reakcija, kuri nėra labai naudinga nuolat besikeičiančiame pasaulyje. Emocijos yra kur kas lankstesnės, nes veikia kaip protingi instinktai.”
“Nors emocijų iki galo kontroliuoti negalime, nesame ir jų vergai. Todėl bandant atsiprašyti už kokį kvailą poelgį nederėtų sakyti, kad neva “emocijos paėmė viršų”, nes jūs pats savo emocijoms leidote “ paimti viršų.”
“Visose visuomenėse turtingi žmonės yra laimingesni, nei neturtingi, tačiau visai visuomenei praturtėjus jos vidutinė gerovė nesikeičia. Gerovę didina ne pats turtas, bet jo lyginamoji vertė. Laimės jausmas priklauso tik nuo to, kiek mūsų pajamos didesnės už kitų.”
Ačiū knygai už įžvalgas pavydo tema. Taip- aš irgi jaučiu šį jausmą, tačiau kaip įdomu jį susieti su teisingumo jausmu- apie tai nebuvau susimąstęs, bet peržvelgęs situacijas, kuriose tas jausmas kyla visur atrandu greta neteisingumo jausmą, kai atrodo, kad tavo darbas, pastangos, indėlis nėra menkesnis, o atlygis neatitinka lūkesčio. Esu linkęs į didesnius ir mažesnius perdegimus, todėl skyrius apie atlygį buvo, ne apie šimpanzes, o apie mane. “Jei nebus ryšio tarp pastangų ir atlygio, kam apskritai stengtis?”
Tai reziumuojant skaičiau visai ne apie šimpanzes, o apie mus ir apie save. Gero skaitymo!
“Gėda paprastai priklauso nuo individų grupės vertinimo, o kaltė- nuo paties individo savęs vertinimo.“
Man atrodo, savaime akivaizdu, kad gyvūnai turi jausmus, tačiau suprantu, kad mokslas juos nori kažkaip atskirti nuo žmogiškų jausmų, lyg mes būtume išskirtiniai, o gyvūnai menkesni. Vat ir ne- knygoje atrandamas taurumas, empatija, žiaurumas, geismas ir kaltė, net moralės kodeksas - visa tai ir daug daugiau galima apažinti ir gyvūnų pasaulyje. Ši knyga nuostabiai veda paraleles mūsų ir gyvūnų elgsenoje, kūno išraiškose, emocijose- kokie mes vis tik panašūs!
Man pagaliau susidėliojo galvoje skirtumas tarp emocijų, instinktų ir jausmų. “Instinktai yra nevalinga reakcija, kuri nėra labai naudinga nuolat besikeičiančiame pasaulyje. Emocijos yra kur kas lankstesnės, nes veikia kaip protingi instinktai.”
“Nors emocijų iki galo kontroliuoti negalime, nesame ir jų vergai. Todėl bandant atsiprašyti už kokį kvailą poelgį nederėtų sakyti, kad neva “emocijos paėmė viršų”, nes jūs pats savo emocijoms leidote “ paimti viršų.”
“Visose visuomenėse turtingi žmonės yra laimingesni, nei neturtingi, tačiau visai visuomenei praturtėjus jos vidutinė gerovė nesikeičia. Gerovę didina ne pats turtas, bet jo lyginamoji vertė. Laimės jausmas priklauso tik nuo to, kiek mūsų pajamos didesnės už kitų.”
Ačiū knygai už įžvalgas pavydo tema. Taip- aš irgi jaučiu šį jausmą, tačiau kaip įdomu jį susieti su teisingumo jausmu- apie tai nebuvau susimąstęs, bet peržvelgęs situacijas, kuriose tas jausmas kyla visur atrandu greta neteisingumo jausmą, kai atrodo, kad tavo darbas, pastangos, indėlis nėra menkesnis, o atlygis neatitinka lūkesčio. Esu linkęs į didesnius ir mažesnius perdegimus, todėl skyrius apie atlygį buvo, ne apie šimpanzes, o apie mane. “Jei nebus ryšio tarp pastangų ir atlygio, kam apskritai stengtis?”
Tai reziumuojant skaičiau visai ne apie šimpanzes, o apie mus ir apie save. Gero skaitymo!
February 24, 2021
Mama's Last Hug - по суті сиквел до книжки Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, у якій де Вааль розповідав про інтелектуальні здібності тварин. Цього разу він звертається до емоційної складової та розвиває тезу про те, що тварини також мають почуття, і не тільки найбільш базові (типу страху). Те, що звучить досить очевидно для більшості людей, як виявилось, є дуже суперечливою тезою серед вчених. Свою позицію де Вааль ілюструє низкою досліджень та історій з особистого досвіду, який включає десятки років спостережень за шимпанзе та іншими мавпами. Як і в попередній книжці, автор багато атакує біхевиоризм (згідно з яким ми не можемо говорити про внутрішні стани тварин) та ідею про унікальність людини порівняно з іншими тваринами. Навпаки, говорить автор: практично всі емоції, властиві людям, мають аналоги серед тварин, а у шимпанзе і бонобо вони часто навіть проявляються так само.
Інколи у дискусії з уявними опонентами де Вааль заходить надто вбік або трохи надмірно заглиблюється в філософські чи гуманітарні суперечки, і там можна помітити слабкість деяких аргументів. Я зі здивуванням побачив, що попередня книжка була суттєво коротшою за цю, мабуть тому, що там було менше ліричних відступів. Але в цілому вийшла цікава, читабельна, переконлива книжка.
Інколи у дискусії з уявними опонентами де Вааль заходить надто вбік або трохи надмірно заглиблюється в філософські чи гуманітарні суперечки, і там можна помітити слабкість деяких аргументів. Я зі здивуванням побачив, що попередня книжка була суттєво коротшою за цю, мабуть тому, що там було менше ліричних відступів. Але в цілому вийшла цікава, читабельна, переконлива книжка.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 740 reviews