7 ms·

It was always possible for me to perceive sentience, feelings and emotions from a variety of beings, I don't understand why grown adults are just reaching a cog

• awb 5y ago
  It wasn't until someone mentioned that many animals (and all mammals) talk to their babies just like we do that it rung home for me.
  • pempem 5y ago
    Its unclear to me. Some variants of hinduism have embraced this for ages. The underlying belief of vegetarianism in this culture is that animals are kin and eaten only when survival is on the line. When there is choice (and there almost always is) you choose not to eat meat. The part that I've found newly confounding is the 'thinking' of plants. Can't square that one. Thankfully there are a few studies debunking anything along the lines of sentience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28875517/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28875517/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w
    • exodust 5y ago
      The "thinking" aspect of plants might be reclaimed in respect of the overall foundations of mother nature's connected biodiversity. As the maker of the octopus doco put it, the "giant biological mind". This interview is cued up at the point he mentions that: https://youtu.be/oyBqZ-_5B_8?t=587 https://youtu.be/oyBqZ-_5B_8?t=587 I think he makes a good point, it's a good reminder. It's a distraction when the argument becomes "plants can't think like humans". But why should plants need to think like us to be protected or respected? The point is, humans are crushing those precious ecosystems, all because individual plants can't think and fish have no feelings.
• p1necone 5y ago
  I'm often confused by this as well, it's always been fairly obvious to me that other animals are sentient just like us (why wouldn't they be, their physiology is similar, they're descended from common ancestors). Modern factory farming doesn't sit well with me, but I still fairly comfortably eat higher welfare (free range, from reputable brands) or self-caught/hunted meat. It bewilders me that someone would eat meat their whole life without ever thinking about this, and then one day suddenly go "ohhh, maybe this is bad".
  • javajosh 5y ago
    Predators eat their whole life without wondering where it came from or what it implies about the world. It seems like the base state for every living individual, and is the most natural thing in the world. I think this is an important distinction to make, because if you don't make it you end up expressing contempt for those who don't think more widely rather than admiration for those that do.
    • david38 5y ago
      Operative word being predator. People eat meat and most can’t stand the sight of animals being slaughtered in the method they currently are. Predators also put themselves at risk often, fail often, etc. Factory livestock is very much removed from this.
      • arvinsim 5y ago
        You have to keep in mind that having easy access to meat without hunting is a recent thing relative to history.
      • BoxOfRain 5y ago
        I think the 'is meat ethical' conversation is a different conversation from 'is the meat industry ethical'. I'd like to think that even if every slaughterhouse in the land closed up shop people would still be nuanced enough to realise that hunting and fishing are in a different league altogether.
  • 5y ago
• rectang 5y ago
  One perspective: The universe is indifferent to your ethics and whether they are self-consistent or inconsistent. Choices "matter" insofar as they have observable effects that somebody cares about, but ultimately all morality is constructed. And so, why not a draw a line here, or over there, or instead way out there?
  • deutschewelle 5y ago
    It's similar to a lot of the ideological absurdities being unleashed by the political establishment in the West. Some of which are supported wholeheartedly by companies supported by YC so rather than risk getting banned for holding "dangerous" ideologies that run counter to that side of the spectrum, I will just chalk this under ephemeral arguments that will go nowhere edit: as suspected it seems I am no longer able to comment freely on HN ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ after posting this, really bizarre experience
    • nefitty 5y ago
      It's not a novel idea. Isn't it just a fatalistic coloring of ethical relativism? I personally subscribe to the idea that moral truths can be discovered from principals we can derive on inspecting our own preferences and experiences. We can than radiate that practice out to uncover more, and it historically happens by dint of physical/genetic proximity, eg prioritizing the wellbeing of family and friends and so on. An interesting aspect of the internet is that it makes the determinant lines fuzzier and clearly arbitrary. Objectively, why would the life of a child in one country matter more or less than one from the other side of the planet? It's completely arbitrary, but the entrenched human social structures have been built around physical proximity and so we end up donating money to feed a relatively healthy child instead of donating to the distant one on the verge of dying from malnutrition.
      • rectang 5y ago
        > Isn't it just a fatalistic coloring of ethical relativism? To me, "the universe is indifferent" is ethical relativism but not at all fatalistic. If there is no deliberate outside guidance, then we are free to construct an ethics by "inspecting our own preferences and experiences", as you put it. Isn't that liberating and wonderful? Doesn't it allow for creativity and constant rejuvenation? However, I distrust your labeling of those discoveries as "moral truths". Is there one objectively correct philosophy of octopus farming?
• deutschewelle 5y ago
  In case it wasn't obvious the studies and this article is being written by people in the West who do not consume octopus. These articles almost always seem to derive to us-vs-them narrative, the idea that the West is somehow the forefront of moral novelty and the rest of the world is behind. When the irony is that the same random argument applied towards Octopus can be done on just about any sentient beings like cow and pigs. As a german, my understanding of Western narratives are almost always aimed at patting themselves on the back. I still remember Western media going in to overdrive to condemn masks during the onset of the pandemic, deriding Asian countries practice of wearing masks when you are sick as some sort of a backward psuedoscience. Let's just call this article what it is: To reassure non-octopus eaters on their superior moral creed and a license to preach this narrative to people who consume octopus, namely Asian and European countries. Already the comments on reddit are poking fun at Asian countries for eating octopus when in fact its Western Europe that consumes the largest amount. Octopus isn't just that delicious as a sashimi in large amounts.
  • jmcgough 5y ago
    The growth in octopus consumption is being driven largely by the USA. It's super healthy so I see more middle / upper class Americans eating it. Years ago it was a rare delicacy, now I can walk into most poke bowl restaurants in SF and get octopus. Tapas restaurants have become trendy as well.
    • fouc 5y ago
      I think the only time I've had octopus was when I tried Takoyaki a few times in Japan & Thailand. But honestly I found the diced octopus meat chewy and boring. Not very interested in it. As for health benefits? I doubt it.
      • pc86 5y ago
        It probably depends on what you compare it to. Same caloric amount of 80/20 ground beef? Octopus is almost certainly healthier. Vegetables? Unlikely unless you're really in need of some omega-3s or something.
• micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Humans project a lot of sentience when it isn't there, so I don't think it's so simple. There's certainly a cultural component too.
• tonguetrainer 5y ago
  Money. Acknowledging that beings have feelings, a sense of self, and a will to live can complicate things. It gets in the way of making money. People in general tend to prioritize profits over people. Not always, but much of the time. That's why the love of money is the root of all evil.
• makeitdouble 5y ago
  I think it would less a question of maturity and more of acceptance of societal values. Fundamentally eating meat is a behavior our societies want to preserve; setting exceptions gives some leeway and carve safe spaces, while also making the rule more powerful. For instance settings pets as off limit make it clearer that non-pets are for consumption. Farmers can spend time and develop attachment to their cows, understand they're not inherently different from dogs or ferrets in intelligence or conscience, but we've made it clear it's ok if they end on our plates. Wherever the line is drawn (conscience ? cuteness ? % of DNA close to us ?) doesn't really matter I think, as long as the impact is not critical to our economy or society. To go to darker places, it's the same kind of logic used centuries ago between christians and "pagans" ("they have no soul", it's ok to kill/enslave them)
  • nefitty 5y ago
    I don't know if there's a word for it besides the adjacent "speciesm" but the clumsy word "desentientize" popped up in my head as an ethical corollary to "dehumanization".
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• Azek 5y ago
  My take is that they're related because a being's ability to experience sentience, and especially suffering are ethical grounds to not breed them and inflict unnecessary suffering through harsh captivity and slaughter.
  • vmception 5y ago
    So for you, is that something that extends to all farmed animals then? Its not possible for me to tell if thats been your stance on everything like farming chickens and salmon, or if you were one of the people that just found out Octopus' are smart and made a line there, or another group or individual with a unique opinion there are some observations and personal dietary choices I can be sympathetic towards, I just don't know which one I'm hearing at the time and when it comes to Octopus or the animal-of-the-month I find people not being able to articulate their new opinion at all, but being shocked that the listener (me) isn't automatically on board or making a line at sentience.
    • Azek 5y ago
      If you're asking a personal question like I think you are: for me the courtesy of non-violence extends to all beings capable of suffering and with a preference to live. For a good read on the ethics of eating animals I'd recommend Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation'
      • CallMeJim 5y ago
        You're aware that plants fill both those criteria: (a) capable of suffering, and (b) a preference to live? What do you eat?
        • Azek 5y ago
          Interesting, could you share your sources showing plants are capable of suffering and can indicate preference? I eat many things, but nothing from animals :)
• asdff 5y ago
  It's definitely a cultural reaction but I think it has to do with our place in history, being so far removed from the means of production of so many goods we rely on that we can only think of them in abstract terms of how they came to be. People always say "If you knew where that burger came from, you wouldn't be eating meat." Yet here we are eating meat, having been knowing exactly where it came from and in fact doing it personally ourselves for millions of years of hominoid evolution right up until we developed our modern grocery model. It seems its really like, if you initially don't know where the burger came from, but are then are told where it came from having no firsthand experience previously, then you might not be eating meat anymore.
• Buttons840 5y ago
  > It was always possible for me to perceive sentience, feelings and emotions from a variety of beings My mom has always had this ability. We had some horses in a pasture behind our house, and one day we noticed most of the horses had been removed and only one remained. My mom could instantly tell that the one remaining horse, named Pete, was sad to be alone. "Pete is so sad, she's all alone" my mom observed while we were looking out the window. Literally, not 5 seconds later, a couple of horses came walking out from behind a shed in the pasture. I laughed and teased my mom. I guess Pete wasn't as sad and alone as she thought. In other words, how do you know you're perceiving the feelings of animals correctly?
  • pc86 5y ago
    I think this is the point you're making, but this isn't "perceiving sentience" (whatever that means), it's literally just projects your thoughts and emotions onto an anthropomorphized version of whatever animal you're looking at. Which is the same thing the GP was/is doing, but they haven't "matured" enough cognitively to realize it yet.
    • vmception 5y ago
      let's elaborate on your standard here: I'm GP and I never mapped human emotions to other species. Amongst many species I see this with, I looked at cephalopods and can see sentience. This was unrelated to me consuming them, they taste yummy and there are plenty of them. So with your standard, I was wrong and my inferior brain was anthropomorphizing, until a greater consensus was suddenly reached from researchers and governments that makes me right? I mean its not something I was advocating for, its just surprising to me how many weren't perceiving this at all. Like when you find out that some people don't have visual dreams, or find out that you're the person that doesn't have visual dreams and everyone else wasn't speaking in hyperbole and actually have a different experience.
  • deutschewelle 5y ago
    this reminds me of a small fish that used to visit me during my dives, it would take me to things he found, bottles, coins, shells. was not the first time it happened because the same fish with the same markings (im quite sure of it) would visit me. so im thinking what is going on here? how is it that a fish is able to recognize me in my gear and comes to me in the same vicinity? it appears to be communicating too by leading me to stuff he finds. it lets me even pet it which it seems to enjoy. again i dont know what its thinking but from these actions one might strongly conclude that there is some sort of sentient mutual awareness and that its able to engage in both recognition, my presence and subtle communication (by showing me treasures he find) I guess my point is perceiving feelings is not limited between two humans only (obviously super tough with text alone, it is something else.
• sva_ 5y ago
  > making that a line in the sand on whether they will farm/consume a being based on that. But everyone is drawing that line somewhere, mostly unconsciously. Surely nobody minds eating bacteria and fungi (else you couldn't live), but most people wouldn't eat a dog - so there is a line. But where? (in this case, the somewhat arbitrary definition of sentience, I guess)