Humans don’t mind going out in the cold with a barenaked face. Maybe its just what you’re used to.
That’s my thinking on it. From an evolutionary perspective, if typical conditions cause sufficient misery to reduce effectiveness at necessary tasks, that would get selected against. It seems to me that “suffer” could be defined as “be miserable enough to distract from tasks.”
Contrast that with discomfort: a certain amount of discomfort can encourage one to do what’s necessary (when cold, move around; when hungry, find food, etc.) Only at the extremes where you’re likely to die from the issue anyway, would extreme discomfort not be selected against.
That sounds like conjecture.
However, I suspect you’re right here: our misery can be compounded by our understanding of our situation, and we wouldn’t expect that in other animals.
While I agree this is true, I don’t believe it prohibits animals from intense suffering. I’m absolutely convinced that animals can suffer intensely. I just doubt it’s a typical part of their ordinary existence. I suspect it’s likely near the ends of their lives, though (depending on the cause). Nature shows little compassionate.
in winter animals will find a sunny spot to lay in if they don’t need shelter from the wind. even if it takes climbing or moving to a spot otherwise not used.
During snowfalls it is amazing to see the horses with several inches of snow accumulated on their backs.
Well there was an early blizzard in the Dakotas this last October where an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 cows froze to death. I don’t think they were very happy about it.
I would call that suffering.
Birds do not move south because of an intolerance for cold, they move south because frigid winter conditions make it difficult or impossible to find food. Canada Geese will remain in a given spot in the fall until their access to forage freezes over, then they move further south.
There are a number of northern places such as power plants, that have water-cooled facilities, and deliver a warm outflow the year round. Such environments now often have a vigorous population of birds remaining much further north than they normally would have. Gulls around Niagara Falls are a good example. The air temperature remains just as cold for them, but the warmer water keeps a small area icefree, where they can still feed, and seem happy to do so.
The above applies to movement of boreal resident species, and is not intended to be an explanation of migration to tropical wintering grounds, which is grounded in long-standing instinct, rather than opportunism for choosing a wintering habitat according to conditions…
Maybe the horses see it a bit differently than you do?—Instead of “having a grand time”,maybe they were running and jumping furiously because they were cold and trying to warm up?
Sand bunkers on golf courses exist as a remnant of early golf courses, where sheep would for huddle for shelter against the harsh Scottish coast.
Also, just last month in the very cold January I saw geese kind of huddled but amazingly they all wanted to face directly into the wind.
What I take from this thread…
Humans are wimps 
I suspect a wind at their backs might spread their feathers in a way that would cause heat loss.
Not all of them: “It has been reported that some Arctic natives could work for considerable periods in subzero temperatures with their bare hands, and would strip to the waist and complain of the heat if the temperature rose above 40 degrees.”
I think a claim like that would require some evidence, or at least some explanation, given animal behaviors such as:
- Canines and birds (with their own kind) cuddling together in the cold
- Moose standing in shallow but freezing cold rivers while being pursued by wolves who don’t go in
- Reptiles moving into the sun
- Birds sunning with their wings open
- Cats preferring fireplaces and the crooks of your knees, your pelvis, etc.
- Digging down into the snow (a generally good insulator) to make a den
These are all behavioral adaptations, not just uncontrollable physical reactions like shivering or puffing up your fur. They are non-internal means of thermoregulation and require the ability to at least understand that “If I do this or go there or stay here, I will be less cold”. If these are unconscious things, they should be able to do them in their sleep, but they don’t.
I’m no horseologist but I’ve spent a lot of time around them growing up and they seemed to legitimately enjoy playing in the snow. Obviously since we can’t talk to them, there’ll always be room to disagree with the interpretation of their behavior.
Well the test would be if they prefer to stay out and play in the snow when they have a choice of coming inside. Kayaker suggested that horses like being outside in very cold weather (though he/she didn’t address snow specifically).
Weird thing about this is that some people put blankets on horses when it gets cold. I’ve read somewhere that this is because horses are naturally equipped for cold by growing a longer winter coat, but that domesticated horses are kept shorn (this is in turn because domesticated horses are used for intense bursts of activity which makes them sweat and then turn cold when they calm down). But that would seem to suggest that they should be cold when shorn.
“Pain” is a complex construction. The level of pain experienced is massively affected by the way that it is psychologically framed- for instance if people feel in control of their pain (even when not) their pain threshold increases. Humans have a far greater understanding of the future problems ( including potential permanent harm and death) than any other animal and this added understanding would make the experience of pain considerably more global than for lower animals leading to a different reaction to pain.
No problem with that. There is a difference in maximising comfort and reacting to pain in a manner that a self conscious being does.
There is no doubt that animals will act in their best interests. What they lack is the ability to frame such experiences in the way that self-aware humans are able to see their current position and its eventual outcome. It is said that humans are the only animals that really know their own fate.
While poetic, is that really true?
Elephants and primates apparently grieve for their lost ones. Cattle will become agitated upon seeing others of their herd sent to slaughter, even if the death is not visually apparent to them. Ravens will gang up on antisocial group members with a clear progression of punishments, ranging from gentle dissuasion to gang murder and eye-gouging of especially disliked birds (which they would not otherwise do to dead ravens). Groups of buffalo have been known to call for help from a herd and to return to a straggler, rescuing them predators.
Beyond death, chimps plan and scheme with their peers, both against one another and towards human researchers. Ravens can plan their actions to deceive others in their group, as well as learning and reenacting complex chains of events that lead to food procurement.
These suggest at least some rudimentary notion of “X will happen if I do or don’t do Y”, beyond the basic flight-or-flight fear instinct. And some of these behaviors, at least on the surface, seem to exhibit more awareness of the eventuality of death than your average human child might.
If you’re going to say that it is indeed the case that animals cannot comprehend their fates (which I take to mean that they cannot establish a clear mental chain of causation between action X and consequence Y), please provide some evidence or at least some explanations.
Maybe it’s a matter of degree – this pack of wolves might not recognize their greater ecological significance to the Yellowstone biome, for example – but many humans also seem to exhibit the same lack of introspection and awareness of long-term cause-and-effect chains. I don’t know, because I’m not an animal psychology expert, but your claim just seems to be a very powerful one backed up by rather weak assertions.
A different reaction to pain is pretty uncontentious since even individuals of the same species appear to have a somewhat different reaction.
It was your earlier point that “much reaction to distress is learned” that I was disputing.