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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
You claim the non-existence of "the animal that has a sense of self". This is unsubstatiated, to say the very least, or patently nonsense, to say a bit more.
And yes you can. I use expressions all the time very much like "to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that God exists".
If it's so nonsensical surely you can find counterexamples. Animals are frequently confused by their own reflections.
I never claimed that you can't use noncommittal language to dismiss things for which there is no evidence; I just don't really feel like there is any point.
Animals are frequently confused by their own reflections.
While some animals see their own reflections and use them to examine parts of their own body that they could not otherwise see.
Animal research has a long history of finding animals exhibiting something that has been touted as a human-only trait; the weight of experience seems to be heading towards the idea that there is no human trait exceptionalism, only a combination of various traits to various degrees. So many traits that someone has posited as the uniquely human trait has subsequently been seen in animals. Maybe one day someone will find something, but thus far the record isn't good.
The most obvious one to me (because it was within my field of study in college) is language. Animal communication is very different from human communication and not capable of expressing novel ideas. Someone is going to tell me about Koko the Gorilla, but ape "sign language" is nothing of the sort; at best they've learned to sign a few words, but mostly it seems like they make the signs at random in the hopes of getting food. Looking at transcripts shows how much fanciful interpretation Koko's handlers did. And without language I can't see how animals can be capable of introspection.
without language I can't see how animals can be capable of introspection.
One could harshly propose that's a failure of imagination (probably shared by almost everyone else, self-included; I introspect in words too), limited by one's own experiences; since you've got language and use it always to introspect, and probably cannot even remember not having language, you cannot conceive of introspecting without it. More so, since it was your field of study; you've immersed yourself in it to a great degree. I wonder if baby humans without language introspect. It seems there is some evidence young humans do [0]. These people say they've seen it in animals, but I'm no expert [1].
I honestly don't know, but I believe that humans are part of a spectrum of animal and I take the opposite assumption to you; that until proven otherwise, we have no singularly unique trait.
Well in linguistics they usually postulate a sort of "universal language," where every human being has certain linguistic capabilities that are reflected in universal traits of every human language. The machinery is there but not hooked up, so to speak. (There are also various oddities like twins inventing their own languages) So merely observing that pre-verbal humans are capable of introspection is not, in my view, sufficient to suggest that language and introspection can be separated.
I suppose "introspection" is a pretty woolly term, though, and we could disagree about what the bounds of it are. The abstract about "metacognition" in rats is interesting but I think a little broader than what I had in mind.
Is that the Noam Chomsky style built-in, universal grammar theory? I thought (but I really don't know) that had been discredited in recent times. But this is your field of study; not mine.
As an aside on the general conversation at hand, I suspect that the experience of humans is so much based on being a human that we struggle even to think about not being human; that we have so many assumptions we carry about what thinking is and what language is and so on. My favoured example of this is an experiment showing that humans have a special ability for recognising faces, based on giving other primates tests of face recognition. Go humans!
When the test was repeated, some time later, using faces from their own species instead of human faces, it turned out that they were actually also pretty good at it. The original experiment had used human faces to test with, because those were obviously much more distinctive. I suspect, but cannot prove, that we're trying to reason about non-humans from within a prison of human thought and experience and assumption that affects everything.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bow is a massive leap over those tools as is a sling. Laser cutter, or laptop are tool as well and you can probably teach Chimpanzee to use both to some degree.
Interestingly, some people have argued that they did lack our depth. [1]
Personally I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. Saying that consciousness is more complex than "you either have it or you don't" seems like a trivial observation.
Peter Singer argues [2] that "the fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness" (and that this applies to any being, human or not). I think that this is a much more interesting approach. Yes, this makes things more complex ("where do you draw the line") but it also seems more honest.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nature is rough my friend. Dogs and bears (which are closely related to dogs) have emotion and form bonds, but they ruthlessly prey one on the other. You and I might live a comfortable life now, but without society you would put any sentient being on the plate in order to feed your own sentient offspring.
Just as you believe that animals are no different from man, you should realize that man is no different from animals and that our physiology requires us to eat them just as they must eat each other. Of course with modern nutritional knowledge and preparation techniques you _could_ live off flora, but human physiology in the absence of technology requires meat no matter how cute or emotional the prey.
And if we went back to living in caves, I'd take up eating animals again. I used to hunt, and I have no particular qualms in taking it up again if it was necessary, which is more than I could say for a lot of people. I always found it incredibly hypocritical when non-vegetarians used to criticise me for hunting.
We are perfectly capable of eating a plant-based diet, we can derive any missing vitamins (e.g. B12) from supplements and fortified foods. Most of us have the choice to forgo eating animals.
I don't see the relevance. We do live in society and do have technology. Without those things, we wouldn't have hospitals, cardboard, or Hacker News either, but what does that mean?
There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion. It's portrayed as 'realism' but I find it surreal: We don't live in a state of nature and we have no desire to. Why are we talking about it? Why don't we aim for more, as our ancestors who built this society did?
> There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion.
But on the other hand, compassion is not an absolute value either. Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.
That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.
> Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.
I disagree. What is that based on? Compassion fosters crime? The experts I know, and my experience in the world, say compassion fosters emotional strength, reduces behavioral problems, and increases resilience.
> That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.
Again, is there any basis for this? It's bizarre. Even if it's true of "ancient societies" (what time period? which ones?), I have no desire to live in one - and neither would you. We've moved far beyond their bizarre, archaic beliefs and practices. Should we return to human sacrifice, illiteracy, and constant war too?
I'm guessing that fostering "predatory instincts" fosters crime, mental disease, not to mention war and violence.
Problem is that by not eating meat you are still killing animals indirectly. You just can`t avoid it. How many pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and other *cides are thrown at your GMO soy crops? How many smaller animals are killed by cultivating that land for the crops? And who are we to say that little mouse is worth less than a cow?
People usually favor bigger animals in their animal empathy pyramid. On top are smart or endangered animals and pets that we do not usually eat. Then come bigger animals that we grow to like because we can see their nuanced expressions because of their size. And then on the bottom are insects, pests and "gross" animals.
But who am I to egotistically judge from a human point of view that a dog's life is more important than pig`s. Or that 1 cow deserves to live more than million of flies.
Life is rough. Animals and people die in many different ways, not just for food. My view now is that that fact is inevitable, but that does not mean that you can be a jerk and disrespect life and do as you please. Eat animals, but respect them. Eat them, but in as humane way as possible. Don`t support industrial farming and production of animals. Don`t throw food. Don`t be mindless about it. Care for the environment. Don`t kill without purpose, even the smallest animals.
Do dogs, cows, whales, sheep, pigs, etc. etc. have emotions and internal lives that matter, at least to them?
This is another one of those things we don’t need yet another PhD, and yet another tomb of books, and yet more decades and centuries, to discuss and probe.
One has only to watch these animals for five minute to see the answer is clearly yes.
It would seem to me the only reason I don’t eat dogs and whales and dolphins is purely my cultural upbringing.
But, in my opinion, all of this is irrelevant. We don’t need to feel for these creatures.
Rather, what we need to do, en mass, is realise the jury is in: for our own health, and the overall sustainability of human life: we ought significantly reduce our meat consumption.
A friend in college had a pet chicken. I was surprised by how intelligent this seemingly stupid bird could be. It would follow commands, recognize me, and even play with me.
That's for a chicken. You only have to spend 5 minutes with a dog or a cow to see how smart they can be.
Dogs are amazing. I have two Border Collie x somethings. I believe they are siblings, same date of birth, same size, same colourings and markings. They have vastly different personalities. They're both very affectionate, one of them ridiculously so: he sleeps most nights curled up against my chest with the back of his head pressed firmly against my chin. If I move, he follows. The two dogs and I have worked together enough that they know all our little drills, and all the discipline-in-small-things we do that enables them to be relatively calm and well behaved for 16 month old dogs. They won't run through open doors or gates, and I walk them off lead and they won't touch the road nor cross the road uninvited, after first sitting and waiting for 10+ seconds.
There was once a Vietnamese couchsurfer who stayed a few nights. Another couchsurfer asked her: have you ever eaten dog. Her response: yes, we eat dog. Not "yeah I've tried it" just unemotionally "yes we eat it."
I've read that pigs outperform 3-year-old human children on cognition tests and are smarter than any domestic animal, and animal experts consider them more trainable than cats or dogs.
The absurdity of all this just astounds me. And yet I continue to eat meat, including pigs.
So it seems to me our problem, as a the Human Society, is that we just don't care. We don't care that we are reducing our own long term survivability, both personally with regard to our own health, and globally with regard to the resources we all share.
Because if we, as all-the-humans-on-the-planet did care, we certainly wouldn't be in this mess.
The problem, then, isn't money, nor politics, nor pollution, nor climate change, etc etc etc.
You're right: we just don't care enough. We've desensitized ourselves to the killing of most animals. Eating dogs is gross because dogs are pets, but pigs and cows are just as adorable and yet we eat them.
The funny thing is that my wife is vegetarian and I know for a fact that vegetarian food can be just as nourishing and delicious as a meat-filled diet.
I don't even know what the solution. Perhaps if lab-grown meat becomes a viable option, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
>My argument for a long time was that animals have no ego
I think the problem with a train of thought like this one is that it assume there are certain fixed properties that makes a human "special". That is perhaps not so considering how we build abstractions on base instincts[1]
> So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine?
I hate how people do this for dogs and not pigs either, literally makes no sense how morals are peddled sometimes
I've long resigned to the fact that eating meat is not justifiable, and that I continue to do it solely because of the taste. I haven't seen a single convincing argument to prove otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously we read something different in our messages.
Anyway:
- Orcas are mammals and not fish.
- Your study talks about fish. So does the first article I mentioned. "My" article mentions nociceptors and opioids (pain killers) and an experiment with painkiller lidocaine that suggests that fish feel some kind of pain. Note that both fish and mammals have nociceptors and opioids as chemicals in the brain. That fishes eat after surgery does not mean that fishes do not feel pain. Some people eat as response to stress and fear.
Quote from "my" article (I guess finfish means true fish in this context):
In 2013, the American Veterinary Medical Association published new guidelines for the euthanasia of animals, which included the following statements: “Suggestions that finfish responses to pain merely represent simple reflexes have been refuted. … the preponderance of accumulated evidence supports the position that finfish should be accorded the same considerations as terrestrial vertebrates in regard to relief from pain.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
You're the one who chose to reference an article discussing fish, so we're discussing fish. You're also once again straw manning the point of fish and surgery. It's not that fish eat after surgery. Fish eat, feed, swim, and behave identically following surgery that would leave a human in immobilizing and excruciating pain. The study I referenced gives a large overview of studies in the field and effectively refutes many of them. This includes the 'acid lip' experiments that article references, which among numerous other problems manages to even contradict itself. That discussion is on page 11 of the article. If you're unaware of how to manage science paywalls: https://sci-hub.mu/
A major problem we have with science today, especially in the 'softer' fields, is that it's being heavily affected by ideological bias. Think about the replication crisis in psychology where some 69% of studies were unable to be replicated. It seems that many 'scientists' are increasingly starting with their conclusion and then doing anything they can to 'prove' it, at the minimum including p-hacking. The reason I mention this is that this article also gives an overview of various replication efforts for some of the studies showing stronger results. Time and again, replication was unable to repeat these results.
I fail to see the strawman arguments that you mention again. The discussion is about the probability of animals having emotions and feelings.
Based on the structure of the brain and the receptors and the involved chemicals, it is very likely that all reptiles and all mammals feel pain. Even fish might have some sense of pain. Humans follow often the "intelligence" related to feelings (bad diet, lack of sports, depression, fear, laziness, procrastination, addiction,...). IMO it is very likely that animals that can learn are driven by (intelligence related to) emotions and feelings and not by some unemotional intelligence and will or a simple "mechanical" reflex.
It is very difficult to assess pain in reptiles and there are no standard methods or assessments available to assess the level of pain in birds. Therefore, you are left with past experience, observation and anthropomorphism (if I had a fractured bone I would want an opiate). Reptiles seem very stoic and do not cry out in pain. I vividly remember many years ago amputating a rear leg in a chameleon and upon recovery he was making a squeaking-type noise and had tachypnea. Despite having been taught that "opioids don't work in reptiles" I gave him morphine. Fifteen minutes later when he stopped making the noise and breathed a more normal rate, I became a convert and gave reptiles analgesics and became dedicated to study the effects of analgesics in reptiles.
What I meant by the strawman there is that you were suggesting that I (or the paper at least) was implying the fish were doing something that could be seen as abnormal, when that was not the case. In any case, I suspect we could probably spend much more time going back and forth on this, but probably to no end in either case. I've enjoyed the discussion, even with the strawmen!
> Everywhere in nature, biologists say, are examples of animals behaving as though they were at least vaguely aware of death's brutal supremacy and yet unpersuaded that it had anything to do with them. Michael Wilson, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota who has studied chimpanzees at Jane Goodall's research site in Gombe, said chimps were "very different from us in terms of what they understand about death and the difference between the living and the dead." The Hallmark hanky moment alternates with the Roald Dahl macabre. A mother will try to nurse her dead baby back to life, Wilson said, "but when the infant becomes quite decayed, she'll carry it by just one leg or sling it over her back in a casual way."
Whether they actually have similar internal experience or not I think still does not justify the way humans treat animals. If a developmentally disabled human was not able comprehend life, death or suffering, that would not excuse mistreatment of that person.
Whether animals understand life or not isn’t really the point, and I think these arguments are misused to justify explotation and mistreatment.
This whole discussion is about whether they understand it. But I think it's revealing that multiple people have shifted the discussion to the treatment of animals -- it seems to me like some of us, rather than thinking animals deserve better treatment because of their sentience, think animals must be sentient because they deserve better treatment. Personally, I do not find the evidence that humans have anything approaching a human internal life persuasive.
> This is perhaps because most humans failed to even entertain the possibility that animals might care about the death of those they love.
Ever person with two pets who hung out and had one die has looked to see if the other showed grief. A really stupid strawperson premise. And you'll see it, but the question as a layperson is, is it real or imagined.
Also dogs mourning their dead owners have multiple fucking movies made about them. It's pop culture for dams sake. Hachikō was re-made into an American movie from a Japanese movie made off multiple news articles.
But at the end of the day if animals show grief why are they using this current cliche of J35. Why not the billions of animals that interact with us every day. Why are they using famous cases of grief that we've all heard before?
Or, could the behavior just show that that whales don't understand death at all and the whale was just instinctively trying to aid her "sick" calf until he recovered?
in a similar way, there's a story about octopussies: they will heat their offsprings nest to near death and then leave as far as possible so predators aren't attracted by her corpse.. If true that's a deep conceptual step
That's just evolution. The offspring of octopus mothers that died next to the nest also got eaten so didn't survive to reproduce and pass on that trait.
81 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadThe 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.
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.
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.
“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-dolphin...
[citatation needed]
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.
And yes you can. I use expressions all the time very much like "to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that God exists".
I never claimed that you can't use noncommittal language to dismiss things for which there is no evidence; I just don't really feel like there is any point.
While some animals see their own reflections and use them to examine parts of their own body that they could not otherwise see.
Animal research has a long history of finding animals exhibiting something that has been touted as a human-only trait; the weight of experience seems to be heading towards the idea that there is no human trait exceptionalism, only a combination of various traits to various degrees. So many traits that someone has posited as the uniquely human trait has subsequently been seen in animals. Maybe one day someone will find something, but thus far the record isn't good.
One could harshly propose that's a failure of imagination (probably shared by almost everyone else, self-included; I introspect in words too), limited by one's own experiences; since you've got language and use it always to introspect, and probably cannot even remember not having language, you cannot conceive of introspecting without it. More so, since it was your field of study; you've immersed yourself in it to a great degree. I wonder if baby humans without language introspect. It seems there is some evidence young humans do [0]. These people say they've seen it in animals, but I'm no expert [1].
I honestly don't know, but I believe that humans are part of a spectrum of animal and I take the opposite assumption to you; that until proven otherwise, we have no singularly unique trait.
[0] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2007-08-toddlers-capable-intr...
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1861845/
I suppose "introspection" is a pretty woolly term, though, and we could disagree about what the bounds of it are. The abstract about "metacognition" in rats is interesting but I think a little broader than what I had in mind.
As an aside on the general conversation at hand, I suspect that the experience of humans is so much based on being a human that we struggle even to think about not being human; that we have so many assumptions we carry about what thinking is and what language is and so on. My favoured example of this is an experiment showing that humans have a special ability for recognising faces, based on giving other primates tests of face recognition. Go humans!
When the test was repeated, some time later, using faces from their own species instead of human faces, it turned out that they were actually also pretty good at it. The original experiment had used human faces to test with, because those were obviously much more distinctive. I suspect, but cannot prove, that we're trying to reason about non-humans from within a prison of human thought and experience and assumption that affects everything.
Humans have enough a history of degrading the inner lives of fellow humans, let alone other animals.
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.
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.
No other animal can do this as far as we know.
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
Personally I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. Saying that consciousness is more complex than "you either have it or you don't" seems like a trivial observation.
Peter Singer argues [2] that "the fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness" (and that this applies to any being, human or not). I think that this is a much more interesting approach. Yes, this makes things more complex ("where do you draw the line") but it also seems more honest.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Applied_ethics
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_n...
Roundworms? Not so much.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Social_structure
Even more, how do we know all neurons are equal?
edit: not arguing against your point, just woolgathering.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Just as you believe that animals are no different from man, you should realize that man is no different from animals and that our physiology requires us to eat them just as they must eat each other. Of course with modern nutritional knowledge and preparation techniques you _could_ live off flora, but human physiology in the absence of technology requires meat no matter how cute or emotional the prey.
We are perfectly capable of eating a plant-based diet, we can derive any missing vitamins (e.g. B12) from supplements and fortified foods. Most of us have the choice to forgo eating animals.
There's a sort of meme which is like a lecture on how dangerous the world 'really' is, often to justify or advocate a lack of compassion. It's portrayed as 'realism' but I find it surreal: We don't live in a state of nature and we have no desire to. Why are we talking about it? Why don't we aim for more, as our ancestors who built this society did?
But on the other hand, compassion is not an absolute value either. Taken to extremes, it fosters individual weakness, hypersensitivity, emotionality. And, on a social level, degeneracy of all sorts - crime, mental disease, etc.
That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.
I disagree. What is that based on? Compassion fosters crime? The experts I know, and my experience in the world, say compassion fosters emotional strength, reduces behavioral problems, and increases resilience.
> That's why ancient societies took pains to train their young men in the arts of war, long after it had ceased to be objectively necessary. The predatory instincts have a great deal of character-building value.
Again, is there any basis for this? It's bizarre. Even if it's true of "ancient societies" (what time period? which ones?), I have no desire to live in one - and neither would you. We've moved far beyond their bizarre, archaic beliefs and practices. Should we return to human sacrifice, illiteracy, and constant war too?
I'm guessing that fostering "predatory instincts" fosters crime, mental disease, not to mention war and violence.
This not true as you pointed out yourself.
Not human physiology but a certain environment requires humans to eat meat because there is nothing better available.
In all societies except the most retarded, a vegan diet with supplements (notably vitamin B12) is the cheapest and healthiest diet.
https://www.eatright.org/food/nutrition/vegetarian-and-speci...
People usually favor bigger animals in their animal empathy pyramid. On top are smart or endangered animals and pets that we do not usually eat. Then come bigger animals that we grow to like because we can see their nuanced expressions because of their size. And then on the bottom are insects, pests and "gross" animals.
But who am I to egotistically judge from a human point of view that a dog's life is more important than pig`s. Or that 1 cow deserves to live more than million of flies.
Life is rough. Animals and people die in many different ways, not just for food. My view now is that that fact is inevitable, but that does not mean that you can be a jerk and disrespect life and do as you please. Eat animals, but respect them. Eat them, but in as humane way as possible. Don`t support industrial farming and production of animals. Don`t throw food. Don`t be mindless about it. Care for the environment. Don`t kill without purpose, even the smallest animals.
But we kill less animals if we don't eat them. Especially if you're in the USA and eat corn fed beef or chicken.
I like your attitude though, in regards to respecting life, and I wish more people had it.
This is another one of those things we don’t need yet another PhD, and yet another tomb of books, and yet more decades and centuries, to discuss and probe.
One has only to watch these animals for five minute to see the answer is clearly yes.
It would seem to me the only reason I don’t eat dogs and whales and dolphins is purely my cultural upbringing.
But, in my opinion, all of this is irrelevant. We don’t need to feel for these creatures.
Rather, what we need to do, en mass, is realise the jury is in: for our own health, and the overall sustainability of human life: we ought significantly reduce our meat consumption.
That's for a chicken. You only have to spend 5 minutes with a dog or a cow to see how smart they can be.
There was once a Vietnamese couchsurfer who stayed a few nights. Another couchsurfer asked her: have you ever eaten dog. Her response: yes, we eat dog. Not "yeah I've tried it" just unemotionally "yes we eat it."
I've read that pigs outperform 3-year-old human children on cognition tests and are smarter than any domestic animal, and animal experts consider them more trainable than cats or dogs.
The absurdity of all this just astounds me. And yet I continue to eat meat, including pigs.
So it seems to me our problem, as a the Human Society, is that we just don't care. We don't care that we are reducing our own long term survivability, both personally with regard to our own health, and globally with regard to the resources we all share.
Because if we, as all-the-humans-on-the-planet did care, we certainly wouldn't be in this mess.
The problem, then, isn't money, nor politics, nor pollution, nor climate change, etc etc etc.
The problem is: we don't care.
The funny thing is that my wife is vegetarian and I know for a fact that vegetarian food can be just as nourishing and delicious as a meat-filled diet.
I don't even know what the solution. Perhaps if lab-grown meat becomes a viable option, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Isn't that highly subjective? I love meat, but I really doubt any sort of vegetable combination can give me the same taste.
I think the problem with a train of thought like this one is that it assume there are certain fixed properties that makes a human "special". That is perhaps not so considering how we build abstractions on base instincts[1]
> So apparently whales are off the table, but cows are fine?
I hate how people do this for dogs and not pigs either, literally makes no sense how morals are peddled sometimes
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine
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.
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.
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/S0166-223...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIooLxk2jxs
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
[2] - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=title%3Afish+pain
Anyway:
- Orcas are mammals and not fish.
- Your study talks about fish. So does the first article I mentioned. "My" article mentions nociceptors and opioids (pain killers) and an experiment with painkiller lidocaine that suggests that fish feel some kind of pain. Note that both fish and mammals have nociceptors and opioids as chemicals in the brain. That fishes eat after surgery does not mean that fishes do not feel pain. Some people eat as response to stress and fear.
Quote from "my" article (I guess finfish means true fish in this context): In 2013, the American Veterinary Medical Association published new guidelines for the euthanasia of animals, which included the following statements: “Suggestions that finfish responses to pain merely represent simple reflexes have been refuted. … the preponderance of accumulated evidence supports the position that finfish should be accorded the same considerations as terrestrial vertebrates in regard to relief from pain.” Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain... Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
A major problem we have with science today, especially in the 'softer' fields, is that it's being heavily affected by ideological bias. Think about the replication crisis in psychology where some 69% of studies were unable to be replicated. It seems that many 'scientists' are increasingly starting with their conclusion and then doing anything they can to 'prove' it, at the minimum including p-hacking. The reason I mention this is that this article also gives an overview of various replication efforts for some of the studies showing stronger results. Time and again, replication was unable to repeat these results.
Thanks for the link to https://sci-hub.mu/
I fail to see the strawman arguments that you mention again. The discussion is about the probability of animals having emotions and feelings.
Based on the structure of the brain and the receptors and the involved chemicals, it is very likely that all reptiles and all mammals feel pain. Even fish might have some sense of pain. Humans follow often the "intelligence" related to feelings (bad diet, lack of sports, depression, fear, laziness, procrastination, addiction,...). IMO it is very likely that animals that can learn are driven by (intelligence related to) emotions and feelings and not by some unemotional intelligence and will or a simple "mechanical" reflex.
Another quote from another article: http://veterinarycalendar.dvm360.com/pain-management-reptile...
It is very difficult to assess pain in reptiles and there are no standard methods or assessments available to assess the level of pain in birds. Therefore, you are left with past experience, observation and anthropomorphism (if I had a fractured bone I would want an opiate). Reptiles seem very stoic and do not cry out in pain. I vividly remember many years ago amputating a rear leg in a chameleon and upon recovery he was making a squeaking-type noise and had tachypnea. Despite having been taught that "opioids don't work in reptiles" I gave him morphine. Fifteen minutes later when he stopped making the noise and breathed a more normal rate, I became a convert and gave reptiles analgesics and became dedicated to study the effects of analgesics in reptiles.
I like the talks by Lisa Feldman Barrett although it might seem to contradict what I wrote.
https://how-emotions-are-made.com/notes/Barb_Finlay_on_the_t...
https://how-emotions-are-made.com/notes/Triune_brain_myth
https://how-emotions-are-made.com/notes/Criticisms_of_the_li...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WFPBey02b0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gks6ceq4eQ
> Everywhere in nature, biologists say, are examples of animals behaving as though they were at least vaguely aware of death's brutal supremacy and yet unpersuaded that it had anything to do with them. Michael Wilson, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota who has studied chimpanzees at Jane Goodall's research site in Gombe, said chimps were "very different from us in terms of what they understand about death and the difference between the living and the dead." The Hallmark hanky moment alternates with the Roald Dahl macabre. A mother will try to nurse her dead baby back to life, Wilson said, "but when the infant becomes quite decayed, she'll carry it by just one leg or sling it over her back in a casual way."
Whether animals understand life or not isn’t really the point, and I think these arguments are misused to justify explotation and mistreatment.
> This is perhaps because most humans failed to even entertain the possibility that animals might care about the death of those they love.
Ever person with two pets who hung out and had one die has looked to see if the other showed grief. A really stupid strawperson premise. And you'll see it, but the question as a layperson is, is it real or imagined.
Also dogs mourning their dead owners have multiple fucking movies made about them. It's pop culture for dams sake. Hachikō was re-made into an American movie from a Japanese movie made off multiple news articles.
But at the end of the day if animals show grief why are they using this current cliche of J35. Why not the billions of animals that interact with us every day. Why are they using famous cases of grief that we've all heard before?
still it's a interesting common point