Why Silence Isn’t Neutral: The biological limits of animal communication and our moral response
The biological limits of animal communication raise urgent ethical questions. If animals cannot tell us when they are suffering, does that mean we are off the hook? Or does it, in fact, demand that we be more vigilant and proactive? The answer is clear: silence demands action. We must learn to read the signs, however faint, and err on the side of caution. By paying close attention to the creatures around us, we honor their existence and acknowledge their struggles. What might we discover if we truly listened to the voices that cannot speak?
MARIA FAITH SALIGUMBA: Imagine wandering through a dense forest at twilight, listening to the gentle rustle of leaves and the distant calls of birds. But beneath this peaceful symphony lies a profound truth: many animals, despite their vibrant lives, are locked in silence—not by choice, but by biology. This silence isn’t neutral. It’s a wall, a boundary set by evolution, which shapes not only the lives of these creatures but also our moral responsibility toward them. When we consider what animals can and cannot express, we uncover a world of hidden struggles, unspoken needs, and ethical dilemmas that demand our attention.
It’s tempting to believe that animals can communicate their feelings and needs as clearly as humans do. Popular media is filled with talking dogs and wise elephants, but reality is far more complex. Most animals rely on a limited set of vocalizations, gestures, or chemical signals, which are designed for survival, not for sharing nuanced emotions. A cat’s meow or a dog’s bark can tell us something, but it’s a mere fraction of their inner world. The absence of language as humans know it means that much of what animals experience goes unspoken, creating a vast gulf between their reality and our understanding…
Recent scientific studies have shattered the old myth that animals are mere automatons. Elephants mourn their dead, octopuses solve puzzles, and dogs show jealousy. Yet, the vast majority of these emotional experiences happen without words. A chimpanzee may embrace a grieving companion, or a cow may nuzzle her calf, but their ability to express complex desires or suffering is constrained by biology. This gap between feeling and expression is at the heart of why animal silence isn’t neutral — it conceals entire worlds of emotion that we can only guess at…
Detecting pain in animals is notoriously difficult. Humans rely heavily on language to describe discomfort, but animals must rely on behavior. Even veterinarians, with years of training, sometimes struggle to interpret subtle signs of distress. A rabbit may simply sit quietly when in agony, and a cat might hide. These behaviors, adaptations that help animals survive in the wild, mean that pain often goes untreated or unrecognized. This silent suffering presents a deep moral challenge for anyone who cares for or works with animals…
The biological limits of animal communication raise urgent ethical questions. If animals cannot tell us when they are suffering, does that mean we are off the hook? Or does it, in fact, demand that we be more vigilant and proactive? For farmers, pet owners, zookeepers, and researchers, the answer is clear: silence demands action. We must learn to read the signs, however faint, and err on the side of caution…
Ultimately, the challenge is to become better listeners—not just to sounds, but to behaviors, patterns, and subtle shifts in mood. By paying close attention to the creatures around us, we honor their existence and acknowledge their struggles. This kind of listening is an act of respect, a way of bridging the gap that biology has built. It’s in this quiet attention that we find our true humanity.
A world where silence is recognized not as emptiness, but as a powerful form of communication, invites us to care more deeply and act more wisely. What might we discover if we truly listened to the voices that cannot speak? SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: