We have similar compulsions too. Humans have an instinct to seek shelter, for example. You might say "well thats because we are taught this etc etc" but at the same time, all great apes shelter, our hominid ancestors sheltered, we shelter today, there is clearly an instinct to shelter even if we have these conscious thoughts around it. I bet if you had a perfectly feral human and had them in a clearing in a rain storm, they would try and find some shelter from it in the forest without being taught any wilderness survival basics.

Of course this is true.

But if you put a feral human in the middle of a clearing in a rainstorm, they wouldn't build modern civilisation.

Beavers only do what is innate and what they can independently invent in one lifetime, because they aren't substantially sharing knowledge.

This is the reasoning model for modern empiricists:

1. Make a baseless a-priori claim that mistakes what we have evidence of to be the bounded set of what is: 'We have not discovered any social mechanisms in beavers to transmit knowledge across time and space' is transfigurated into 'No social mechanisms exist in beavers to transmit knowledge'

Similarly, having not yet discovered a single reason for my wife to be upset with me, I must recognize that she doesn't have any.

2. Invent a false dichotomy, with one option being totally absurd, the other being your pet theory.

3. Settle on your preconceived notion.

Is it ever possible to transmit knowledge, or anything for that matter not across time and space?