12 ms·

I agree with the main thesis of the article, stated in the first paragraph. That idea of ”how important it is for us humans to not underestimate animal intellig

by 40four 6y ago

I agree with the main thesis of the article, stated in the first paragraph. That idea of ”how important it is for us humans to not underestimate animal intelligence”. I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light. Cephalopods have proven to to be incredibly intelligent, and emotional. I think you could easily argue many of them are smarter than human children, maybe even a lot of adults :) I highly recommend an episode of ‘Nature’ I saw recently on PBS about octopi. It’s called “Octopus: Making Contact”. It’s the story of a professor who decided to install a tank and keep an octopus in his home, and the relationship he & his daughter developed with it. Absolutely stunning! https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus-making-contact-preview-a98u9n/19851/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus-making-contact-previ... https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/baby-cephalopods-first-moments-tzuuij/19380/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/baby-cephalopods-first-momen...

steve_adams_86 6y ago
I believe I underestimated animal intelligence, and as an extension of that, animal consciousness. I have no proof that animals are intelligent or sentient or whatever. I do however have no reason to assume otherwise. As a result I’ve stopped eating meat almost entirely, and I suspect I’ll eliminate it entirely eventually. I still eat fish and shellfish. I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony. It has been a difficult revelation in some ways. Cooking meat has almost been a part of my way of life; it’s something I took pride in and always did to the best of my ability. Now I don’t really have much interest in food at all.
- Jeff_Brown 6y ago
  It's a very hard realization to have. I applaud you. I was vegan for a couple years, until I devleped tooth problems for the first time in my life, which spooked me and I quit. Now I just try to moderate my meat intake, consume the less-in-demand parts like tongue (nobody raises a cow for its tongue), and buy from sources that impose less, albeit clearly still substantial, suffering. But that said, there's so much great vegetarian food to be eaten!
  - steve_adams_86 6y ago
    That reminds me of something, which I suppose goes against what I've been commenting here. The rest of my family still eats meat and rather than throw out bones I will freeze them, let them accumulate, then make a broth and drink it. It seems immoral to waste the bones, sort of like how it seems more moral to only seek out that which might otherwise be wasted. It's a grey area for sure. In that regard though I suppose I do still eat animals? I certainly wouldn't make the broth if my family wasn't eating meat, though. And you're right, most of the world has amazing vegetarian food. It's daunting to take on learning all of it. Indian and Thai foods especially have been incredibly appealing to me lately. So much flavour and nutrition is possible and these people seem to have figured it out a long time ago.
- liuxiansheng 6y ago
  The realization that animals in factory farms have a capacity to suffer, and are undoubtedly subjected to this suffering for the majority of their lives, has made me cut my meat consumption from every meal to occasionally on the weekends. Would love to cut it out completely but have not mustered the willpower to do so. I think personally owning a pet dog and realizing they aren't biological machines simply responding to stimuli has helped me with that realization.
  - RamRodification 6y ago
    What if the suffering could somehow be guaranteed not to occur? Since that seems to be your only (main?) reason to give up meat, would you go back to eating it if the suffering didn't happen? I think the parent comment to yours is more about avoiding meat because of compassion to the intellect/consciousness. Rather than avoiding meat in order to eliminate any suffering that may occur during "production" of it. I'm curious because I'm pretty good at convincing myself that the meat I buy comes from animals that haven't suffered. And if it can actually be guaranteed (moose killed by hunter) I'm all-in on meat. But if I somehow "woke up" and realized that I didn't want to eat other living things because of compassion (or whatever) to their minds? I'm not sure that I could go back from that.
    - graindcafe 6y ago
      I think I'm somehow in the same situation, trying to avoid industrial farming in benefit of local, small farming. I can know for sure (for some of them) that the animal was well treated from the beginning of its life to the very end. I am asking myself if it is better for the animal to live a decent life even if it is to be killed and ate at the end or not to live at all.
      - steve_adams_86 6y ago
        My hang up is basically this: If I want the animal to have a good life, why do I/should I get to (or even want to) decide when and why that life should end? It seems very contradictory to me and necessitates a need for the taking of the thing I’m apparently attaching value to. Also I know I don’t physically kill these animals on a stop watch, but I vote for their death with my wallet. I don’t see a significant difference. Actually, I think it’s somewhat worse than it I carried it out myself. That’s why I generally try to only eat seafood that I selectively harvest while diving. I can guarantee the final moments were as brief as humanly possible and the rest of its life were as nature intended. So, I really struggle with this one part where I decide the animal has worth and should therefor have a good existence. However, I’m also deciding it should only have that until I decide I want to deep fry its muscles or something. So it must be that I’m deciding to be a benevolent killer or something, which is certainly better than a ruthless one, but leaves me a uncomfortable nonetheless. I need to justify my own need or desire to continue killing, or at least profiting from the killing. That’s the part I can’t do so far. Do I actually need to eat them? No, so far I really don’t. My health is still good after quite a while and the initial cravings have subsided. Do I want to eat them? No, not anymore, although I do miss it from a culinary perspective. Does that justify killing them? Well, would it justify killing someone’s dog if I thought dogs were delicious? Or any dog? No, never - the notion is absurd. Well. I suppose some people eat dogs. This has a significant cultural element to it. Nonetheless I really can’t bring myself to convince myself that I have any good reason to eat animals. Though admittedly I make an exception for fish and shellfish. I feel strange about that. I mean, when I get in the water those fish are arguably smarter than I am. One thing I justify the action by is that at least in the water they have a natural chance and environmental advantage. It isn’t a relationship of control and systematic murder from birth to death. In time I suspect I’ll stop eating fish too. I don’t know. The more I think about it the more it becomes an existential matter to be honest.
- eadmund 6y ago
  > I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony. I don't think that cephalopods are arrogant when they eat other creatures, although I suppose they may be gluttonous. Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating?
  - michael1999 6y ago
    That's why I like eating tuna! They're out hunting and killing, and then have one very bad day. Live by the sword ...
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    >Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating? For some, morality isn't fungible or based on the morality or others (animal or human). If someone is a thief and willing to rob you, does that mean its okay for you to steal from them? It seems reasonable to me to hold a personal code of ethics and standards that isn't dependent (or at all related) to the ethics and standards of others (if any).
  - Falling3 6y ago
    > Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals" This cannot be how you approach morality. Animals routinely do horrific things to each other. Would you ever ask someone that question outside of a conversation on whom we kill to eat?
  - steve_adams_86 6y ago
    I think what you're suggesting is footed on the appeal to nature fallacy. What happens in nature is natural and therefor good. Also, I'm not sure a cephalopod has evolved the physical and mental capability to vary its diet on command such that it can choose if it will feed on other animals or not. At some level humans and cephalopods are just animals, and equivalent in that regard, but I'm not sure I accept the equivalence far beyond that or especially when it comes to morality.
- michael1999 6y ago
  With apologies to Sinclair: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his dinner plate depends on his not understanding it. Cooking is a source of pleasure and society. My cultural Christian inheritance (and yours?) is quite committed to the separateness of people and animals. Many people deny even the wholeness of the human species. Where is the mystery in your beliefs? It is only an inheritance you now reject. You can come back to meat later, or not, in your own time. Sort of like when you go far enough left, you get your guns back. There is nothing shameful in a cat.
- loopz 6y ago
  Most of it is learned behaviour. There is nothing natural about it for children, but conditioning and culture largely makes us who we are as humans. So I don't see the need to look down on yourself for realizing something new. It wouldn't be new if it was totally familiar. However, the knowledge itself is thousands of years old, and also evolving.
macintux 6y ago
Every time I read about octopi I'm stunned at their intelligence and ability to connect with humans. If our civilization lasts long enough, someday we'll all be reviled for eating animals, especially octopi and pigs.
- RamRodification 6y ago
  How come you include pigs but leave out cows?
  - Ruthalas 6y ago
    The parent commenter has probably, like me, heard that pigs are remarkably intelligent. I haven't heard the same of cows. That may very well be a skewed understanding, but it's likely why they choose that grouping.
    - OrbitRock 6y ago
      Personally, I don’t see cows as very different from dogs. They’re just as social and emotional as dogs are. Intelligence wise, dogs are probably a bit smarter. But how much, I don’t know, they don’t seem that radically different.
      - Ruthalas 6y ago
        I suspect you have more experience than I, and I know my imagining is poorly founded! I think pigs have just received enough good PR recently that they come to mind as another particularly intelligent animal.
        RamRodification 6y ago
        Maybe the size also helps? Closer to a dog or a cat, cows are not.
- koalahedron 6y ago
  Taken further, you might argue that there might be condemnation eventually of the whole concept of pets and work animals too. I'm not sure I "condemn" these ideas, but I don't have a pet because I think animals should be wild. I make my own ethical comprimises, though, don't get me wrong. Harry Harrison wrote a book I read many years ago called West of Eden, where the dinosaur extinction event didn't occur. An advanced species of lizard used modified lifeforms for their tech. I have it on my list to read again. It does make you think people might be more symbiotic towards the world rather than what we have now.
throwanem 6y ago
> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. The naturalist Jean-Henri Fabre, in the 19th century, made an extensive study of solitary, spider-hunting wasps. Much of what he discovered, with regard to the surprising complexity of their hunting and nesting behavior, became well known in his day - he was one of the first writers I discovered when I started delving into the literature to feed my own burgeoning interest in the aculeates, and one of the reasons his work is so easy to come by is that it was popular, and thus well preserved. It was very much new to me, though; to whatever extent it had entered common knowledge a century and a half ago, it has since exited again. If anything, I think that in recent generations we have become less likely to recognize complex behavior and intelligence in nonhuman animals, not more so; that may be changing, but if so, I think it must have begun quite recently.
317070 6y ago
> There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists. Park Ranger at Yosemite National Park (on designing secure garbage cans) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a_t.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a...
- lostlogin 6y ago
  I was talking to a kitchen hand in New Zealand in an area with Kea. He described the escalating battle to keep kea out the rubbish bins. It started with a rock on the lid which they solved fast, and then various other hinderances to keep them out. The kea sit and watch and learn over s day or 3 and then they are back in, causing chaos. The kitchen staff were trying to solve each puzzle with time pressure, a job to do and bad weather. The kea looked to find it funny whole the poor worker was frustrated.
dunefox 6y ago
> I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light. Well, it is objectively inferior. That doesn't mean that it's not intelligence.
- 40four 6y ago
  Haha, ok in general you’re right. Maybe a poor choice of words. But also, in general, I believe we have vastly underestimated the intelligence of most other animals. Even ones that are demonstrably not that smart.
lurquer 6y ago
> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light. Great post. Respectfully, though, I disagree with the excerpt above. I find that urbanization has led to a disconnect between people and animals. In times past, a person would have regular contact with a host of domesticated animals (cattle, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goat, chickens, pigs, etc.) as well as the wild animals that are a part of everyday life in rural settings (rodents, possums, armadillos, foxes, coyotes, snakes, deer, birds, etc.) Without question, people in the past had a far greater appreciation of the ‘intelligence’ and behavior of animals than modern city-dwellers. One need look no further than the numerous metaphors that have been passed down from these non-urban times: stubborn as a mule, wise as serpents, cunning like a fox, horse-sense, wise as an owl, etc... In short, I’d suggest that the more modern (or, perhaps, urbanized is a better word) the LESS appreciation one finds for animal intelligence.
- RikNieu 6y ago
  I have family who still live a pretty rural life, close to nature. They care very little about animals compared to my urban friends and family. They view animals as little more than "moving things" or simply food.
  - lurquer 6y ago
    You may be mixing apples and oranges... The degree of ‘compassion’ one has toward an animal is not directly correlated to one’s opinions as to its intelligence. My uncle raised pigs. A frequent topic of conversation was how smart they are. Without question, they’re smarter than dogs. (I had a pet pig growing up.) Yet, we ate then. An even more brutal example: slavery. It was obvious and undeniable that human slaves were intelligent; yet, that didn’t mean that compassion towards them was common.
    - RikNieu 6y ago
      Fair point. Interesting that human beings can keep those separated.

by 40four 6y ago

steve_adams_86 6y ago

I believe I underestimated animal intelligence, and as an extension of that, animal consciousness. I have no proof that animals are intelligent or sentient or whatever. I do however have no reason to assume otherwise. As a result I’ve stopped eating meat almost entirely, and I suspect I’ll eliminate it entirely eventually. I still eat fish and shellfish. I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony. It has been a difficult revelation in some ways. Cooking meat has almost been a part of my way of life; it’s something I took pride in and always did to the best of my ability. Now I don’t really have much interest in food at all.

Jeff_Brown 6y ago
It's a very hard realization to have. I applaud you. I was vegan for a couple years, until I devleped tooth problems for the first time in my life, which spooked me and I quit. Now I just try to moderate my meat intake, consume the less-in-demand parts like tongue (nobody raises a cow for its tongue), and buy from sources that impose less, albeit clearly still substantial, suffering. But that said, there's so much great vegetarian food to be eaten!
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  That reminds me of something, which I suppose goes against what I've been commenting here. The rest of my family still eats meat and rather than throw out bones I will freeze them, let them accumulate, then make a broth and drink it. It seems immoral to waste the bones, sort of like how it seems more moral to only seek out that which might otherwise be wasted. It's a grey area for sure. In that regard though I suppose I do still eat animals? I certainly wouldn't make the broth if my family wasn't eating meat, though. And you're right, most of the world has amazing vegetarian food. It's daunting to take on learning all of it. Indian and Thai foods especially have been incredibly appealing to me lately. So much flavour and nutrition is possible and these people seem to have figured it out a long time ago.
liuxiansheng 6y ago
The realization that animals in factory farms have a capacity to suffer, and are undoubtedly subjected to this suffering for the majority of their lives, has made me cut my meat consumption from every meal to occasionally on the weekends. Would love to cut it out completely but have not mustered the willpower to do so. I think personally owning a pet dog and realizing they aren't biological machines simply responding to stimuli has helped me with that realization.
- RamRodification 6y ago
  What if the suffering could somehow be guaranteed not to occur? Since that seems to be your only (main?) reason to give up meat, would you go back to eating it if the suffering didn't happen? I think the parent comment to yours is more about avoiding meat because of compassion to the intellect/consciousness. Rather than avoiding meat in order to eliminate any suffering that may occur during "production" of it. I'm curious because I'm pretty good at convincing myself that the meat I buy comes from animals that haven't suffered. And if it can actually be guaranteed (moose killed by hunter) I'm all-in on meat. But if I somehow "woke up" and realized that I didn't want to eat other living things because of compassion (or whatever) to their minds? I'm not sure that I could go back from that.
  - graindcafe 6y ago
    I think I'm somehow in the same situation, trying to avoid industrial farming in benefit of local, small farming. I can know for sure (for some of them) that the animal was well treated from the beginning of its life to the very end. I am asking myself if it is better for the animal to live a decent life even if it is to be killed and ate at the end or not to live at all.
    - steve_adams_86 6y ago
      My hang up is basically this: If I want the animal to have a good life, why do I/should I get to (or even want to) decide when and why that life should end? It seems very contradictory to me and necessitates a need for the taking of the thing I’m apparently attaching value to. Also I know I don’t physically kill these animals on a stop watch, but I vote for their death with my wallet. I don’t see a significant difference. Actually, I think it’s somewhat worse than it I carried it out myself. That’s why I generally try to only eat seafood that I selectively harvest while diving. I can guarantee the final moments were as brief as humanly possible and the rest of its life were as nature intended. So, I really struggle with this one part where I decide the animal has worth and should therefor have a good existence. However, I’m also deciding it should only have that until I decide I want to deep fry its muscles or something. So it must be that I’m deciding to be a benevolent killer or something, which is certainly better than a ruthless one, but leaves me a uncomfortable nonetheless. I need to justify my own need or desire to continue killing, or at least profiting from the killing. That’s the part I can’t do so far. Do I actually need to eat them? No, so far I really don’t. My health is still good after quite a while and the initial cravings have subsided. Do I want to eat them? No, not anymore, although I do miss it from a culinary perspective. Does that justify killing them? Well, would it justify killing someone’s dog if I thought dogs were delicious? Or any dog? No, never - the notion is absurd. Well. I suppose some people eat dogs. This has a significant cultural element to it. Nonetheless I really can’t bring myself to convince myself that I have any good reason to eat animals. Though admittedly I make an exception for fish and shellfish. I feel strange about that. I mean, when I get in the water those fish are arguably smarter than I am. One thing I justify the action by is that at least in the water they have a natural chance and environmental advantage. It isn’t a relationship of control and systematic murder from birth to death. In time I suspect I’ll stop eating fish too. I don’t know. The more I think about it the more it becomes an existential matter to be honest.
eadmund 6y ago
> I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony. I don't think that cephalopods are arrogant when they eat other creatures, although I suppose they may be gluttonous. Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating?
- michael1999 6y ago
  That's why I like eating tuna! They're out hunting and killing, and then have one very bad day. Live by the sword ...
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  >Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating? For some, morality isn't fungible or based on the morality or others (animal or human). If someone is a thief and willing to rob you, does that mean its okay for you to steal from them? It seems reasonable to me to hold a personal code of ethics and standards that isn't dependent (or at all related) to the ethics and standards of others (if any).
- Falling3 6y ago
  > Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals" This cannot be how you approach morality. Animals routinely do horrific things to each other. Would you ever ask someone that question outside of a conversation on whom we kill to eat?
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  I think what you're suggesting is footed on the appeal to nature fallacy. What happens in nature is natural and therefor good. Also, I'm not sure a cephalopod has evolved the physical and mental capability to vary its diet on command such that it can choose if it will feed on other animals or not. At some level humans and cephalopods are just animals, and equivalent in that regard, but I'm not sure I accept the equivalence far beyond that or especially when it comes to morality.
michael1999 6y ago
With apologies to Sinclair: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his dinner plate depends on his not understanding it. Cooking is a source of pleasure and society. My cultural Christian inheritance (and yours?) is quite committed to the separateness of people and animals. Many people deny even the wholeness of the human species. Where is the mystery in your beliefs? It is only an inheritance you now reject. You can come back to meat later, or not, in your own time. Sort of like when you go far enough left, you get your guns back. There is nothing shameful in a cat.
loopz 6y ago
Most of it is learned behaviour. There is nothing natural about it for children, but conditioning and culture largely makes us who we are as humans. So I don't see the need to look down on yourself for realizing something new. It wouldn't be new if it was totally familiar. However, the knowledge itself is thousands of years old, and also evolving.

macintux 6y ago

Every time I read about octopi I'm stunned at their intelligence and ability to connect with humans. If our civilization lasts long enough, someday we'll all be reviled for eating animals, especially octopi and pigs.

RamRodification 6y ago
How come you include pigs but leave out cows?
- Ruthalas 6y ago
  The parent commenter has probably, like me, heard that pigs are remarkably intelligent. I haven't heard the same of cows. That may very well be a skewed understanding, but it's likely why they choose that grouping.
  - OrbitRock 6y ago
    Personally, I don’t see cows as very different from dogs. They’re just as social and emotional as dogs are. Intelligence wise, dogs are probably a bit smarter. But how much, I don’t know, they don’t seem that radically different.
    - Ruthalas 6y ago
      I suspect you have more experience than I, and I know my imagining is poorly founded! I think pigs have just received enough good PR recently that they come to mind as another particularly intelligent animal.
      - RamRodification 6y ago
        Maybe the size also helps? Closer to a dog or a cat, cows are not.
koalahedron 6y ago
Taken further, you might argue that there might be condemnation eventually of the whole concept of pets and work animals too. I'm not sure I "condemn" these ideas, but I don't have a pet because I think animals should be wild. I make my own ethical comprimises, though, don't get me wrong. Harry Harrison wrote a book I read many years ago called West of Eden, where the dinosaur extinction event didn't occur. An advanced species of lizard used modified lifeforms for their tech. I have it on my list to read again. It does make you think people might be more symbiotic towards the world rather than what we have now.

throwanem 6y ago

> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. The naturalist Jean-Henri Fabre, in the 19th century, made an extensive study of solitary, spider-hunting wasps. Much of what he discovered, with regard to the surprising complexity of their hunting and nesting behavior, became well known in his day - he was one of the first writers I discovered when I started delving into the literature to feed my own burgeoning interest in the aculeates, and one of the reasons his work is so easy to come by is that it was popular, and thus well preserved. It was very much new to me, though; to whatever extent it had entered common knowledge a century and a half ago, it has since exited again. If anything, I think that in recent generations we have become less likely to recognize complex behavior and intelligence in nonhuman animals, not more so; that may be changing, but if so, I think it must have begun quite recently.

317070 6y ago

> There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists. Park Ranger at Yosemite National Park (on designing secure garbage cans) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a_t.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a...

lostlogin 6y ago
I was talking to a kitchen hand in New Zealand in an area with Kea. He described the escalating battle to keep kea out the rubbish bins. It started with a rock on the lid which they solved fast, and then various other hinderances to keep them out. The kea sit and watch and learn over s day or 3 and then they are back in, causing chaos. The kitchen staff were trying to solve each puzzle with time pressure, a job to do and bad weather. The kea looked to find it funny whole the poor worker was frustrated.

dunefox 6y ago

> I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light. Well, it is objectively inferior. That doesn't mean that it's not intelligence.

40four 6y ago
Haha, ok in general you’re right. Maybe a poor choice of words. But also, in general, I believe we have vastly underestimated the intelligence of most other animals. Even ones that are demonstrably not that smart.

lurquer 6y ago

> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light. Great post. Respectfully, though, I disagree with the excerpt above. I find that urbanization has led to a disconnect between people and animals. In times past, a person would have regular contact with a host of domesticated animals (cattle, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goat, chickens, pigs, etc.) as well as the wild animals that are a part of everyday life in rural settings (rodents, possums, armadillos, foxes, coyotes, snakes, deer, birds, etc.) Without question, people in the past had a far greater appreciation of the ‘intelligence’ and behavior of animals than modern city-dwellers. One need look no further than the numerous metaphors that have been passed down from these non-urban times: stubborn as a mule, wise as serpents, cunning like a fox, horse-sense, wise as an owl, etc... In short, I’d suggest that the more modern (or, perhaps, urbanized is a better word) the LESS appreciation one finds for animal intelligence.

RikNieu 6y ago
I have family who still live a pretty rural life, close to nature. They care very little about animals compared to my urban friends and family. They view animals as little more than "moving things" or simply food.
- lurquer 6y ago
  You may be mixing apples and oranges... The degree of ‘compassion’ one has toward an animal is not directly correlated to one’s opinions as to its intelligence. My uncle raised pigs. A frequent topic of conversation was how smart they are. Without question, they’re smarter than dogs. (I had a pet pig growing up.) Yet, we ate then. An even more brutal example: slavery. It was obvious and undeniable that human slaves were intelligent; yet, that didn’t mean that compassion towards them was common.
  - RikNieu 6y ago
    Fair point. Interesting that human beings can keep those separated.