>In a way, this is not much different from foundational understandings in human–robot interactions, strengthening the claim in many humanities and environmental fields that humans should analytically be considered an animal
That seems a bit reversed to me. As a biologist, I fully agree that humans are animals and a lot of our behavior is evolved instinct not very different from other animals, but the traditional humanities way of thinking is that biology is irrelevant to understanding humans who are thought to be completely influenced by their culture and not their genes.
Wouldn't it be likely that smell has something to do with why animals don't treat robots as animals? After all, lots of animals use scent to some degree to help identify each other. A robot won't smell like anything they recognise - either friend or foe - so they would likely ignore it.
That seems a bit reversed to me. As a biologist, I fully agree that humans are animals and a lot of our behavior is evolved instinct not very different from other animals, but the traditional humanities way of thinking is that biology is irrelevant to understanding humans who are thought to be completely influenced by their culture and not their genes.