7 ms·

The entire trend of research in animal consciousness over the last 300 years has always been “animals turn out to be more conscious than we think”. If you look

The entire trend of research in animal consciousness over the last 300 years has always been “animals turn out to be more conscious than we think”. If you look at how the London Zoo treated animals in the mid 1800’s, you’ll see how even the most scientifically advanced group (at the time) that was working with animals could have been so cruel without realizing it. Sometimes it unnerves me that we’ll realize 100 years from now that animals were more conscious than even we me imagined possible and our treatment now of them (specifically livestock) is was really really bad.

spicymaki 8y ago
I like to follow the principle "when in doubt, be kind."
rafiki6 8y ago
Same argument can be made for how humans have and still do treat other humans who they decided to label sub-human and thereby less worthy of living a suffering-free existence. The trend is when humans have too much power over literally anything, they almost always tend to abuse it.
- cpeterso 8y ago
  As recently as the 1980s, doctors did not provide anesthesia to infants undergoing surgery. They thought infants' pain response was just a "reflex", not a conscious experience of pain. https://www.livescience.com/28848-babies-have-consciousness.html https://www.livescience.com/28848-babies-have-consciousness....
  - colordrops 8y ago
    That's gruesome.
  - david-gpu 8y ago
    My understanding is that that was in part due to the difficulty of providing the right dosage that would provide pain relief without causing harm. Source: dad was an anesthesiologist.
  - kleton 8y ago
    Male genital mutilation is still practiced in some countries in this manner.
- empath75 8y ago
  Yeah it basically comes down to— we don’t believe they have consciousness because they can’t make us believe it.
tdb7893 8y ago
Yeah, my wife studied animal science in undergrad and is now getting a graduate degree in animal behavior and welfare. Oddly enough she wasn't vegetarian but talking to her made me go real vegetarian real fast (and I'm almost vegan, I'm currently phasing out cheese and I've cream). My guess is that whenever we get lab grown meat and we don't "need" animal agriculture anymore people will start to realize how bad the current practices can be.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  What's really interesting is that even plants have more awareness of the world around them than we like to give them credit for. So if we are to assume that plants can suffer similarly to how we do, how does that change our relationship to them? If you extend the concept further and just assume that everything has some experience of reality, whether you can relate to it or not, what does that tell us about how we ought to behave?
  - inerte 8y ago
    First, setting the stage: https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive Second, assuming for example that molecules have some experience of reality, and we just don't "relate" to the air around us, I am going to assume we will continue breathing.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      I disagree with the link's assessment. > Plants lack nerves, let alone a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain or respond to circumstances in any deliberate way (not to be confused with the non-conscious reactions they do have). The argument is circular. Plants cannot act in a deliberate way because they are not conscious and are not conscious because they cannot act deliberately. From a pure materialist perspective, the human mind is just as reactionary in its behavior as a plant, born of a combination of genetics and external stimuli. That it is sufficiently complex enough to obscure the direct relationships from our understanding is irrelevant. We have very little understanding of a plant's experience of the universe, it may well be that they experience suffering through some mechanism other than having a central nervous system, it just isn't the same experience as our own forms of suffering. This whole thread is about how things different from ourselves can never the less experience the world similarly, why would we think this stops at animal life? > Second, assuming for example that molecules have some experience of reality, and we just don't "relate" to the air around us, I am going to assume we will continue breathing. Not an unreasonable position. The question is, why is this ok? I don't think it is one people should just write off and not think about, even though their conclusion will probably be the same as yours. In general, I think it is a trap to allow yourself to say "well, this is where the line is, because of X" and not also question your assumptions about X and, in particular, why X matters. Why do people draw the line at sentience when it comes to what we can and cannot do to another entity? Why is sentience important? Why not simply draw the line at being human, or go the other direction and draw it at all life? On what axis are these two choices and why did we pick that one? Why is feeling pain important? Is it ok to kill someone afflicted anhidrosis? I don't believe there are easy answers to these questions, or even necessarily answers at all if you insist on some kind of empirical and well defined rule, which is also why I think they're important to ask ourselves.
NeoBasilisk 8y ago
also slavery was still legal in the US in the mid 1800s
taneq 8y ago
> The entire trend of research in animal consciousness over the last 300 years has always been “animals turn out to be more conscious than we think”. To be fair, a lot of the changes have been motivated by a parallel trend of "it's actually not OK to make living creatures suffer". There were plenty of things in the not-too-distant past (public executions / torture in the middle ages, Roman circuses) which were perpetrated on clearly sentient creatures, as much for entertainment as anything.
agumonkey 8y ago
Makes isolated tribes looks like advanced civilizations
door5 8y ago
Go vegan :)

spicymaki 8y ago

I like to follow the principle "when in doubt, be kind."

rafiki6 8y ago

Same argument can be made for how humans have and still do treat other humans who they decided to label sub-human and thereby less worthy of living a suffering-free existence. The trend is when humans have too much power over literally anything, they almost always tend to abuse it.

cpeterso 8y ago
As recently as the 1980s, doctors did not provide anesthesia to infants undergoing surgery. They thought infants' pain response was just a "reflex", not a conscious experience of pain. https://www.livescience.com/28848-babies-have-consciousness.html https://www.livescience.com/28848-babies-have-consciousness....
- colordrops 8y ago
  That's gruesome.
- david-gpu 8y ago
  My understanding is that that was in part due to the difficulty of providing the right dosage that would provide pain relief without causing harm. Source: dad was an anesthesiologist.
- kleton 8y ago
  Male genital mutilation is still practiced in some countries in this manner.
empath75 8y ago
Yeah it basically comes down to— we don’t believe they have consciousness because they can’t make us believe it.

tdb7893 8y ago

Yeah, my wife studied animal science in undergrad and is now getting a graduate degree in animal behavior and welfare. Oddly enough she wasn't vegetarian but talking to her made me go real vegetarian real fast (and I'm almost vegan, I'm currently phasing out cheese and I've cream). My guess is that whenever we get lab grown meat and we don't "need" animal agriculture anymore people will start to realize how bad the current practices can be.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
What's really interesting is that even plants have more awareness of the world around them than we like to give them credit for. So if we are to assume that plants can suffer similarly to how we do, how does that change our relationship to them? If you extend the concept further and just assume that everything has some experience of reality, whether you can relate to it or not, what does that tell us about how we ought to behave?
- inerte 8y ago
  First, setting the stage: https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/plants-are-alive Second, assuming for example that molecules have some experience of reality, and we just don't "relate" to the air around us, I am going to assume we will continue breathing.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    I disagree with the link's assessment. > Plants lack nerves, let alone a central nervous system, and cannot feel pain or respond to circumstances in any deliberate way (not to be confused with the non-conscious reactions they do have). The argument is circular. Plants cannot act in a deliberate way because they are not conscious and are not conscious because they cannot act deliberately. From a pure materialist perspective, the human mind is just as reactionary in its behavior as a plant, born of a combination of genetics and external stimuli. That it is sufficiently complex enough to obscure the direct relationships from our understanding is irrelevant. We have very little understanding of a plant's experience of the universe, it may well be that they experience suffering through some mechanism other than having a central nervous system, it just isn't the same experience as our own forms of suffering. This whole thread is about how things different from ourselves can never the less experience the world similarly, why would we think this stops at animal life? > Second, assuming for example that molecules have some experience of reality, and we just don't "relate" to the air around us, I am going to assume we will continue breathing. Not an unreasonable position. The question is, why is this ok? I don't think it is one people should just write off and not think about, even though their conclusion will probably be the same as yours. In general, I think it is a trap to allow yourself to say "well, this is where the line is, because of X" and not also question your assumptions about X and, in particular, why X matters. Why do people draw the line at sentience when it comes to what we can and cannot do to another entity? Why is sentience important? Why not simply draw the line at being human, or go the other direction and draw it at all life? On what axis are these two choices and why did we pick that one? Why is feeling pain important? Is it ok to kill someone afflicted anhidrosis? I don't believe there are easy answers to these questions, or even necessarily answers at all if you insist on some kind of empirical and well defined rule, which is also why I think they're important to ask ourselves.

NeoBasilisk 8y ago

also slavery was still legal in the US in the mid 1800s

taneq 8y ago

> The entire trend of research in animal consciousness over the last 300 years has always been “animals turn out to be more conscious than we think”. To be fair, a lot of the changes have been motivated by a parallel trend of "it's actually not OK to make living creatures suffer". There were plenty of things in the not-too-distant past (public executions / torture in the middle ages, Roman circuses) which were perpetrated on clearly sentient creatures, as much for entertainment as anything.

agumonkey 8y ago

Makes isolated tribes looks like advanced civilizations

door5 8y ago

Go vegan :)