News Feeds

A failed launch left a batch of Starlink satellites in the wrong orbit last year, and it appears that a fragment of one fell to Earth and hit a farm in Canada. Thankfully, no one was injured

Solar Power Satellite (SPS) advocates have been dreaming of using space resources to build massive constructions for decades. In-space Resource Utilization (ISRU) advocates would love to oblige them, but so far, there hasn't yet been enough development on either front to create a testable system. A research team from a company called MetaSat and the University of Glasgow hope to change that with a new plan called META-LUNA, which utilizes lunar resources to build (and recycle) a fleet of their specially designed SPS.

New Scientist's revelation that a UK minister is asking ChatGPT for advice raises the question of what role these new AI tools should play in government – and whether we should really think of them as intelligent

It can be difficult to recall exactly when a specific event happened, and now it seems our memory can be tricked into pushing occurrences back in time, making us think they happened earlier than in reality

One potentially positive outcome from the COVID pandemic is that it was a wakeup call – if there was any doubt previously about the fact that we all live in one giant interconnected world, it should not have survived the recent pandemic. This is particularly true when it comes to infectious disease. A bug that breaks out on the other side of the world can make its way to your country, your home, and cause havoc. It’s also not just about the spread of infectious organisms, but the breeding of these organisms.

One source of infectious agents is zoonotic spillover, where viruses, for example, can jump from an animal reservoir to a human. So the policies in place in any country to reduce the chance of this happening affect the world. The same is true of policies for laboratories studying potentially infectious agents.

It’s also important to remember that infectious agents are not static – they evolve. They can evolve even within a single host as they replicate, and they can evolve as they jump from person to person and replicate some more. The more bugs are allows to replicate, the greater the probability that new mutations will allow them to become more infectious, or more deadly, or more resistant to treatment. Resistance to treatment is especially critical, and is more likely to happen in people who are partially treated. Give someone an antibiotic to kill 99.9% of the bacteria that’s infecting them, but stop before the infection is completely wiped out, and then the surviving bacteria can resume replication. Those surviving bacteria are likely to be the most resistant bugs to the antibiotic. Bacteria can also swap antibiotic resistant genes, and build up increasing resistance.

In short, controlling infectious agents is a world-wide problem, and it requires a world-wide response. Not only is this a humanitarian effort, it is in our own best self-interest. The rest of the world is a breeding ground for bugs that will come to our shores. This is why we really need an organization, funded by the most wealthy nations, to help establish, fund, and enforce good policies when it comes to identifying, treating, and preventing infectious illness. This includes vaccination programs, sanitation, disease outbreak monitoring, drug treatment programs, and supportive care programs (like nutrition). We would also benefit from programs that target specific hotspots of infectious disease in poor countries that do not have the resources to adequately deal with them, like HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and tuberculosis in Bangladesh.

Even though this would be the morally right thing to do (enough of a justification, in my opinion), and is in our own self-interest from an infectious disease perceptive, we could even further leverage this aid to enhance our political soft power. These life-saving drugs are brought to you by the good people of the USA. No one would begrudge us a little political self-promotion while we are donating billions of dollars to help save poor sick kids, or stamp out outbreaks of deadly disease in impoverished countries. This also would not have to break the budget. For something around 1% of our total budget we could do an incredible amount of good in the world, protect ourselves, and enhance our prestige and political soft power.

So why aren’t we doing this? Well, actually, we are (as I am sure most readers know). The US is the largest single funder of the World Health Organization (WHO), about 15% of its budget. One of the missions of the WHO is to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks around the world. In 1961 the US established the USAID, which united all our various foreign aid programs into one agency under the direction of the Secretary of State. Through USAID we have been battling disease and malnutrition around the world, defending the rights of women and marginalized groups, and helping to vaccinate and educate the poor. This is coordinated through the State Department specifically to make sure this aid aligns with US interests and enhances US soft power.

I am not going to say that I agree with every position of the WHO. They are a large political organization having to balance the interests of many nations and perspectives. I have criticized some of their specific choices in the past, such as their support for “traditional” healing methods that are not effective or science-based. I am also sure there is a lot to criticize in the USAID program, in terms of waste or perhaps the political goal or effect of specific programs. Politics is messy. It is also the right of any administration to align the operation of an agency like USAID, again under the control of the Secretary of State, with their particular partisan ideology. That’s fine, that’s why we have elections.

But most of what they do (both the WHO and USAID) is essential, and non-partisan. Donating to programs supplying free anti-tuberculosis drugs in Bangladesh is not exactly a controversial or burning partisan issue.

And yet, Trump has announced that the US is withdrawing from the WHO. This is a reckless and harmful act. This is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we have issues with the WHO, we can use our substantial influence, as its single largest funder, to lobby for changes. Now we have no influence, and just made the world more vulnerable to infectious illness.

Trump and Musk have also pulled the rug out from USAID, for reasons that are still unclear. Musk seems to think that USAID is all worms and no apple, but this is transparent nonsense. The rhetoric on the right is focusing on DEI programs funded by USAID (amounting to an insignificant sliver of what the agency does), but is ignoring or downplaying all of the incredibly useful programs, like fighting infectious disease, education, and nutrition programs.

Another part of the rhetoric, which is why many of his supporters back the move, is that the US should not be spending money in other countries while we have problems here at home. This ignores reality – fully 50% of the US budget is for welfare, including social security, medicare, medicaid, and all other welfare programs. Around 1% (it varies year-to-year) goes to USAID. It is not as if we cannot afford welfare programs in the US because of our foreign aid. It’s just a ridiculous and narrow-minded point. If you want a more robust safety net, then that is what you should vote for and lobby your representatives for, at the state and federal level. But foreign aid is not the problem.

Further, foreign aid should be thought of as an investment, not an expense. Again – that is part of the point of having it under the direction of the State Department. USAID can help to prevent conflicts, that would be even more costly to the US. They can reduce the risk of deadly infectious diseases coming to our shores. Do you want to compare the total cost of COVID to the US economy to the cost of USAID?  This is obviously a difficult number to come by, but by one estimate COVID-19 cost the US economy $14 trillion. That is enough to fund USAID at 2023 levels for 350 years. So if USAID prevents one COVID-like pandemic every century or so, it is more than worth it. More likely, however, it will reduce the deadliness of common infectious illnesses, like HIV and tuberculosis.

Even if you can make a case to reduce our aid to help the world’s poor, doing so in a sudden and chaotic fashion, without warning, is beyond reckless. Stopping drug programs is a great way to breed resistance. Food and drugs are sitting in storage and cannot be dispersed because funding has been cut off. It’s hard to defend this as a way to reduce waste. The harm that will be created is hard to calculate. It’s also a great way to evaporate 60 years of American soft power in a matter of weeks.

I am open to any cogent and logical argument to defend these actions. I have not seen or heard one, despite looking. Feel free to make your case in the comments if you think this was anything but heartless, ignorant, and reckless.

The post Cutting to the Bone first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

In a survey of AI researchers, most say current AI models are unlikely to lead to artificial general intelligence with human-level capabilities, even as companies invest billions of dollars in this goal

These brilliant images show how researchers in Switzerland are using weather-modification techniques to understand how ice crystals form in clouds, an important and poorly understood factor in climate and weather models

An analysis of changes to global ecosystems has revealed that almost nowhere is untouched by the influence of humanity, with more than 50 per cent of the planet's land mass experiencing "novel" conditions

Building the full value of pi has been a project thousands of years in the making, but just how much of this infinite number do we actually need, asks our maths columnist Jacob Aron

I only feel comfortable suggesting an RCT of routine vaccines because I am confident it wouldn't get off the ground.

The post RFK Jr: Recruit Dr. Vinay Prasad to Run an RCT of the Routine Vaccine Schedule first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

JWST Cycle 4 Spotlight, Part 1: Exoplanets and Habitability

A distant trio of worlds may shed light on planetary formation in the early solar system. Sometimes, good things come in threes. If astronomers are correct, a system in the distant Kuiper Belt may not be two but three worlds, offering an insight into formation in the early solar system. The study comes out of researchers at Brigham Young University and the Space Telescope Science Institute.

Shifting your focus could help you overcome the trickery of optical illusions

The increasing frequency of so-called ‘1-in-a-1000-year' weather events highlights how global warming is disrupting rather more typical weather patterns beyond what scientific models can reliably predict. A recent paper proposes a three-tier scientific approach for addressing these unprecedented climate challenges: improving rapid response capabilities, making incremental infrastructure adaptations, and pursuing transformational system changes to manage escalating climate chaos.

Curiosity about a mistake that left tiny dots on a germanium wafer with evaporated metal films led to the discovery of beautiful spiral patterns etched on the surface of the semiconductor by a chemical reaction. Further experiments showed that the patterns arise from chemical reactions that are coupled to mechanical forces through the deformation of a catalyzing agent. The new system is the first major advance in experimental methods to study chemical pattern formation since the 1950s. Studying these complex systems will help scientists understand other natural processes, from crack formation in materials to how stress influences biological growth.

Water once existed in abundance of at the surface of Mars. How much of that water has been stored in the planet's crust is still unclear, according to a new analysis.

They watch us. They learn about us and our habits. We are a big part of the environmental conditions to which many of them have adapted.

They’re like us. They hang around in groups. Individuals have different personalities. Pairs bond together for years at a time, maybe lifetimes, and they take good care of their kids. They’re loud, opportunistic, mischievous, and messy. And they’re smart.

Meet Crows

Members of the genus Corvus—crows—include birds with “crow” in their common names as well as ravens, rooks, and jackdaws. There are 45–50 named species of Corvus at the moment (the naming of species is a dynamic field), though that range will change and increase as more information from populations in unstudied areas becomes available. They are medium- to large-sized birds with big heads relative to body size and, usually, large to massive bills. They live all over the world except South America and Antarctica, in the varied habitats that exist across continents and on islands, from southern to northern high latitudes.

American Crows live in populations having different social organizations and dynamics in different regions of North America. The members of populations that breed in the north migrate in spring and fall of each year, with known one-way travel distances of up to 1,740 miles (2,800 km). Each year, they spend months commuting, and they live in one place during spring and summer and another in fall and winter. During migration, they spend nights at the same giant communal roosts along their routes, much like humans returning to the same campgrounds on annual road trips.

Ravens are the largest crows and occur all around the northern hemisphere. Most don’t breed until they’re 4 years old, and some not until they’re 10. Once they become breeders, ravens tend to live in pairs. In the years between leaving natal areas and breeding, individuals join other nonbreeders in small groups and larger flocks as they jointly acquire the skills needed for successful breeding, including being able to reliably find food (carcasses that are unpredictable in when and where they’ll become available, across huge landscapes).

New Caledonian Crows occur on only two of New Caledonia’s islands. Since they inhabit primary forests, observing them in the field is challenging. They are not very social, although kids tend to stick close to parents for extended periods, up to 2 years. New Caledonian Crows are the only nonhuman animals known to make tools from materials with which they have no experience1 and the only ones known to make cumulative improvements to tool design over time.2

I have had the opportunity to observe and study many crows myself, and to learn about the behavior and cognitive capabilities of other species through experimental research and fieldwork published by other scientists. There is a tendency to want to compare the results of studies of cognition in nonhuman animals to humans. How do they measure up? How about compared to apes? Such comparisons are already not straightforward when comparing other mammals, and even less so when comparing crows. They are very different types of organisms that live in three-dimensional worlds, without hands, and with brains, eyes and ears that are different from those of mammals. And yet in test after test, crows perform equal to or even better than apes, and are on par with human children or occasionally even exceed adult human capabilities!

American Crows

I began studying American Crows in the early 1980s, on a golf course in Encino, CA. For purposes of my research, I needed to be able to tell individuals apart, and so I had to catch them, to be able to mark them. They were very difficult to capture! With the use of traps and nets3, 4 and climbing to nests to temporarily obtain and mark late-stage nestlings,5 I got a bunch marked and was able to peer into their worlds. They are one of the most civilized species of which I am aware.

The crows I studied in California were year-round residents that nested colonially (that is, having lots of nests in the same general area) and defended only the small areas of space immediately surrounding their nests—if they defended any space at all. Neighbors often foraged together, members of breeding groups were regularly observed in others’ core areas, and breeders rarely prevented others from entering their nest tree or landing on or near their nests. Most individuals did not breed until they were at least 3 or 4 years old, and many nonbreeders remained in natal areas associating with parents or joined the resident non-breeding flock.

I had one of my favorite fieldwork experiences, ever, on that golf course: Because population members had come to associate me with things that caused them distress (e.g., climbing to their nests), they transferred that to other situations and would yell at me, when I arrived, after something bad had happened. One day I drove around on golf cart paths looking for the cause of their yelling, and on the ground found a female with an injured wing. She could not fly but she could run, and the crows dive-bombed and yelled at me as I chased her down. I had her examined by a vet and taped up, and she spent 8 weeks in a cage in my bedroom as her wing healed. In the field, her mate and 1-year old daughter continued to care for the four nestlings in her nest. Three weeks after I took her to my place, a strong storm blew her nest out of its tree and all of the nestlings died. Her mate and daughter hung around for another two weeks, but then were not seen very often. After two months her bone had healed, but her flight muscles had atrophied. I moved her to a flight cage and put her through regular daily exercises. Finally, eleven weeks after her removal, I brought her to the golf course.

Ravens form alliances, reconcile conflicts, and console distressed partners.

I wafted her into her nest tree and threw a bunch of peanuts on the ground. Crows began to fly to the peanuts, and she joined them. Almost immediately, I saw her mate headed right for her from across a busy 4-lane road. He landed beside her and both of them bowed low to each other and produced a slow, melodic, low frequency vocalization that I had never heard before. The pair then proceeded to walk around the group of peanut eating crows and stopped to bow and vocalize to each other three more times. I was crying. The pair was reunited.

The crows I studied in Oklahoma were year-round residents in small-to-large territories that were only sometimes defended against neighbor intrusion. Most delayed breeding until at least 3–4 years old, and many remained “at home” with parents until they bred. Many also left home and moved in with other groups within the population before becoming breeders. Individuals had friends in groups other than their own, and some that had moved out of the population returned occasionally to natal territories and spent time with their parents. Some visited their siblings in other groups, and some moved in with their siblings’ families. Several males established territories adjacent to their parents, and extended families of at least three generations would spend time together.6

One day, I sat in my car watching a group in a residential backyard. One of the crows walked along a wooden fence railing to the end post and attempted to get at something in the interior of the hole supporting the railing. Unsuccessful with its bill, it pecked at the wood surrounding the hole and loosened a section at the top, pulling on it until a triangular piece of wood broke off. The crow placed the piece of wood under its feet, with the wide end closest to its body, and hammered several times at the tapered end. It then picked up the piece of wood by the wide end and probed the hole with the tapered end for about 20 seconds. Another crow in the group called from some distance away, and the toolmaker placed the probe into the hole and took off. I went to the hole, saw only the remains of a spider’s web, and retrieved the probe. It did not match the gap from which it had been pulled—the tapered end had clearly been narrowed.7 A few days later when I approached the post, a large spider dashed out of the hole.

Also in Oklahoma, I watched the mother of the nestlings in the nest to which my co-worker was headed hammer repeatedly at a branch of a nearby pine tree. At first, I thought she was exhibiting displacement behavior but then a pinecone at her feet loosened (she had been hammering at its connection), and she carried it to above my co-worker and dropped it right on his head! She repeated this behavior three more times, hitting him on 3 out of the 4 tries.

So that I could observe crows behaving naturally when I wasn’t trying to capture them or get to nestlings, I donned a disguise on the latter occasions. Years later, it was officially demonstrated that American Crows can remember “dangerous” human faces for at least 2.7 years,8 and they can even learn whom to worry about from others!9

Ravens

Ravens are scavengers and regularly store (cache) away surplus food obtained at carcasses, and they rely on their caches for sustenance. They are not known to use tools much in the wild.

Caching behavior has been the focus of many studies10, 11 and ravens are skilled strategists. If they know another raven is watching them, they will go to a location out of the observer’s view before caching. Cachers behave differently in the presence of competitors who have or have not seen the caching event: if they have been watched while storing food, cachers move their caches when knowledgeable competitors get close.

Competitors behave differently depending on the situation. If they know where the cache is but the raven they’re paired with doesn’t know that they know, they run right over and retrieve it. If they’re paired with the cacher and the cacher knows they’re wise to the location, they act as if they don’t know and dawdle and fiddle around, seemingly hoping to take advantage of any lapse in focus by the cacher. This level of understanding of what others know rivals that demonstrated in chimpanzees.12

Photo by Peter Lloyd / Unsplash

When given an opportunity to pay attention to another cacher while caching, ravens performed better than humans when asked to retrieve both their own and the other cacher’s caches.13 And when paired with a partner who kept taking advantage of the situation, a raven employed a human-like solution: deception. Ravens were trained to find and retrieve food hidden in a maze of film canisters and one raven was better at it than a dominant male. At some point, the dominant raven quit playing and would just wait for the other one to choose a canister and begin to open the lid, then fly over and steal the food. The raven “being taken advantage of” then changed tactics and initially went to go to a canister it knew to be empty and pretended to try to open it. When the dominant bird flew over and was distracted for a few seconds expecting to get the food, the other flew to a canister it knew to be filled, and got the food!14

Ravens successfully solved the problem of obtaining meat dangling from a branch by pulling up sections of the string and stepping on them to keep them from falling back down. And then they were successful with the non-intuitive task of pulling down on the string to bring the meat up.15 They did as well as apes in tests of choosing appropriate tools (despite not being tools used in the wild) and they did better than orangutans, chimps, and bonobos when asked to choose the correct currency for bartering for food.16 Ravens were able to select the right tool in environments different from where they learned to use it; even in the face of 17-hour (overnight) delays between having to select the appropriate tool and being able to use it, providing evidence of their forward-planning abilities. They did better than 4-year-old children in the first-trial performances at the tool- and currency-choice experiments,17 and they are perceptive enough to follow the gaze of a human to a location out of view and hop over to see what’s up.18

Ravens form alliances, reconcile conflicts, and console distressed partners.19, 20, 21 They remember former group members and their relationships with them after long (years) periods of separation.22 When disappointed or frustrated, for example by being offered less preferred food, they respond in a way that other ravens observing them can identify, and the observers themselves are then negatively affected.23 In measures of value, compatibility, and security, the quality of raven social relationships was said to be analogous to those of chimpanzees.24

New Caledonian Crows

In 1996, a paper published in Nature changed everything: New Caledonian Crows were manufacturing tools, in the wild, at a level of complexity not ever seen among nonhuman animals before.25 To extract prey from burrows and natural crevices, they make hooks and probes from twigs and pieces cut from leaf, some of which require sophisticated manipulation and modification skills. No other nonhuman animals do anything like it.26, 27

Betty was the name of a New Caledonian Crow caught in the wild and taken (with several others) to the University of Oxford for testing.28, 29 She was partnered in a cage with a male given the name Able. In an early test, Betty and Able were allowed into a room with a table that had a clear plastic vertical tube, secured in a plastic pan, containing a basket-shaped container of meat at the bottom. There were two wires on the table; one had already been bent so there was a hook at one end. The researchers wondered if one of the crows would use the hook to grab the basket handle, and Betty at first picked it up, but Able took it from her and flew away with it. Betty wanted the meat. She picked up the straight wire (in her bill) and inserted it into the tube but, of course, it was useless in its straight form. And so with force, she jammed the wire into a corner of the pan several times and bent it into a hook! She then used the hook to get the basket. Her behavior made clear that she had a mental representation in her mind of the problem and the solution, and therefore of the instrument she needed to make.

Crows perform equal to or even better than apes, and are on par with human children or occasionally even exceed adult human capabilities.

New Caledonian Crows were able to spontaneously solve a “metatool” task (using a short tool to obtain a longer one needed for food extraction),30 and they were able to keep in mind the out-of-sight tools they had available (and where they stored them), while performing sequences of tool tasks, providing strong evidence that they can plan several moves ahead.31

From field and lab studies of tool behavior, scientists have also learned that New Caledonian Crows:

• Choose sticks of appropriate length to match the distance to food.32
• Choose sticks of thickness that track the diameter of holes.33
• Choose the right tool for a task that will only occur in the future.34
• Unbundle a preferred stick rather than use a nonpreferred one.35

Such selectivity suggests these crows have representations of the situations in their minds and so can select the appropriate tools. They also tend to keep their preferred tools safe, under their feet and in holes.36

Individual New Caledonian Crows tend to be lateralized in their tool use (i.e., right- or left-billed): they usually hold probe tools in their bills, with the nonworking ends pressed against one side of their heads37 and individuals prefer one side over the other for different tasks.38 Lateralization is thought to be associated with complex tasks and mental demands (i.e., as tasks increase in difficulty, “control areas” in brains become specialized/localized),39, 40 suggesting that, as in humans, species-level lateralization is an adaptation for efficient neural processing of complex tasks.41

Evidence from more than 5,500 tools suggests that narrow and stepped variations were likely improvements on the wide-tool design.

Tools made by New Caledonian Crows from Pandanus leaves come in three types, all with a barbed edge: unstepped narrow and wider probes, and “stepped” tools,42 the latter being made through a sequenced process involving a series of distinct snips and tears along the barbed edge of a leaf to produce a probe that increasingly narrows toward the tip (the “steps”) and has barbs along one edge.43 Evidence from more than 5,500 tools suggests that narrow and stepped variations were likely improvements on the wide-tool design.44

Photo by Kasturi Roy / Unsplash

And so, these crows have evolved minds powerful enough to develop and improve upon tool design, something thought possible only by humans (technological progress is thought to be one of our hallmark characteristics). That there is geographic variation in tool manufacture and the innovations are passed from generation to generation45, 46, 47 suggests there may be cultural mechanisms at work.

Experiments with captive-bred, hand-raised New Caledonian Crows have demonstrated a strong genetic component to tool interest, manufacture, and use—young crows start playing with twigs, leaves, and crevices on their own, suggesting the phenomenon is an evolved adaptation.

More Crows

In preparation for studies of cognition and neurophysiology, crows have been trained to monitor screens in experimental setups and respond to visual and auditory signals so that they can be trained to do all kinds of other things. Carrion Crows, for example, have been trained to identify complex pictures despite distractions,48, 49 express their understanding of the concept of greater than/less than50 and to respond to the switching between “same” and “different” rules provided both visually and auditorily.51 They’ve been trained to discriminate quantity, ranging between 1–30 dots on a screen52, 53 and they have been trained to peck different numbers of times and to indicate “I’m done” when they’re finished with their answer.54, 55 That these birds can understand the training protocols is almost as impressive as the results of the studies!

Jackdaws performed on par with apes in a test of self-control over motor impulses and did better than bonobos and gorillas despite brains that are 70–94 times smaller.56 Unlike chimpanzees, and similarly to observations about ravens described earlier, jackdaws respond to human gaze and nonverbal cues like pointing.57

Crows play, have friends, and mourn the death of friends and family members.

Hooded Crows have been shown to be capable of analytical reasoning. In tests called “match-to-sample,” where subjects are presented with paired stimuli that are the same or different (e.g., in size or shape) and then asked to match the concepts of “same” or “different” to brand new items, crows spontaneously perceived and understood the relationships without any specific training in categories of size, shape, and color.58 Such analytical thinking is thought to be foundational for “categorization, creative problem solving, and scientific discovery,” and was thought to be uniquely human.59

Carrion Crows were able to learn the Arabic numerals 1–4 and then produce matching numbers of vocalizations (e.g., “caw caw caw” for 3) when prompted by the visual image or an auditory cue.60 The modality of the cue did not affect their performance, indicating that their vocal production was guided by an abstract numerical concept. Evidence also indicates that the crows were planning the total number of vocalizations before they started vocalizing and that when errors were made—too few or too many—the crows had started out correctly but “lost track” along the way.

Carrion Crows have also been shown to be capable of recursion: the cognitive ability to process paired elements embedded within a larger sequence.61 For example, a “center-embedded” sequence would appear [{}] and is analogous to “the crow the experimenter chose passed the test,” with {} corresponding to “the experimenter chose.” An ability to use recursion might potentially, possibly infinitely, expand the range of ideas and concepts that can be communicated. Carrion Crows outperformed macaques and performed on par with human children in tests of recursive abilities; another characteristic thought to be unique to humans.

Rooks are not known to use tools in the wild, but they figured out that by plugging specific holes in the floor of an aviary (including tapping in the plugs!), they could create pools of water in which individuals could drink and bathe.62 Rooks also learned to get food in a trap-tube task (inserting a probe into one end of a tube with holes in it, in order to push out a food reward) and transferred what they learned to a new task on their first try,63 rivaling the physical intelligence of chimpanzees.64 One rook transferred concepts to two additional tasks, indicating she understood the physical aspects of the challenges (including gravity) and was able to “abstract rules” and form mental representations.65

Rook at Slimbridge Wetland Centre, Gloucestershire, England (Photo by Adrian Pingstone, via Wikimedia)

In another set of experiments,66 rooks pushed stones into tubes to collapse a platform to obtain a worm and immediately transferred the concept and picked up stones to drop them in tubes. They chose the correctly sized stones when tube diameters were changed; when no stones were provided, they left the testing room to go outside to collect stones before returning to the testing apparatus! When conditions changed, they immediately used (provided) sticks in lieu of stones; heavy sticks were dropped in and light ones were shoved, suggesting goal-directed thinking. They solved a metatool task, were able to modify branches into functional tools, understood how a hook functioned and used one to retrieve a basket of food at the bottom of a tube, and bent straight wires into hooks, thereby rivaling the abilities of tool-using New Caledonian Crows. All of these findings provide evidence for insight being involved in the problem-solving abilities of rooks.

Final Thoughts

The “marshmallow test” is one of the most well-known and compelling demonstrations of the human ability to delay gratification. Videos showing children struggling to not eat the marshmallow after the experimenter and parent leave the room, so that they may claim more marshmallows later, are both endearing and powerful demonstrations of the heretofore-thought-to-be uniquely human experiences of impatience, frustration, self-control, reward and gratification, and the ability to plan ahead. Ravens, Carrion Crows, and New Caledonian Crows all aced versions of the marshmallow test, thereby breaching another hallmark.67, 68

♦ ♦ ♦

Crows play, have friends, and mourn the death of friends and family members.69, 70 It’s said that as more and more similarities in the cognitive capabilities, biases, and types of errors are exposed, the more likely it is that crows think like we do. And although their brains are built differently and most testing so far has been originally mammal-oriented, the list of cognitive capabilities crows share with us is already pretty impressive: abstract rules and analytical reasoning, consolation and reconciliation, mental representations and goal-directed behavior, innovation and insight, technological advances, transfer of concepts, knowing what others know, lateralization, tool manufacture and use, metatool use, comprehending quantity and numbers, planning for the future, recursion, motor and vocal control, tactical deceit, and even tracking humans, remembering our faces, and deciphering our intentions.

I wonder what else crows might show us if we knew what and how to ask. We are similar in that we are diurnal and we rely mostly on vision and hearing to perceive and respond to our surroundings, but our umwelts (the term coined by the biologist von Uexküll for the different perceptual worlds of different organisms) differ in myriad other ways. Right? They pick through poop to find bugs! They stand on ice in bare feet! They fly!

I wish we could know how they think, and that maybe in contexts such as greed, selfishness, cruelty, and war, that we could think more like they do.

Did Water or Lava Cause that Channel? The Answer is in How it Bends

The health problems associated with ultra-processed foods may be explained by the way the products encourage overeating. Adding more protein to the foods might help people limit their intake – but it isn’t a complete solution

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says it is discontinuing its regular update calls due to staffing problems, but its researchers may also fear political retaliation for discussing climate change