We’re probably the only animals conscious of our own individual mortality. Even when animals witness another animal’s birth or death, I doubt they understand how these events apply to their own lives.
And I don’t think other animals are aware of the connection between certain sexual acts and pregnancy.
Again, is that their intent? Are they trained to do so? When I play the first mp3, “Thung Kwian Sunrise”, I hear what could indeed be an elephant banging on a specially made xylophone. Or it could be windchimes. I hear no rythym, meter, repetition of patterns, scales, or anything else that separates “noise” from “music”. On a more subjective measure, my baby daughter, who bounces excitedly at any form of music she hears - American, Thai, African, car commercial, whatever - doesn’t bounce to this. She’s giving me the same blank stare I get when the garbage truck comes and makes a racket in the alley. This tells me she doesn’t recognize it as music at some fundamental, pre-language level.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s cool behavior. I think if they seem to enjoy it, they should be given the opportunity to. But I don’t think it’s “music”.
Not quite true – it has been well established that Mangetout is a tapir.
Well, I’m narrower at one end that the other; perhaps that’s the source of your confusion.
We can also make tools, from tools, to make more tools. And build more tools from those.
The thing is, every species is going to have some set of unique qualities that it shares with no other species, otherwise it wouldn’t be a species. Even if this is something like, “The only artiodactyl in Africa weighing more than 35 pounds that has light brown stripes on a dark brown background and straight horns.”
We could come up with a pretty long list of unique human behaviors, but such a list isn’t very usefull. And remember that many of those qualities wouldn’t be useful to distinguish our species from other closely related species that are now extinct. Maybe you’d lump Australopithecus afarensis or Homo habilis or Homo erectus or Homo neandertalensis in as “humans”, or maybe you wouldn’t.
Human use of tools and language is obviously a trait we’ve developed far far more than any other animal, but it’s also clear that our primate relatives have the same traits we do, just not to the same degree. A peacock’s tail is unique, but there are plenty of closely related species that have similar display feathers, just not to the same degree a peacock does. So our highly developed tool use and highly developed language are unique…but not uniquely unique, every species has some unique qualities. We’re also featherless bipeds, which makes us unique today, but 100 million years ago there were lots and lots of other species of featherless bipeds. So searching for unique human attributes is an interesting parlor game, but I’m not sure it has much significance.
There are a couple of problems with this.
The first is that humans can ‘get by’ without tools quite well. Less effectively than we can manage with tools but there is no reason why a human couldn’t gather fruit, hunt small animals and so forth even of they were buck naked and empty handed.
The second problem is that we need to start using a circular defintion of ‘tools’ to exclude everything required by non-humans. Most termites for example will die within hours of they can’t construct shelter, so we would need to say that a termite dwelling wans;t a tool, even though it quite obviusly is. The same applies to many other shelter making species, including the use of nests for raising young.
There are dozens of species of macropods that are both bipedal and featherless.
D’oh! Stupid marsupials!
Some of us ARE tools.
Sailboat
I thought you were a tapir. Now you’re a brontosaurus?
Brontosauruses are narrower at both ends.
An octopus is narrower at all eight ends…
And there I was thinking the brontosaurus never existed. If Mangetout is one he is truly one of a kind!
We cook food.
We philosophize.
I’m also thinking about the ability to negotiate, or compromise. But I’m not sure if other animals can do that, say when marking territory? Will the disputing animals resolve territorial issues, by coming to a compromise? Or will they just fight to the death?
It is highly unusual for animals of the same species to fight to the death. Think about it, an animal that is losing a fight has no incentive to stick around until they are killed, they’re going to try to escape. And they’ll often try to escape before the fight even starts. Even the stronger animal has no interest in fighting, since they can be severely injured even if they win. So most territorial animal species have some form of display, where the two parties in the dispute can gauge whether they are likely to win or lose a fight, with the weaker animal backing down. And even if it comes to a fight, the weaker animal will try to run away if the fight is going badly. And even in a fight of this kind the animals don’t usually outright try to kill each other, they will often have some ritualized method of fighting that is less likely to result in serious injury or death.
Of course, animals do kill members of their own species, for example it is common for male carnivores to kill babies that they aren’t the father of. But those babies aren’t fighting to the death, they’d run away if they could.
I’ve seen no evidence of martyrdom in the non-human animal kingdom.
…I’ve seen a few blue-green algae who embraced extreme suffering, however. 
We wear clothes. That is kind of a weird one as a species. I think of it as kind of two fold: It’s practical as it keeps us warm, and shelters our skin. Also, it’s to hide our nakedness. Do other animals feel this sort of shame (for lack of a better word)? I realize there are many native tribes that expose certain “body parts” to a stronger or lesser degree, but I think in most of the civilized world, there seems to be an innate sense to cover our bits.
I believe that Orcas may express empathy (and possibly cruelty), also. I’ll reference a point that I made from another thread:
We cogitate and solve?
If you count sacrificing oneself for the sake of family, there are plenty of examples. Some species of bird, for instance, will feign injury (making themselves appear easy prey) if a predator gets too close to the nest. This often ends badly for the mama bird, but it may keep the babies safe. And of course, bees will die stinging, in defending the hive.
As for negotiated compromise, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that, too. At one point in my mom’s house, the nonhuman population included a dog and three cats. Overall, the cats were by far dominant over the dog: If there were a dispute over who got to sleep on the warm spot of the floor above the furnace, for instance, the dog would always yield to one of the cats (but would still sleep there when no cat disputed it). But the cats were not allowed near the dog’s food dish, at all. Even more interestingly, the water bowl, right next to the dog food dish, was communal property, and none of the animals had any problem with sharing it: Sometimes the dog and a cat even drank from it simultaneously. This certainly sounds to me like a negotiated settlement: If it were just a matter of mojo, then whoever had more would simply claim both the warm spot and the food/water bowls.