Skip to main content

Whales talk but can we listen?

Our forests and oceans are filled with sounds.  These are not incidental, they carry meaning and significance.  If we humans stopped making such a cacophony of sound, we would better understand what these noises mean.  Hush!  

We frequently wonder where people are, uncle Tom Cobblie and all.  They are there, or somewhere. We place people.  It is perhaps a part of our knowledge, a reducing of uncertainty.  We can fret about where people are and whether they are safe.  Have you seen John lately? He was very unwell.  Last I heard he is travelling somewhere.  I saw him post on social media.  This knowing or placing is a significant part of ecological integrity.   It is one reason why we make a noise, and a great deal of our language is about such knowledge. 

Photo of Blue Whale: Todd Crevens

Whales use three types of sounds to communicate: clicks, whistles and pulses.   But this is a bit like saying humans use grunts, whistles and clicks.  It belies the versatility of the language.  Just as with humans, their language is cultural and contextual.  Each group of whales, or pod, has its own dialect.  They play with sound in a creative way, adding trills that will be repeated by others.  They build sound interactively, creatively using syntax. Merely analysing the sound doesn't reveal the full picture.  

The humpback whale, for example, has been found to produce phrases that are combined in novel 'songs' that can last for hours.  So, does this mean that we humans could record such songs and understand what the whale is saying?  The answer is most likely not, or at least not the particularity of the message.  Perhaps we would have a better idea if we knew what it was that the whale was singing about, and to understand that we would need to be the whale or another whale who is receiving the message.  Much of what is communicated may depend on shared history or culture.  We would need to get into the dialogue. 

We would also need to contextualise what it is that a whale is talking about hundreds or possibly thousands of miles away.  Whales communicate over very long distances using the properties of sound and water.  Water is their internet connection. It is our complex social structure that enables us to create meaningful language over distances, and so it is with whales.  But like the internet, the ocean is a noisy place.  Whales are adapted to this noise and can distinguish their sounds from the background din - there are, after all, billions of organisms contributing to it! All of them making themselves heard in a galaxy of noise.  But some of this noise is pollution.  It has no meaning. It is merely collateral from human activity. 

Anthropogenic ocean noise, from fishing vessels, fishing, exploring for resources, construction and military operations produces a deafening cacophony of increasing sound pollution.  Does this have a detrimental impact on ocean species, and are whales losing their way as a result? Many believe so, but it is perhaps too early to be sure. 

Ray Noble is a chartered biologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As