This view of empathy raises questions regarding anthropomorphism. Although the attribution of human traits to other animals is sometimes accused of being unscientific, De Waal (2016) challenges that critique as a barrier to understanding. Indeed, the linkage of a familiar experience of one's own to an experience of another creature may facilitate important understanding and concern for the other. While we must be cautious about adopting anthropomorphic views uncritically, empathetic insight can be instrumental in attending to animal suffering. The reflection of one caregiver signifies a commonality in human and animal experience to build upon.

Thus, rather than distinguishing human animals from other species in terms of being “non” human animals, perhaps we might think of them as beyond-human animals. The term “beyond-human animal” also captures the sense of mystery in other creatures that lies beyond-human understanding.

human–wildlife interactions in the realm of wildlife care were characterized by conscious processes of mutual awareness, inquiry, and knowing.

“What kind of things does each animal like? What will get them playing and get those natural behaviors?”

The enrichment device chosen was based on animal interest, intelligence, and physical capabilities.

In a captive setting, in which food was provided without any effort, animals could easily become bored and suffer negative psychological effects. Without cognitive engagement, captive animals could develop stereotyping behavior such as pacing. Enrichment activities provided needed stimulation and relieved stress.

The animal Other was known as a knower.

One day I was walking through the woods … for some reason I looked back and there was a weasel … I saw its little head and I went, “Do I know you?” And it came out… . And then as soon as it came out of the wall towards me, it got scared. And I don't blame it. 'Cause they like to hide. They're all in things. They're not in the open … And it went back into the wall. I'm like, “Oh, I think that was one of mine.” …Just the idea that it came out. Made me think. It knew me.

One participant's experience suggested that animals could perceive changes in the behavior of an individual human caretaker and modify their actions accordingly.

he had come to know the different calls made by raptors (Accipitridae) in his care and to understand the meaning being expressed.

In their interactions with wildlife, participants described a mutual cognitive engagement of each trying to “figure out” the other. “So, there's a back and forth … I'll spend a lot of time having an animal be comfortable with me as well as vice versa.”

Entry into a wild creature's enclosure in which there was no physical barrier involved creating a conscious boundary, or horizon, that was negotiated through nonverbal embodied cues.

A smaller space for injured animals was beneficial because it meant less area to defend and reduced the need for vigilance

embodied space is an integral component of an animal's lifeworld.

These dimensions include embodied spatiality, temporality, and mutual human–wildlife consciousness.

Each living creature has value in existence as well as value in its potential to contribute to the world. Dignity thus provides a critical ethical perspective from which thoughts and actions can be examined.

“The evolution of the spirit of living beings within mutually transformative relationships leading to a loving community through human and ecological dignity”

Mutual flourishing across the planet will require humans to radically re-envision the way that we relate to other beings.

it is important to emphasize that other living creatures have intrinsic worth and are not merely instruments to meet human needs (Perry et al., 2022; Ricard, 2014). Indeed, this paper puts forth the position that all species have worth and that the dignity of all living beings must be honored.

This perspective regards posthumanism not as devoid of humans, but rather, an epoch in which mutual flourishing emerges for humanity and other living beings.

intersubjectivity

I will then provide some background on the original study and elaborate on the findings to portray human–wildlife interactions as mutually conscious, embodied, and with spatial–temporal dimensions

Negative interactions with wildlife can affect humans through loss of pets or livestock, property damage, and adverse health outcomes (Conover, 2019; DeStefano & Deblinger, 2005; Patterson et al., 2003). Interactions with humans can also be harmful to wildlife such as habitat loss, suffering from lethal control methods, and being hit by cars (MacKay, 2019; Messmer, 2000; Way, 2007).

yet humankind has had disproportionate effects on the planet, with staggering impact on living conditions for all.

ce. On the other hand, there is no such thing as "Native American liture," though it may yet, someday, come into