7 ms·

The idea that beings which are grossly anatomically and physiologically similar to ourselves somehow don't experience similar emotions as ourselves is objective

The idea that beings which are grossly anatomically and physiologically similar to ourselves somehow don't experience similar emotions as ourselves is objectively the most backward, bizarre, and anthrocentric biological idea I can imagine. The default rational -- and scientific -- position should be that animals' inner lives are roughly similar to our own, at least in proportion to the similarity of their observable experience, and until proven otherwise. To assume otherwise -- that animals are dead inside, because they look different, or -- forgive the cynicism -- because they challenge some misplaced idea of human exceptionalism -- that is "faith", and not science.

adventured 8y ago
Humans are clearly exceptional in numerous positive ways. There is no real debate to be had there. Let me know when the whales, monkeys and dolphins put a telescope into orbit. And let me know what the grieving orca thinks about generational knowledge transference or the afterlife. Human exceptionalism isn't simultaneously a degradation of the amazing traits of other species. Just because humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas, that doesn't actually take anything away from gorillas.
- projektir 8y ago
  Neither of those things indicate that humans have wildly different inner lives, though. A lot of these may perhaps be attributed to a combination of language development and tools usage, neither of which is really relevant to the parent's point in any way, so I don't really understand your digression. Humans DO have a history of degrading the inner lives of animals and it's a problem. We don't even know for sure that humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas in an objective sense, we're just deriving that from the aforementioned telescope example which is not scientific in the slightest. Humans have plenty to be proud of but with things like "we're more intelligent" or "we're more emotionally developed" as opposed to "we got a lucky combination of things" I'd rather be really careful.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    There's no need to resort to fancy engineering projects -- where's the animal that knows how to craft novel utterances to express new ideas, or the animal that has a sense of self? The animal that has an awareness of its own mortality? The animal that can appreciate ideas like morality? It doesn't exist.
    - jahewson 8y ago
      You’re literally describing dolphins: “New evidence suggests that dolphins, like elephants and the great apes, may comprehend their own mortality.” https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/do-dolphins-mourn-their-dead https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/do-dolphin...
    - interfixus 8y ago
      > * It doesn't exist* [citatation needed]
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Generally you can't really prove a negative but feel free to give counterexamples
        interfixus 8y ago
        Of something you claim cannot be proven, perhaps a less categorial expression than "It doesn't exist". I do believe I have seen animal examples of all three of your statements, an logically, there must have been among our ancestors, but the onus isn't really on me.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        Look, I can't prove that there aren't goblins either, and yet I bet you wouldn't demand I couch a statement about their existence in weak language like "to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that goblins exist."
- 36bydesign 8y ago
  Things human value (exploration, science) aren’t necessarily things other species would value. We tend to destroy the planet in our pursuits, so I’m not as confident as you are in our own species’ intellectual superiority. Many species have better memories than humans, including most monkey/ape species. We have exceptional dexterity while dolphins don’t, so is it a fair fight to judge intelligence by putting a telescope into orbit? Do dolphins have as high a rate of depression in their species as humans? Do they have as many wars as us? Again, are we really that much more intelligent than these other species? Measuring intelligence is hard because we don’t have a rigorous definition.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    The only species which even begins to have a plausible comparison is the octopus. Yes, I feel completely confident saying we're more intelligent than orcas or monkeys.
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      But the question was if “more intelligent” gives us the authority to eat them, or make them go extinct by destroying their habitat, or abuse them for medicine trials. And if “more intelligent” is a valid reason you are immediately entering a weird area where it is okay to eat a baby because hey, it’s less intelligent! But I doubt many people would think that’s a valid reason, so we’re back to speciesism. which is also problematic because then we appoint the human as sole judge and juror of all living things.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        That's a separate question but not the one any of the posts I replied to were addressing. I don't think it's honest to attribute to shield properties they don't have simply because you don't like the implications of the reality.
- JoshTko 8y ago
  So did humans 20,000 years ago lack emotional depth since they had yet to invent complex technology?
  - laretluval 8y ago
    They likely had the same cognitive capacity as us, and if dropped into a modern environment could invent complex technology. No other animal can do this as far as we know.
    - colanderman 8y ago
      Yes, but "designing complex technology" has little to nothing to do with capability to feel emotion.
      - laretluval 8y ago
        It establishes a major way in which human minds are different from animal minds, such that generalizing from humans to animals may be incorrect.
  - tlear 8y ago
    Humans had bow and arrow, sling, spear thrower. Which is might as well be satellite in orbit when compared to tech of any animal we know off.
    - sharmi 8y ago
      Tool making and use among animals have been documented for quite some time. [1] What's significant is , in most cases, the animals are both "tool makers" and "tool users". They find items most suitable for their purpose and adapt it as much as possible. May be, they are not as versatile as we are, but they have the recognition that 1. Objects can be repurposed for some other use that what they see in nature. 2. Certain objects are better suited than others, though they are similar. 3. A fore said objects can be modified further to increase efficiency. 4. This knowledge is often passed among communities and families through observation or teaching rather than as genetic changes. >> Both bonobos and chimpanzees have been observed making "sponges" out of leaves and moss that suck up water and using these for grooming >> Elephants have been observed digging holes to drink water, then ripping bark from a tree, chewing it into the shape of a ball thereby manufacturing a "plug" to fill in the hole, and covering it with sand to avoid evaporation. They would later go back to the spot to drink. >> Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins made up of approximately 41-54 animals, are known to use conical sponges (Echinodictyum mesenterinum) as tools while foraging. ...During sponging, dolphins mainly target fish that lack swim bladders and burrow in the substrate. Therefore, the sponge may be used to protect their rostrums as they forage in a niche where echolocation and vision are less effective hunting techniques. Sponging may be socially learned from mother to offspring. >> Woodpecker Finches have been observed to use a different type of tool with novel functional features such as barbed twigs from blackberry bushes, a plant that is not native to the islands. The twigs were first modified by removing side twigs and leaves and then used such that the barbs helped drag prey out of tree crevices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals
hprotagonist 8y ago
>To assume otherwise -- that animals are dead inside, because they look different, or -- forgive the cynicism -- because they challenge some misplaced idea of human exceptionalism -- that is "faith", and not science. How about "has 302 neurons"? Where along this list ought we draw one or more partitions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...
- colanderman 8y ago
  Like I said, our idea – that is, our presumption, short of scientific evidence – of what inner experiences an animal might share with us should be informed by our knowledge of what physiology and behavior that animal shares with us. Orcas are mammals with complex social structures who form extremely close bonds with their mothers [1]. Hence my suggestion that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that an orca would not feel grief should her child die. Roundworms? Not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure
- monetus 8y ago
  I'm curious how much of our 'soul' is a product of the relationship between the bacterial biomes in our bodies, rather than just our neurons by themselves. Even more, how do we know all neurons are equal? edit: not arguing against your point, just woolgathering.
- MrQuincle 8y ago
  That you have to draw a line somewhere is obvious. Speciecism however draws the line at exactly our own species. We can do better than that. To use a physiological line seems indeed a better approach. It would also be good if we would know where there is a line of feeling pain. Good luck establishing a line. It's one of the things we can do, where we can collectively become more reasonable and emphatic than we were before.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    That you have to draw a line somewhere is obvious. Given that there is no such actual line, and that we would be thus trying to apply a binary idea to a universe that doesn't actually support that - reality disagrees with us, as it were - is it still obvious? It seems harsh that we must obviously do something that we know to be incorrect.
laretluval 8y ago
On the other hand, many of our emotions and emotional displays appear to be social in nature, and we are much more social than the average mammal.
- colanderman 8y ago
  Orcas aren't the "average" mammal. They have one of the most complex known social structures. [1] Should we assume that solitary mammals – say, tigers – feel grief? Maybe not – they do not share the social structure humans have in which grief plays a part. Though we might assume they experience emotions related to maintaining a territory, such as pride and anger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure
  - jacobush 8y ago
    I could totally expect a tiger to experience the pain of loss if their young were killed. After all, giving birth to and raising their young is a huge investment for them too. Also, I have seen grown tigers play with humans and shown immense affection, so it seems to me they are capable of more social bonding than they generally express in the wild. Given that lions and tigers are closely related, and that lions are super social, I could imagine tigers have some latent social "DNA" which is just not currently expressed very much in the wild.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
I've been struggling with this myself recently, about the ethics of eating meat and whether animals have a "soul". My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego, therefore death is insignificant to them. Animals are incapable of forming abstract concepts, of thinking about the future or the past in concrete terms, of forming feelings and emotions. However, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the more intelligent mammals, such as whales and dolphins, as well as apes, do have an ego. Plenty of people argue that it's unethical to kill whales and dolphins because they do have an ego and can form abstract thoughts. So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine? Where is that line drawn? I don't have that answer, so I've gone off eating meat in general. The concept of killing a living, possibly thinking being in order to eat it seems a bit fucked up to me these days. I can't say with certainty if/what animals do have an ego, or if they are capable of abstract thoughts, but it for me it seems safer to assume they do and avoid eating them.
- ddingus 8y ago
  I have settled on the definition of a soul being, "that which makes us unique." Animals souls do not burn as bright, or as complex as ours do, and perhaps the higher order animals do, but they are there. I had a special cat once. Deep bond with my wife and I. When my wife was sick, that cat attended to her. She reported the caring touch, done for the same reasons any of us would. When she died, it was powerful. She wanted to be with us, and she communicated basic affection, fear, the need to be close, pain, and more. It was remarkably like the passing of a person. Simpler, but not less, just simpler. It is hard to justify a lot of what we do, given these kinds if experiences. One other thing: Animals do vary. Widely. But, when we invest in them, seek mutual understanding, they respond. The more capable ones can respond more than I belueve we realize.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    I like to call my dog a person - a very little person, but a person nonetheless. I love your phrasing "simpler, but not less". That's exactly it.
Buldak 8y ago
People are thoroughly capable of believing this about other people, never mind non-human animals.
- eaenki 8y ago
  Exactly.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Ha! Reading that actually have me a little shock. So true! Where I live, if you were to palliatively medicate a dog or cat, or cow or pig or sheep, for ten years, in an effort to keep it alive despite obvious suffering, you would likely be servely reprimanded, if caught. Meanwhile, humans have turned this treatment toward each other in to an industry. We shouldn’t be at all surprised that we factory farm animals for our culinary pleasures.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I find your comment ironic. Consider that you are stating that everything must, at some level, be like humans. This is the most clear cut example of anthrocentric thinking I can imagine! This view is also contradicted by experiment which shows that creatures that are extremely genetically similar to us, still respond very differently to various stimuli thus making the logical view that they indeed do experience the same stimuli in different ways. Beyond experiment I think it also fails through basic logic as well. Evolution dictates what we become, and we can see the vast variety of changes that evolution has forked among us. Go back far enough and even humans and plants share a common ancestor. To this day a banana shares about 60% of its DNA with a human! But of course it's not just what's on the outside the evolution changes. The way things act, behave, perceive, think, and so on is also controlled by evolution. To assume that somehow everything must, at some level, have internal mechanisms similar to a human is also just not very logical. It'd be like suggesting that everything must have opposable thumbs, because we do. Of course we know that to be very false, but the only reason your statement is not immediately similarly absurd is because you're referencing things that cannot be directly observed.
- gepi79 8y ago
  To assume that animals that behave as if they had emotions actually have emotions is not anthrocentric but intelligent thinking. This not like the question whether Earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits Earth in case you do not know the mass of the objects. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain-180967764/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain... It is absurd and unscientific to think that animals have no emotional awareness despite the emotional reptilian complex and the limbic system and a different neocortex for unemotional intelligence. Besides the problem of consciousness is far from being solved. https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30141-3 https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-223... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    The post I was responding to stated 'animals similar to us must experience similar emotions.' You ignore this and then straw man me into suggesting that animals have no response system whatsoever, which is obviously absurd. And in the process there you've also shifted the goal posts from similar emotional response to any response whatsoever. Classy. For fish there is 0 doubt that whatever they experience, it is radically different than what humans do. On top of this I would generally not waste time on media articles for scientific issues. An interesting overview of the state of 'fish pain' studies is available here. [1] PSU also offers CiteSeerX as a means of finding papers on a given topic. This [1] is a search for fish pain providing further reading. As usual, and especially if you choose to use services more susceptible to spam/blogging including Google Scholar, you should try to isolate the papers down to those that have been published and peer reviewed. [1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010 [2] - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=title%3Afish+pain http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=title%3Afish+pain
agumonkey 8y ago
I often compare animals and humans to old and new video games, same principles, just a shift in resolution.

adventured 8y ago

Humans are clearly exceptional in numerous positive ways. There is no real debate to be had there. Let me know when the whales, monkeys and dolphins put a telescope into orbit. And let me know what the grieving orca thinks about generational knowledge transference or the afterlife. Human exceptionalism isn't simultaneously a degradation of the amazing traits of other species. Just because humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas, that doesn't actually take anything away from gorillas.

projektir 8y ago
Neither of those things indicate that humans have wildly different inner lives, though. A lot of these may perhaps be attributed to a combination of language development and tools usage, neither of which is really relevant to the parent's point in any way, so I don't really understand your digression. Humans DO have a history of degrading the inner lives of animals and it's a problem. We don't even know for sure that humans are exceptional intellectually compared to gorillas in an objective sense, we're just deriving that from the aforementioned telescope example which is not scientific in the slightest. Humans have plenty to be proud of but with things like "we're more intelligent" or "we're more emotionally developed" as opposed to "we got a lucky combination of things" I'd rather be really careful.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  There's no need to resort to fancy engineering projects -- where's the animal that knows how to craft novel utterances to express new ideas, or the animal that has a sense of self? The animal that has an awareness of its own mortality? The animal that can appreciate ideas like morality? It doesn't exist.
  - jahewson 8y ago
    You’re literally describing dolphins: “New evidence suggests that dolphins, like elephants and the great apes, may comprehend their own mortality.” https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/do-dolphins-mourn-their-dead https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/do-dolphin...
  - interfixus 8y ago
    > * It doesn't exist* [citatation needed]
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Generally you can't really prove a negative but feel free to give counterexamples
      - interfixus 8y ago
        Of something you claim cannot be proven, perhaps a less categorial expression than "It doesn't exist". I do believe I have seen animal examples of all three of your statements, an logically, there must have been among our ancestors, but the onus isn't really on me.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        Look, I can't prove that there aren't goblins either, and yet I bet you wouldn't demand I couch a statement about their existence in weak language like "to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that goblins exist."
36bydesign 8y ago
Things human value (exploration, science) aren’t necessarily things other species would value. We tend to destroy the planet in our pursuits, so I’m not as confident as you are in our own species’ intellectual superiority. Many species have better memories than humans, including most monkey/ape species. We have exceptional dexterity while dolphins don’t, so is it a fair fight to judge intelligence by putting a telescope into orbit? Do dolphins have as high a rate of depression in their species as humans? Do they have as many wars as us? Again, are we really that much more intelligent than these other species? Measuring intelligence is hard because we don’t have a rigorous definition.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  The only species which even begins to have a plausible comparison is the octopus. Yes, I feel completely confident saying we're more intelligent than orcas or monkeys.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    But the question was if “more intelligent” gives us the authority to eat them, or make them go extinct by destroying their habitat, or abuse them for medicine trials. And if “more intelligent” is a valid reason you are immediately entering a weird area where it is okay to eat a baby because hey, it’s less intelligent! But I doubt many people would think that’s a valid reason, so we’re back to speciesism. which is also problematic because then we appoint the human as sole judge and juror of all living things.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      That's a separate question but not the one any of the posts I replied to were addressing. I don't think it's honest to attribute to shield properties they don't have simply because you don't like the implications of the reality.
JoshTko 8y ago
So did humans 20,000 years ago lack emotional depth since they had yet to invent complex technology?
- laretluval 8y ago
  They likely had the same cognitive capacity as us, and if dropped into a modern environment could invent complex technology. No other animal can do this as far as we know.
  - colanderman 8y ago
    Yes, but "designing complex technology" has little to nothing to do with capability to feel emotion.
    - laretluval 8y ago
      It establishes a major way in which human minds are different from animal minds, such that generalizing from humans to animals may be incorrect.
- tlear 8y ago
  Humans had bow and arrow, sling, spear thrower. Which is might as well be satellite in orbit when compared to tech of any animal we know off.
  - sharmi 8y ago
    Tool making and use among animals have been documented for quite some time. [1] What's significant is , in most cases, the animals are both "tool makers" and "tool users". They find items most suitable for their purpose and adapt it as much as possible. May be, they are not as versatile as we are, but they have the recognition that 1. Objects can be repurposed for some other use that what they see in nature. 2. Certain objects are better suited than others, though they are similar. 3. A fore said objects can be modified further to increase efficiency. 4. This knowledge is often passed among communities and families through observation or teaching rather than as genetic changes. >> Both bonobos and chimpanzees have been observed making "sponges" out of leaves and moss that suck up water and using these for grooming >> Elephants have been observed digging holes to drink water, then ripping bark from a tree, chewing it into the shape of a ball thereby manufacturing a "plug" to fill in the hole, and covering it with sand to avoid evaporation. They would later go back to the spot to drink. >> Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins made up of approximately 41-54 animals, are known to use conical sponges (Echinodictyum mesenterinum) as tools while foraging. ...During sponging, dolphins mainly target fish that lack swim bladders and burrow in the substrate. Therefore, the sponge may be used to protect their rostrums as they forage in a niche where echolocation and vision are less effective hunting techniques. Sponging may be socially learned from mother to offspring. >> Woodpecker Finches have been observed to use a different type of tool with novel functional features such as barbed twigs from blackberry bushes, a plant that is not native to the islands. The twigs were first modified by removing side twigs and leaves and then used such that the barbs helped drag prey out of tree crevices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals

hprotagonist 8y ago

>To assume otherwise -- that animals are dead inside, because they look different, or -- forgive the cynicism -- because they challenge some misplaced idea of human exceptionalism -- that is "faith", and not science. How about "has 302 neurons"? Where along this list ought we draw one or more partitions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

colanderman 8y ago
Like I said, our idea – that is, our presumption, short of scientific evidence – of what inner experiences an animal might share with us should be informed by our knowledge of what physiology and behavior that animal shares with us. Orcas are mammals with complex social structures who form extremely close bonds with their mothers [1]. Hence my suggestion that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that an orca would not feel grief should her child die. Roundworms? Not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure
monetus 8y ago
I'm curious how much of our 'soul' is a product of the relationship between the bacterial biomes in our bodies, rather than just our neurons by themselves. Even more, how do we know all neurons are equal? edit: not arguing against your point, just woolgathering.
MrQuincle 8y ago
That you have to draw a line somewhere is obvious. Speciecism however draws the line at exactly our own species. We can do better than that. To use a physiological line seems indeed a better approach. It would also be good if we would know where there is a line of feeling pain. Good luck establishing a line. It's one of the things we can do, where we can collectively become more reasonable and emphatic than we were before.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  That you have to draw a line somewhere is obvious. Given that there is no such actual line, and that we would be thus trying to apply a binary idea to a universe that doesn't actually support that - reality disagrees with us, as it were - is it still obvious? It seems harsh that we must obviously do something that we know to be incorrect.

laretluval 8y ago

On the other hand, many of our emotions and emotional displays appear to be social in nature, and we are much more social than the average mammal.

colanderman 8y ago
Orcas aren't the "average" mammal. They have one of the most complex known social structures. [1] Should we assume that solitary mammals – say, tigers – feel grief? Maybe not – they do not share the social structure humans have in which grief plays a part. Though we might assume they experience emotions related to maintaining a territory, such as pride and anger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure
- jacobush 8y ago
  I could totally expect a tiger to experience the pain of loss if their young were killed. After all, giving birth to and raising their young is a huge investment for them too. Also, I have seen grown tigers play with humans and shown immense affection, so it seems to me they are capable of more social bonding than they generally express in the wild. Given that lions and tigers are closely related, and that lions are super social, I could imagine tigers have some latent social "DNA" which is just not currently expressed very much in the wild.

toomanybeersies 8y ago

I've been struggling with this myself recently, about the ethics of eating meat and whether animals have a "soul". My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego, therefore death is insignificant to them. Animals are incapable of forming abstract concepts, of thinking about the future or the past in concrete terms, of forming feelings and emotions. However, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the more intelligent mammals, such as whales and dolphins, as well as apes, do have an ego. Plenty of people argue that it's unethical to kill whales and dolphins because they do have an ego and can form abstract thoughts. So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine? Where is that line drawn? I don't have that answer, so I've gone off eating meat in general. The concept of killing a living, possibly thinking being in order to eat it seems a bit fucked up to me these days. I can't say with certainty if/what animals do have an ego, or if they are capable of abstract thoughts, but it for me it seems safer to assume they do and avoid eating them.

ddingus 8y ago
I have settled on the definition of a soul being, "that which makes us unique." Animals souls do not burn as bright, or as complex as ours do, and perhaps the higher order animals do, but they are there. I had a special cat once. Deep bond with my wife and I. When my wife was sick, that cat attended to her. She reported the caring touch, done for the same reasons any of us would. When she died, it was powerful. She wanted to be with us, and she communicated basic affection, fear, the need to be close, pain, and more. It was remarkably like the passing of a person. Simpler, but not less, just simpler. It is hard to justify a lot of what we do, given these kinds if experiences. One other thing: Animals do vary. Widely. But, when we invest in them, seek mutual understanding, they respond. The more capable ones can respond more than I belueve we realize.
- jacobush 8y ago
  I like to call my dog a person - a very little person, but a person nonetheless. I love your phrasing "simpler, but not less". That's exactly it.

Buldak 8y ago

People are thoroughly capable of believing this about other people, never mind non-human animals.

eaenki 8y ago
Exactly.
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Ha! Reading that actually have me a little shock. So true! Where I live, if you were to palliatively medicate a dog or cat, or cow or pig or sheep, for ten years, in an effort to keep it alive despite obvious suffering, you would likely be servely reprimanded, if caught. Meanwhile, humans have turned this treatment toward each other in to an industry. We shouldn’t be at all surprised that we factory farm animals for our culinary pleasures.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I find your comment ironic. Consider that you are stating that everything must, at some level, be like humans. This is the most clear cut example of anthrocentric thinking I can imagine! This view is also contradicted by experiment which shows that creatures that are extremely genetically similar to us, still respond very differently to various stimuli thus making the logical view that they indeed do experience the same stimuli in different ways. Beyond experiment I think it also fails through basic logic as well. Evolution dictates what we become, and we can see the vast variety of changes that evolution has forked among us. Go back far enough and even humans and plants share a common ancestor. To this day a banana shares about 60% of its DNA with a human! But of course it's not just what's on the outside the evolution changes. The way things act, behave, perceive, think, and so on is also controlled by evolution. To assume that somehow everything must, at some level, have internal mechanisms similar to a human is also just not very logical. It'd be like suggesting that everything must have opposable thumbs, because we do. Of course we know that to be very false, but the only reason your statement is not immediately similarly absurd is because you're referencing things that cannot be directly observed.

gepi79 8y ago
To assume that animals that behave as if they had emotions actually have emotions is not anthrocentric but intelligent thinking. This not like the question whether Earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits Earth in case you do not know the mass of the objects. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain-180967764/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain... It is absurd and unscientific to think that animals have no emotional awareness despite the emotional reptilian complex and the limbic system and a different neocortex for unemotional intelligence. Besides the problem of consciousness is far from being solved. https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30141-3 https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-223... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The post I was responding to stated 'animals similar to us must experience similar emotions.' You ignore this and then straw man me into suggesting that animals have no response system whatsoever, which is obviously absurd. And in the process there you've also shifted the goal posts from similar emotional response to any response whatsoever. Classy. For fish there is 0 doubt that whatever they experience, it is radically different than what humans do. On top of this I would generally not waste time on media articles for scientific issues. An interesting overview of the state of 'fish pain' studies is available here. [1] PSU also offers CiteSeerX as a means of finding papers on a given topic. This [1] is a search for fish pain providing further reading. As usual, and especially if you choose to use services more susceptible to spam/blogging including Google Scholar, you should try to isolate the papers down to those that have been published and peer reviewed. [1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12010 [2] - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=title%3Afish+pain http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=title%3Afish+pain

agumonkey 8y ago

I often compare animals and humans to old and new video games, same principles, just a shift in resolution.