Scientists push new paradigm of animal consciousness, saying even insects may be sentient
Scientists push new paradigm of animal consciousness, saying even insects may be sentient
Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.
Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.
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.
Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on Friday morning. It marks a pivotal moment, as a flood of research on animal cognition collides with debates over how various species ought to be treated.
You're viewing a single thread.
IS veganism the real solution here, or is the real solution the all-artificial, all-synthetic diet? Me personally, I'm going to down this jug of red 40, and then I think I'll get back to you
If it ever comes out that plants are sentient and feel pain my moral compass is going to have a bad day.
I'm not even a vegetarian ... but I have tried to eat less meat in recent years, in part because of the cruelty.
I'd say eating plants would still be the lesser of two evils in that case. Animals we kill for food also eat plants, so from a pure quantity of suffering, it's better to not have the middleman there.
But some animals we eat are carnivores, like most wild-caught fish. In which case, killing them reduces the total amount of suffering. Same reasoning as the trolley problem.
Even that's a bit more complex, without predators many species massively overbreed, leading to mass starvation
That wouldn't apply to ecosystems where the predator is invasive, for example the lionfish in the Caribbean (which happens to be delicious).
Furthermore, if there is concern for a population explosion then one could also kill and eat the predator's prey, provided you eat fewer than the predator would have eaten.
We, as omnivores, have a choice. The carnivores do not. I'd rather not cause more suffering than I have to (since I have that choice) even if there was the potential that it could possibly decrease overall suffering.
I will not go into other problems with fish specifically since it's not on-topic.
Whereas I choose to cause suffering if I expect it will reduce greater suffering, including killing animals if necessary.
Everyone has their own approach to the trolley problem.
Do note that this whole thing is based on the hypothetical of plants being capable of experiencing pain. In reality, they do not possess a nervous system to enable that.
Of course I'd choose to kill an animal if the alternative was getting injured or killed (or starving in some extreme survival situation), but in day-to-day life, I do not see the need to do that.
If the only way to stop a school shooter were to kill them, I think most people would do so even if they were not personally threatened.
And many people, including myself, think it is moral to kill even an innocent person if necessary to prevent the death of a greater number of people. That's the trolley problem in a nutshell.
But if I'm willing to kill a person in order to prevent them from killing other people, then I should also be willing to kill a fish in order to prevent it from killing other fish.
Finally, the argument for nonhuman sentience does not turn on the presence or absence of neurons. That would just be a cellular version of speciesism, and it inexplicably eliminates the possibility of sentience in extraterrestrials or machines.
The argument in the OP is based on behaviors, like recognizing self vs nonself, avoiding noxious stimuli, creative problem-solving, etc. Plants do many of these things too, just on longer timescales.
We can always go the way of only eating fruits (and fruit-like growths), as they're specifically meant for being eaten.
The same is true of milk.
Well, no. Milk is naturally produced for a limited period so a mammal can feed its young. Fruits are produced year-round every year so a plant can spread its seeds as far as possible.
Milk and fruit are both only produced for a limited time.
For instance, many tomato plants only produce tomatoes for a few months of the year, and then they die.
Milk and fruit are both only produced for a limited time.
By each individual plant, sure. But for diverse farming, you can easily get a permanent rotation of fruits going.
You're also completely ignoring the most importat fact - that milk is produced to feed newborns and fruit is produced to attract (and by extension feed) literally whichever species is around.
No, fruit is produced to be eaten by animals who will ingest the seeds and defecate them somewhere suitable for growth. It is not meant to be eaten by animals who defecate in a toilet.
Regardless, animals and plants used in agriculture have been modified by selective breeding to suit human needs, so the milk and fruit they produce are now meant for humans. And human agricultural practices ensure a constant supply of both fruit and milk.
At this point you're really grasping at straws to justify your cruelty, huh?
No, fruit is produced to be eaten by animals who will ingest the seeds and defecate them somewhere suitable for growth. It is not meant to be eaten by animals who defecate in a toilet.
Completely fucking irrelevant how an animal spreads a plant's seed.
Regardless, animals and plants used in agriculture have been modified by selective breeding to suit human needs, so the milk and fruit they produce are now meant for humans. And human agricultural practices ensure a constant supply of both fruit and milk.
You've been selectively bred to work, is it okay to turn you into a slave?
I'm simply pointing out that milk and fruit are both meant to be consumed. This is true regardless of whether you believe one is more moral than the other. The latter depends on whether you believe, as suggested above, that plants are sentient.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I believe that if you are concerned only about animal suffering then your diet should include wild animals that kill other animals, namely wild caught fish.
I do like fruit...
Im pretty sure i have read articles about study finding that show certain trees can communicate distress via pheromones or something when under attack by insects that strip their leaves and some plants give off a very faint 'noise' when they are dehydrated or distressed.
Me too. I still eat cheese but no more meats. Regardless of the sentient thing, it's good for you to not eat meat.
Considering how pain is a trigger for an animal's fight or flight response, and considering plants can neither fight nor flee, it would seem like a cruel cosmic joke for plants to feel pain. What purpose would it serve, evolutionary speaking?
No idea; though I think a consciousness could be independent of whether or not something feels pain. For instance, there are people that don't feel pain but they're very much conscious and killing them wouldn't be any more just simply because they don't feel pain.
Plants are autotrophs in that they create their own energy from the sun with the help of microbes in soils to supply nutrients to enable plants to do so.
Imo, the closer we can descend on the food chain to autotrophic nutrition, the better for all.
Of course, all of this has to be taken in balance. There needs to be a healthy discussion between domesticated and wilded lands.
But much research has been published showing that if the world moved to primarily plant-based/vegan/herbivore/autotrophic diets, then we'd quickly move to living inside of our planet's boundaries which we aren't now. Think about rewilding corn fields or wheat fields or soy fields and still having enough food left over to feed the entire population.
#govegan
Welllllll.... What if you found out that every time you cut into a plant, it let out a high pitched scream that humans can't hear?
https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-really-do-scream-out-loud-we-just-never-heard-it-until-now
Yeah the fresh cut grass smell is actually a call to aid. They "think" the damage is caused by herbivorous insects, so they release chemicals to attract carnivorous insects to come and kill the other insects.
Plants probably qualify for a separate category of low sentience. If you've grown plants you know they'll turn towards the sun, and you need to move them around a bit to make sure they don't end up with a prominent lean. Some plants will use their tendrils to wrap around a trellis for extra support.
I don't think we can qualify these actions on the same level of sentience as animals, but there is certainly something there. All living things probably have some degree of this, since they react to stimulus with chemical signaling. That's not terribly different from what we do.
Veganism is the solution, yes.
Future generations will look back on us like we were crazy and barbaric for eating meat.
I agree that veganism is/could be a good solution moving forward. I strongly disagree that eating meat can be considered barbaric, as it is completely natural and present in every corner of the animal kingdom. Now, how we treat the animals we get that meat from is absolutely barbaric and should be considered so, but I don't think meat eating itself should be villainized, at least in a retrospective sense.
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it isn't barbaric. Male lions will regularly kill cubs to make the mother ready for sex - that's natural but we'd never accept (correctly) a human doing that.
I understand your point but I dont think that the male lion's proclivity for infanticide is equivalent to human life simply because that is not a typical (i.e. natural) aspect of human society
Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.
Well, it is always possible that I am under informed so I guess my argument may not stand, at least not on the grounds I have claimed. Thank you for the link, I will read about this.
Rape then? Lots of animals rape and humans do so too. It's 'natural' but barbaric.
Using the word barbaric is barbaric. It just basically means non-Greek/Roman. 😜
Nah, synthetic food (and eventually discarding our gross meat shells for silicon and metal bodies) is the rightful path. On the way there, veganism is a nice stop-gap for most people.