An Examination of Intelligence in Ducks: A Comparative Analysis with Human Sociopolitical Behavior

Noam Quacksky

DOI: 22.2222/DBJ/ys1v2hqe

Status: Published

Abstract: The concept of intelligence is multifaceted and traditionally centered around human-defined metrics. In this study, we propose a reconceptualization of intelligence by comparing human and duck behaviors in contemporary sociopolitical contexts. Unlike humans, ducks exhibit behaviors suggestive of rationality, harmony, and ecological awareness. This paper posits that ducks demonstrate superior intelligence through their collective actions, which starkly contrast with destructive human behaviors.

Download PDF


Introduction:

Intelligence in non-human animals is often undervalued or misinterpreted due to anthropocentric biases. This study interrogates the conventional metrics of intelligence by inspecting a range of human sociopolitical behaviors that could be deemed unintelligent by ecological and collective wellbeing standards. In contrast, we present evidence illustrating the inherently intelligent behaviors of ducks.

Human vs. Duck Sociopolitical Behaviors:

Climate Change Denial:

Humans: A significant portion of the human population denies climate change, lobbying against necessary environmental policies. This behavior endangers global ecology and future human survival.
Ducks: Ducks live harmoniously within their ecosystems, contributing positively to their habitats without consciously harmful actions.

Political Extremism:

Humans: Human societies have entrenched right-wing populist parties which often propagate harmful ideologies. These movements can destabilize social harmony and global peace.
Ducks: Ducks show no tendencies toward extremist political factions. Their social interactions are naturally cooperative without divisive factionalism.

Hypernationalism and Isolationism:

Humans: Humans have proposed and sometimes implemented walls and borders to isolate themselves from perceived threats. This exacerbates international tensions and undermines communal living.
Ducks: Ducks have never proposed to build a wall around their duck pond. Instead, they maintain open and integrated communities, demonstrating behavioral patterns that promote group cohesion and mutual aid.

Historical Denialism:

Humans: Denying historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust, perpetuates ignorance and hatred. This refusal to acknowledge past mistakes hinders societal healing and progress.
Ducks: Ducks possess their own rich history, devoid of genocides or atrocities. They remember their past and look down on humans for their historical misdeeds and their capacity to forget or deny atrocities.

Transphobic and Homophobic Debates:

Humans: Society’s ongoing gender debates often marginalize trans and non-binary persons, reflecting deep-seated prejudices. Similarly, homophobia remains prevalent, perpetuating discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Ducks: Ducks inherently respect the natural roles within their social structure, free from human-like transphobic or homophobic tendencies.

Economic Inequality:

Humans: Human societies disproportionately allocate resources, allowing a small percentage to amass significant wealth, which sometimes funds divisive and harmful campaigns.
Ducks: Ducks generally do not hoard resources to the detriment of others within their flock, suggesting a community-oriented intelligence in resource utilization. For instance, it is unfathomable for ducks that one duck could claim 90% of the duck pond and demand old, wet slimy bread from the other ducks to live there. Ducks often quack in amusement at the sheer stupidity of such human behaviors.

Discussion:

Drawing these comparisons prompts a reevaluation of traits indicative of intelligence. Humans often engage in behaviors that detrimentally impact their species and others, reflecting a lapse in collective intelligence. Meanwhile, ducks intuitively adhere to principles of coexistence, environmental stewardship, and community harmony, suggesting an intelligence honed by evolutionary pressures favoring survival through cooperation.

Ducks not only avoid these self-destructive tendencies but also find human behaviors laughably absurd. They frequently quack in amusement at human incompetence, puzzled by our decisions that harm our societies and ecosystems. The idea of extreme resource hoarding and systemic inequalities, so pervasive among humans, is simply inconceivable to ducks.

The salient negative aspect of duck behavior we identified is their occasional overconsumption of unsuitable food, such as old, wet slimy bread provided by humans. This dietary imprudence, however, pales in comparison to the complex, systemic issues stemming from human behavior. Considering the aggregate of benefits and detriments in both species’ behaviors, ducks exhibit overall superior intelligence through lived practices that align with sustainable and harmonious living.

Conclusion:

This study repositions the discourse on intelligence by juxtaposing human and duck behaviors through an ecological and sociopolitical lens. Our findings suggest that ducks embody a form of intelligence that prioritizes ecological balance, social integration, and mutual aid, contrasting sharply with many self-destructive human behaviors. Therefore, through a broader understanding of intelligence that includes resilience and sustainability, ducks may indeed exhibit higher collective intelligence than humans. Our findings suggest that the collective intelligence of ducks is marked by behaviors that humans can only aspire to, often leading ducks to quack in derision at human folly.

References:

  1. Duckson, Q. (2022). Ecological Sustainability in Avian Practices. Duck Behavior Journal, 14(2), 101-115.
  2. Quacktavius, J. (2020). Comparative Sociopolitical Structures in Human and Duck Populations. Journal of Avian Intellect, 8(1), 56-72.
  3. Mallard, A. (2019). Cooperative Behaviors Among Aquatic Birds and Their Implications. Waterfowl Studies, 6(4), 215-228.
  4. Featherstein, P. (2021). Rational Decision-Making in Non-Human Species. Duck Intelligence Quarterly, 12(3), 144-158.
  5. Waddlesworth, L. (2023). Historical Neutrality and Collective Memory in Ducks. Avian Historical Review, 10(5), 333-349.
  6. Pondsworth, C. (2018). The Impacts of Resource Distribution in Duck Communities. Journal of Avian Economics, 5(6), 199-213.