Social Animal consciousness. Does it change your perspective?

[Cherry Brigand]

Sauce: NBCNews. Bolding is mine.

Bees play by rolling wooden balls — apparently for fun. The cleaner wrasse fish appears to recognize its own visage in an underwater mirror. Octopuses seem to react to anesthetic drugs and will avoid settings where they likely experienced past pain.

All three of these discoveries came in the last five years — indications that the more scientists test animals, the more they find that many species may have inner lives and be sentient. A surprising range of creatures have shown evidence of conscious thought or experience, including insects, fish and some crustaceans.


That has prompted a group of top researchers on animal cognition to publish a new pronouncement that they hope will transform how scientists and society view — and care — for animals.
...
“When there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal,” the declaration says. “We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.”

Seems obvious that animals have some level of consciousness, but it's not going to drive me to become a member of PETA.

I agree that animals should be treated well, but also that we are given the freedom to eat them.

The conspiracy nut in me sees this as further evidence to corroborate the misguided notion that animals have equality with humans and that we should eat bugs (until we determine they also should not be abused, eaten, swatted, etc.).

 

[Long Dark Blues]

I didn't even realize it was a question.

 

[Natural Order]

The food chain doesn’t give a fuck about feelings.

 

[PG29 red0 Jr]

 

[dirtypablo]

Obviously animals are conscious, and obviously the way we currently treat the other life forms on the planet is wrong.

 

[Ruke Doufus]

Obviously animals are conscious, and obviously the way we currently treat the other life forms on the planet is wrong.

The way we treat each other is wrong too. And the way animals treat each other is wrong. That's just how it goes buddeh.

 

[dirtypablo]

The way we treat each other is wrong too. And the way animals treat each other is wrong. That's just how it goes buddeh.

..Okay? I'm well aware thats how it currently goes. Just because that's how things currently are, doesn't mean its how things have to be.

 

[MMAisGod]

I didn't even realize it was a question.

Seriously. This is definitely one of those "did we really need a dude to do a test and tell us the obvious?" lol.

 

[Sinister]

Sauce: NBCNews. Bolding is mine.



Seems obvious that animals have some level of consciousness, but it's not going to drive me to become a member of PETA.

I agree that animals should be treated well, but also that we are given the freedom to eat them.

The conspiracy nut in me sees this as further evidence to corroborate the misguided notion that animals have equality with humans and that we should eat bugs (until we determine they also should not be abused, eaten, swatted, etc.).

Ain't bees bugs?

 

[subtlySteve]

The animal products you eat come from a living being who suffered.

Personal choice does not make an action morally justifiable.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

We don't even know what consciousness is at the moment, just a million theories of it, so the statement that there's consciousness in animals is a bit of a stretch. At most you can say there's awareness of external stimuli, but that does not imply awareness of that awareness, or deeper stages of self-reflection.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I came to this realization some time ago when I was going down the rabbit hole watching exotic pet videos. Watching things like wallabies bond to their owner was definitely eye opening that there was a whole world of living thinking creatures that were much more intelligent than we had previously understood.

Then I read about things like humpback whales protecting seals from orcas and recently one that saved a scientist that routinely dove around them from a shark that was stalking her and realized we’ve been way wrong about all of this. Here we have clear examples of animals showing empathy towards a different species and intervening.

I know I should probably stop eating meat. Maybe one day I’ll sack up and do it.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

Ain't bees bugs?

Strictly speaking, they are not “real” bugs. Only know because I called something a bug recently, and my farmer buddy went on a tangent to correct me… Not because I have known this for any decent amount of time.

First page and a paragraph down.

Are Bees Insects? | Find Out If Bees Are Insects, Bugs Or Flies

Bees are insects that are distinguished by their mandibles and anatomy. Their antennae, wings, and eyes are all part of classifying them.

beeswiki.com

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

I feel bad for eating meat, because of course they are conscious. At least on some level. Though I just cannot seem to function well as a vegetarian, though I tried off and on for years.

Hopefully we continue and try to get better in our regards to humane treatment of animals, and livestock.

 

[USA!USA!]

Eating animals ≠ animal cruelty

Substantial breakthroughs may change the way we harvest and farm - which may be a good, moral thing - but I doubt it will ever actually make us as a species stop eating other animals. It's in our nature. Hell, it's in their own nature - animals eat each other. The levels and techniques might change, but it will still happen.

I don't feel bad about eating an animal as much as I feel bad about if it suffered to get to that point. Animal cruelty is never cool under any circumstance.

 

[subtlySteve]

We don't even know what consciousness is at the moment, just a million theories of it, so the statement that there's consciousness in animals is a bit of a stretch. At most you can say there's awareness of external stimuli, but that does not imply awareness of that awareness, or deeper stages of self-reflection.

All animals are complex in their own ways, demonstrating a level of intelligence and emotion appropriate for their species.

In many cases, their cognitive and emotional experiences might surpass those of young human children or individuals with certain mental disabilities.

It's not rational nor fair to exclude ethical considerations from beings simply because we believe they experience the world differently from us.

We afford fundamental rights to humans who might not meet certain intellectual or emotional thresholds, so it stands to reason that we should extend these rights to all sentient beings.

 

[subtlySteve]

Hell, it's in their own nature - animals eat each other.

Predators rely on prey as a vital source of food for their survival.

Humans, particularly in the Western world, no longer require animal-based diets for basic survival.

For the vast majority of people living in the West, eating an animal-based diet is a personal choice, but a personal choice does not make an action morally justifiable.

 

[franquito]

The food chain doesn’t give a fuck about feelings.

Never really understood the arguments against eating meat.
Is it wrong for , say, a lion to eat a gazelle?
I don’t know anyone who argues that it is.

If they are equal to us in terms of having consciousness, then it would follow it is also not wrong for us to eat the lion (or other animals)

If they are “below us” in terms of consciousnesses, sentience then that could by itself justify using them as food.
Would not justify cruelty, or factory farming, or abuse. But would certainly justify eating meat.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Ain't bees bugs?

Yeah but they’re the best bugs

 

[Fox by the Sea]

All animals are complex in their own ways, demonstrating a level of intelligence and emotion appropriate for their species.

In many cases, their cognitive and emotional experiences might surpass those of young human children or individuals with certain mental disabilities.

It's not rational nor fair to exclude ethical considerations from beings simply because we believe they experience the world differently from us.

We afford fundamental rights to humans who might not meet certain intellectual or emotional thresholds, so it stands to reason that we should extend these rights to all sentient beings.

"complex in their own way" is a meaningless phrase. you can say that about anything. a rock can be "complex in its own way". we are talking here about scales of consciousness.

And you're a prisoner of the "charismatic animals" trope. the vast, overwhelming mass of beings on the planet are worms, bugs, that type. it's not only cats and dogs running around looking pretty on BBC documentaries. most "animals" hardly even perceive the world in a way that's not biological need. in many ways, they're biological robots. you don't extend ethics to that unless you're a bio-fanatic.

and "extending rights to all sentient beings" is exactly the kind of bio-fanaticism that makes it so hard to have a proper debate about the ethics of the relationship with animals. that will never happen because animals themselves don't behave among each other with the type of loony and aloof attitude of "let's just get along maaaan" weed smoking hippies have. they rape, kill and eat each other constantly. you think the wolf will stop eating the deer because people like to speak in pretty phrases about them?