4 ms·
> The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulveri
by rntz 10y ago
> The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulverizing the animal kingdom is because we think we're superior to them.
The article doesn't put forward the idea that we should think more of animals for their sake; it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect.
- voidlogic 10y ago> it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect. There are many different views on animals currently, I personally think we don't have anything they don't just more of it- more complexity and nuance. This gap exists between any two species being compared (human vs clam, human vs dog, dog vs clam). I'd like to believe that most atheists with some background knowledge in evolutionary biology would agree with me. I also think that different animals have very different levels of spatial reasoning, emotional, social intelligence, etc. Its multidimensional. In short I don't think its fair to assume all people have a one dimensional, human vs animal POV. Plenty of people consider humans to just be other animals. For example say my border collie can reason about as well as a 2 year old, perhaps he has the emotional intelligence of a 6 year old.
- proc0 10y agoI think it underestimates how most people are able to easily see how animals do have complicated societies and consciousness, it's just that there's a huge disconnect between our wonder of the animal kingdom and our neglect and exploitation of it. It seems it's a cognitive dissonance when people accept their dog as their family while destroying the environment of wolves, etc.