In the natural world, the principle of the survival of the fittest operates on the basis that each species, each family within that species, and each individual within that family acts instinctively to promote its genetic inheritance. While this is a great truth, it is not the whole truth. Animals with sentient minds are not just driven by their instincts, they also develop learned strategies designed to promote the wellbeing of themselves, their families and, in some cases, their social groups. Individuals of all species, if they are to thrive, will always need to compete but many will also need to collaborate if they are to achieve this sense of security and wellbeing. They need a strategy for social living, and this will be determined by the degree to which others (both other species and conspecifics) may favour or threaten these aims. Among the large carnivores and other killers, such as lions and bears, most individuals view other animals either as meat, competitors in the pursuit of meat, or a threat to their own genes. Lionesses and she‐bears devote their lives to protecting their young from threats, the greatest of which can come from males of their own species seeking to promote their own genes by killing cubs sired by another male and mating with their mother. Smaller carnivores that hunt in packs establish extended family groups. A typical wolf pack is made up of a dominant breeding pair, the alpha male and even more dominant female with their extended family of sons and daughters who respect the authority of the alpha pair and look after each other’s interests. Here again, this is driven primarily by the genetic imperative but developed by a process of learning and education. This sense of deep family loyalty has been retained by the domesticated dog, although often misunderstood or abused by us. More on this in Chapter 10.

The survival of prey species, whether on land or sea, is often favoured by living in large groups. This is particularly important for animals that live out in the open, whether on the African Savannah or in the ocean. At the most basic level, group living need not involve any element of cooperation. If an animal under threat from a predator is unable to hide, the odds of getting eaten are greater if it is isolated than just one of a mob. The instinctive behaviour of many fish species under threat from sharks or dolphins is to swarm. It is likely that swarming behaviour in fish is entirely instinctive and operates according to simple rules governing the position and movement of one fish with respect to another. Any higher element of sentience would see all fish struggling to get into the middle of the mob. Swarming can lead to a feeding frenzy wherein many thousands may be killed but, for the individual, the odds that its genes will survive are improved. Once again, the sublime hindsight of Darwinian theory is seen in action.

Perhaps the most dramatic and beautiful demonstration of swarming behaviour is seen in the murmuration of starlings (Figure 5.1). Thousands of birds gather at dusk and create spectacular moving pictures in the sky before settling down together for the night. There is no evidence that this ballet is choreographed by a leader or leaders: each starling moves according to a strict set of rules regarding its position relative to 6–8 of its closest neighbours. There have been reports of multiple deaths in starlings when the leading birds have pulled out of a dive too close to the ground causing followers to crash. I know of no satisfactory explanation for this behaviour. Some have argued that, like fish, they instinctively swarm to reduce the individual risk of predation from raptor birds. This fails to explain the complex rituals that they practise at dusk, especially in the winter months. A convincing, but unproven, suggestion is that the birds congregate before settling down to roost for the night in order to conserve warmth.

There is no direct evidence to support the suggestion that starling murmuration may be an expression of deep sentience in the form of affiliative social behaviour, or companionship. However, there is good evidence for affiliative behaviour in another flocking species, the rook. Rooks are highly social birds. The collective noun for a gathering of rooks is a parliament, which can amount to as many as 60000 birds. Within this enormous group, pairs establish close bonds. They mate for life and regularly reinforce their bonds with mutual displays of affection. However, they also establish close links with neighbours outwith immediate family, cooperate to defend the neighbourhood from outside aggression and display empathy in the form of compassion (affiliative behaviour including a form of kissing) to members of the family or neighbours injured or in distress (13). This is one of many demonstrations of emotional sentience of birds in the corvid family that are at least as advanced as those seen in primates. In my illustration of the five skandhas of sentience (see Figure 2.1), I suggested that this behaviour may indicate possession of the inner circle of sentience, namely (human) consciousness.

Vulnerable species of the open plains, like sheep and wildebeest, clearly favour individual survival by living in groups. Once again, most of this behaviour is likely to be instinctive: those of their ancestors that chose to live in company were more likely to survive so this has become the behaviour that works. This herding behaviour does not require these animals to establish any emotional bonds outside the family, it only requires them not to be seen as a threat. It does however require individuals within the herd or flock to learn to live together in order to ensure a quiet life. Problems of living together are compounded by domestication, particularly the domestication of farm animals, where large numbers of pigs, sheep and cattle, and enormous numbers of poultry are compelled to high‐density living, with little or no opportunity to create their own personal space.

Sentient Social Life

Expression of the inner circles of sentience in the social interactions of animals were considered in Chapter 2. Here, I review the strategies adopted by social animals to meet their needs for biological success and a sense of emotional wellbeing. We can make a distinction between species that simply congregate in large numbers for instinctive reasons that favour survival, and those that appear to require the presence of a sentient mind. Quality of life within a flock, herd or tribe of social animals will depend on some or all of the following:

• Stable, non‐harmful social relationships
  
• Communication of emotions and information
  
• Social learning acquired through observation and formal education
  
• Emotionally advanced expressions of social behaviour such as friendship, empathy and compassion