Twelve years after stepping down from the editorship of BBS I have accepted an invitation from the Humane Society of the United States to serve as editor in chief of Animal Sentience, a new journal just about to be launched that is devoted to understanding and protecting the feelings of other species. I hope the findings reported in this journal will help inspire us to “do the right thing to the right kind of thing” so that we can at last put an end to the greatest moral shame of our own species – and the greatest agony of all the others.
Leadbeater, Simon (2019) In Defence of Tears. Ecological Citizen.
Wiebers, David and Feigin, Valery (2020) What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity. Animal Sentience 30(1)
Summary: The planet is in a global health emergency exacting enormous medical and economic tolls. It is imperative for us as a society and species to focus and reflect deeply upon what this and other related human health crises are telling us about our role in these increasingly frequent events and about what we can do to prevent them in the future.
Cause: It is human behavior that is largely responsible for the alarming increase in lethal zoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans: (1) hunting, capture, and sale of wild animals for human consumption, particularly in live-animal markets; (2) massive overcrowding of animals for human consumption in stressful and unhygienic industrial “factory farm” environments, a major direct cause of new disease outbreaks and mounting antibiotic resistance; (3) vast numbers of wildlife species threatened with extinction from habitat destruction and incursion.
Action: The trade and consumption of wild animals in live-animal markets should be banned in all countries. Intensive confinement of animals in factory farm operations should be discontinued worldwide for the sake of animals, humans, and the environment, and we should rapidly evolve to eating other forms of protein that are safer for humans. Additional investment in plant-based agriculture to grow crops to feed humans rather than livestock for human consumption will feed more people while utilizing far less land and water, allowing for the preservation of vital ecosystems for innumerable species.
Each of us can have a positive impact, beginning with mindfulness about what we eat and how all of our daily choices and actions may be affecting animals and natural habitats. Rather than simply attempting to react to crises like COVID-19 after death and destruction are already upon us, we need to address underlying causes and act now to prevent future disasters.
Videos from 2018 Summer School on Animal Sentience and Cognition
Harnad in his interview, and Wiebers & Feigin in their article, all argue about the importance of changing the way humanity treats animals. Harnad argues that animals have sentience and suffer, and that it is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary. In other words, if the stakes are life-or-death, such as with carnivorous species that need to hunt to survive, or for research focused on easing pain or saving human lives. Wiebers & Feigin, on the other hand, show that human behavior towards animals poses a great threat to public health. For example, the SARS-CoV-2 which lead to the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a pangolin in a livestock “wet-market” in Wuhan, where animals are kept by humans in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions for human consumption. They also argue that plant-based agriculture would help more people, while saving water and land.
ReplyDeleteAnaïs, what would it mean to say "it is NOT wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary"?
Delete("vitally necessary" means that it is necessary for survival or health.)
Hi Anais! Regarding the interview with Professor Harnad, I’m glad you mentioned the distinction between something that is a vital necessity and something that is not. This distinction should be highlighted, as it allows us to have more ethical interactions with other sentient beings. Despite being vegan for 7 years now, it’s still shocking to read facts such as “slaughtering animals for food accounts for 98% of the animals we kill”, especially since as humans, not only do we not need to consume animal products in order to survive, but can rather thrive without them! Personally, I believe that there is no “humane” way of killing sentient beings, and thus putting an end to animal exploitation would not only benefit us, the animals, but also the environment.
DeleteMelika, may your mirror-neurons prevail for 77 years and onward. (You have a huge head-start on me that I can never catch up!)
DeleteHi Anais and Melika,
DeleteI like the distinction you acknowledge between something being a vital necessity and something that is not. Applied to scientific research, my question remains on "what is the solution?".
Knowing that using rats to discover more about autism or Alzheimer's disease and having to put some implants in their heads, that will leave bruises forever, this can appear as non-vital necessities. Because it is not necessary to play with their brains to explain better ours. However, it appears to me as more complicated than that. Indeed, I could also argue that using rats as a tool ends being a vital necessity since it can help science evolve to, one day, help curing these diseases, which is a vital necessity.
Therefore, I understand the point about not wanting to hurt animals in science research. But I don't think the reason why we should not do it is because of vital necessities but rather because of anthropocentrism. Indeed, we still need to exchange with animals and to recognize them, because they provide some resources to nature that we also need, and without with we would be nothing.
Juliette, research that can now, or in the credible future, save lives qualifies as vital necessity. But what percentage of research is really like that, rather than career/funding/publication/promotion/tenure/fashion/curiosity-driven -- or just plain pointless or incompetent? This question applies to all areas of research, and probably all areas of human endeavour. But only in animal research is a feeling creature bleeding for it.
DeleteMy biggest question from what was discussed above is that how/who can qualify research to be of vital necessity? How would we know that it is not for career/funding/publication/tenure/fashion/curiosity like professor Harnad mentions. It is difficult to precisely infer the intentions behind a researcher’s proposed research and it is even more difficult to have multiple people on a committee agree on this fact. At the current state of our society with its cruel meat-dependent functioning, how many new researchers are bold enough to follow through knowing that their own potential career advancements maybe on the line. These are the practical questions that forces the well-intentioned research to be stopped at its roots. It seems pessimistic but the reality is that humans will prioritize their own selfish needs above and beyond the suffering of animals.
DeleteHyeokbin, one could have said that about anything, but there are decent, reasonable people (and committees)
DeleteCould you tell us more about the variant of the Turing Test you propose? I could not reduce my uncertainty by following the link. What I presume for now, is that it is a test, adapted to animals that shows they can do what we can do; and hence that they think. Let me know
ReplyDeleteEmma, good question: that link is to the Turing Test (in the context of the question of animal sentience); it is not a link to an animal Turing Test.
DeleteThe reason Turing's Test and method is for humans and not for spiders is because it is intended for reverse-engineering human cognitive capacities. Its criterion, which is based primarily on human (lifelong) cognitive performance capacity (T2 and T3) and potentially also human neural function (T4, T5) is complete indistinguishability of the reverse-engineered model to any normal human, from any normal human. That's when cogsci has successfully reverse-engineered (human) cognitive capacity.
The TT calls not only for producing Turing-equivalence** in human T2 and T3 capacity (and potentially also T4 and T5 structure/function if need be), but also for complete indistinguishability. This draws on human-human mind-reading capacities (which include human-human mirror-capacities).
Compare this to a spider-spider TT: All it would take to pass that would be to design an artificial spider with enough spider behavioral capacity to induce a spider to combat it or to mate with it. Perhaps somewhat more, but in any case, spider ethologists are all human, and no matter how well they study the spider ethogram, they can never have human-spider mind-reading capacities that approach human-human mind-reading capacities. So neither equivalence nor indistinguishability from spiders to humans would provide a comparable reverse-engineering criterion for a spider TT.
Besides, Emma, I suspect (tell me if I'm wrong) that your interest in nonhuman TTs is not to reverse-engineer nonhuman species but to confirm that they are sentient. For that, I think the behavioral evidence is already there (at least for those who are ready to observe spiders as closely and as long as ethologists do), and so is the neurobiological evidence.
And I also suspect that you are not asking this question in order to do with nonhuman species what we can't do with humans, which is to deliberately do invasive neurobiological experiments on them to determine whether or not they deserve not to be the victims of neurobiological experiments.
--
**Turing called only for "Weak Equivalence" (which means same Output for the same Input), not Strong Equivalence (which, for computational models, would call for same-algorithm, and for analog/dynamic systems would call for same-structure/function).
The paper "In Deference of Tears" was a very interesting read. The author talks about his personal life expriences of him being a vegetraian now becoming vegan. He believes that empathy towards others is key to understanding the impact of animal agriculture and fishing industry. He argues that the "separation" and "dominion" paradigm, which views animals as insensate livestock and units of production to be turned into commodities, has contributed to the transformation of millions of hectares of Brazilian forest into soya plantations for feeding incarcerated farm animals in Europe, China, and elsewhere. He also argues that animal agriculture and the fishing industry are among the biggest drivers of global defaunation and extinction as they have facilitated the transformation of natural habitats into agricultural land.
ReplyDeleteMarie-Elise, yes, and that's where ecological and ethical concerns converge,
DeleteI really enjoyed Wiebers & Feigin’s article on the pandemic, as it related the important topic of animal sentience we’ve been discussing to a detrimental world crisis that we all experienced. Although the fact that animals suffer should be enough reason to stop treating them the way that we do, we can also point to a global health crisis as a pertinent reason to change our policies surrounding the hunting, capture, and containment of animals for human consumption. If we continue the way that we do, we will likely face more pandemics in the future. The following quote summarized this sentiment well:
ReplyDelete“Although it is tempting for us to lay the blame for pandemics such as COVID-19 on bats, pangolins, or other wild species, it is human behavior that is responsible for the vast majority of zoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans.”
Jessica, it seems so hard to see it otherwise, with evidence mounting; I think our mirror-neurons may still save us (and them). See the "mirror-neuron initiative," linked above.
DeleteI just watched it, and it is encouraging to hear a solution that employs genuine empathy/compassion for animals, as I usually hear reasons for animal protection that relate back to our own benefits (such as preventing another pandemic, or other health reasons).
DeleteJessica, whether it appeals to our mirror-neurons or our self-interest, if it ends animals "Eternal Treblinka" -- and lasts -- it's welcome.
DeleteIt wouldn’t be totally correct to say that I enjoyed the paper by Wiebers and Feigin on the role of animal consumption in pandemics since it has a lot of troubling information, but I did find it very interesting. Wiebers and Feigin argue that humans must move from animal to plant-based food sources, due to the risk of disease caused by our unnaturally close interactions with animals and the diseases they carry. Not only do we eat many of these animals, but habitat destruction has resulted in many species having too much contact with each other as well as humans, leading to increased risk of disease transmission. I found this perspective compelling, as I hadn’t considered the public health risks of animal consumption when thinking about the ethics of it.
ReplyDeleteLillian, let 1000 flowers bloom. Both self-interest and mirror-neurons are part of our Darwinian legacy.
DeleteHarnad brings categorization into his interview, pointing out that we should start categorizing animals as beings that are inedible because they are sentient beings. To get there we first have to see the animals are sentient beings and then understand that eating them is not necessary for our survival. In an ideal world we would have started fresh; been put on mushroom island, learned the edible from the inedible mushrooms, and as we continued categorizing things we would have categorized animals as inedible because we would have seen them as more similar to us. We would have learned that we cannot eat animals because that would be the wrong thing to do with them. Does that go against our nature?
ReplyDeleteFiona, I don't think it goes against our nature. I think we are descended from insectivores, but by the time we became primates, we were like gorillas, who are almost completely vegan, except for the occasional bug. Those ferocious canines are not for carnivory. Here is GPT4 on what they are used for:
Delete"Gorillas, despite their mostly vegetarian diet, have prominent canine teeth, which might seem paradoxical at first glance. However, these canines serve several important purposes unrelated to their diet:
"Display and Social Interaction: In gorillas, the canines are primarily used for display during social interactions. Male gorillas, especially, use their large canines to intimidate rivals or threats. They display their teeth in aggressive behaviors, such as mock charges or fights, to establish dominance or during conflicts within the group.
"Defensive Purposes: While gorillas are generally peaceful and prefer to avoid conflict, they can use their canines in defense against predators or threats. The sight of large canines can be a deterrent, and if necessary, they can be used in physical defense.
"Mating and Reproductive Fitness: Large canines in male gorillas are also a sign of sexual maturity and are considered attractive to female gorillas. They are a sign of genetic fitness and play a role in the mating dynamics of gorilla groups.
"Non-Dietary Functional Uses: Gorillas might use their teeth for various non-dietary purposes, such as stripping bark from trees or breaking into tough-skinned fruits. However, these uses are secondary and not the primary reason for their large canines.
"In summary, the canines of gorillas are more about communication, social structure, and defense rather than their dietary habits. This is a common theme in many animal species where certain physical traits evolve primarily for reasons other than feeding."
[I think of myself as a cross between a gorilla and an elephant, but one who interrupts a lot...]
Out of every reading and discussion in class, I think this interview between Dr. Marc Bekoff and Dr. Stevan Harnad is where we were given the oppurtunity to clearly explore Professor Harnard’s views on animal research, ethics, animal sentience, and veganism through his experience. All of the discussions mentioned in the interview stem from the idea (I’m saying idea since we haven’t called it a fact yet(?)) that animals are sentient beings, and thus we should reconsider our morals and ethics in our day to day lives (killing/eating animals), as well as in scientific approaches (research etc). Even though the concept of everyone becoming a vegan is not impossible theoretically, how possible is it realistically? Eating meat, or consuming animal products is a really old habit, and how do you get the whole world to give it up?
ReplyDeleteSelin, there's no habit older than the oldest living person today.
DeleteAnd although I think the feeling of compassion is the noblest reason for ending the needless infliction of suffering on other sentient beings willingly, around the corner more sinister factors (such as climate, ecology, and pandemics) are conspiring to force us to stop doing it, willingly or not.
(Do you really have any doubt that cows and chickens feel pain and fear? And that they continue to struggle to stay alive, even under the monstrous conditions of factory farming?)
I don't doubt that cows and chickens feel pain and fear, however I think I don't believe that everyone could act compassionately, I don't think that the general population is that selfless, or selfless at all. (if this is even called an selfless act, because if people don't need to consume animal products, then eating them would be selfish in the first place, so stopping consumption would not be selfless I guess, it would be the norm-- however just for the sake of the argument I'll call this a selfless act since people would be "giving it up")
DeleteSelin, you don't believe everyone could act compassionately. Let's hope your belief is wrong.
DeleteAbout whether people need to consume animal products, see Position of the American Dietetic Association
Hi Selin, I had similar thoughts--how would it be possible for every single person to become vegan given that eating meat is so deeply ingrained in us? Traditions are widely practiced and highly valued so how can everyone's mind change about consuming animals? But at the same time, it was also traditional in many cultures for women to bear and raise children in the house while the men worked. This is not a common practice anymore--at least in Western/western-influenced cultures. I realize that this analogy is a bit of a stretch since gender equality concerns human beings in which we have already established feel empathy towards each other. But I'm just saying that even the most widely believed practices can change over time (even if the process is a slow one)--when the majority (meat eaters) become minority (vegans).
DeleteElizabeth, yes, the victims are at a greater disadvantage when they are nonhuman and completely helpless. But because mirror-neurons extend across species boundaries, they can still awaken enough hearts if the horrors of factory farming and slaughter are not only recorded by CCTV but web-streamed live for crowd-sourced inspection by everyone.
DeleteI’ll have to agree with Selin on this one, I’ve seen people speak about how they are aware of what happens to the animals that they eat, and they blatantly state that they are completely fine with that and say that it’s how things work, or even would go so far as to say they’d do it themselves just to have them on their plate. It’s quite cruel. I find it quite difficult to convince them otherwise after they’ve said that.
DeleteAndrae, well, yes, some people's cognitive dissonance is pretty entrenched, but I still hope that people's M-Ns can penetrate it before climate collapse does...
DeleteBased on the comments throughout this thread, it truly seems like most people's mirror neurons are working correctly and cognitive dissonance is more the problem. The people who truly don't care about the suffering of animals just stand out more because their lack of remorse is salient.
DeleteWeiber and Feigin paper on COVID-19, and the crucial role that human behaviour (mainly slaughtering and consumption of animals) had on the development of this, and previous, health crises, was a concerning read. Throughout the paper they provide convincing arguments as to why the current state of animal consumption, and the techniques used to meet the current demand (ex. factory farming, loss of habitat), are detrimental to human health. However, what I found most interesting were the arguments presented in the final paragraph, those which appeal to the “interconnectedness of all life,” and argue that “what is good for nonhumans and the earth is virtually always in the best interests of humans” (5). I think that this argument, while maybe not as disturbing as the arguments surrounding catastrophic health crises presented in the paper, is one which is particularly compelling. By appealing not to an individual's anxiety (while this is certainly effective), I believe arguing for a compassionate perspective, which “recognizes the oneness of all that exists and the importance and deeper significance of compassion for all life,” is capable of producing a profound and lasting change to one’s beliefs.
ReplyDeleteShona, yes, or just listen to what your mirror neurons are telling you.
DeleteRebecah, I agree.
DeleteThe paper ‘In defense of tears’ is a reflection on the author's personal journey towards a vegan diet. The author discusses the various reasons why people become vegans, including concerns about the loss of wild places, climate breakdown, and human health deterioration. However, the author emphasizes that emotional attachments to animals remain central to the decision to become a vegan. The author encourages readers to develop ecological empathy and compassion towards animals, and to consider transitioning to a vegan diet as a way to reduce their impact on the environment and animal suffering. The paper highlights the devastating impact of deforestation and the global plague of animal killings across land and seas. The author argues that preserving and restoring wild places is crucial, as habitat destruction is among the greatest sources of wildlife decline and suffering. Overall, the article encourages readers to embrace their emotional and spiritual attachment to animals and to make choices that align with their values.
ReplyDeleteAimée, good summary of Philip Wollen's wonderful example.
DeleteGreat points, and beyond the discussion of killing animals for food, the interview brings up the issue with the use of animals in scientific research. Many of us in the class are psychology or cognitive science students in our final years of our undergraduate degrees, and it is valuable for us to consider the decisions we make if we choose to continue in research and academia. It might be tempting for early career researchers and PhD students to disregard ethical concerns in order to get ahead, but Prof. Harnad makes important arguments for why we need to minimize suffering above selfish concerns.
ReplyDeleteMitia and Adrienne, good points.
ReplyDeleteAbout hurting and killing animals, needlessly, for food, fashion or fun, the ethics speak for themselves.
The lion's share of research (and hence also the lion's share of research that hurts or kills animals) is career-, publication-, funding-, curiosity- and fashion-driven. But a small but undeniable fraction of it really does save lives. Here there is a (tragic) conflict of vital (survival) interest, and no one has the right to deny the right to survive.
But while the lion's share of all the hurting and killing of animals is still. needlessly, for food, fashion, fun -- and gratuitous research -- the tragic question of life-saving research is moot.
In my opinion, the arguments in favor of veganism can be grouped into two categories:
ReplyDelete- Ethical arguments: We should have compassion and stop hurting other animals because they are sentient beings.
- Consequentialism arguments: Intensive farming has a huge environmental impact (water consumption, deforestation, antibiotic resistance, intensive agriculture to feed livestock) and leads to an increase in lethal zoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans.
Then, why is not everyone vegan? As I see it, we can group the main reasons under the term 'tradition.'
- Habit: Animal products are used everywhere, so they are normalized, and it can appear difficult to do otherwise (meat is often the principal component of a meal).
- Hedonistic aspect: Meat tastes so good.
- Social pressures: Veganism is sometimes seen as ‘extreme’ and it can be sensitive when invited for dinner.
For these reasons, people may try to reduce cognitive dissonance by dismissing the previous arguments in favor of veganism:
- Animals are not sentient, or they are less sensitive than humans.
- Eating meat is necessary to be healthy.
- The environmental impact is not so substantial.
- A utilitarian approach would be to argue that the sum of the pain inflicted on animals is lower than the sum of the good we benefit from.
Now the question is, what are the arguments that could convince people to change their minds and become vegan? As expressed by Leadbeater in 'Defense of Tears,' compassion, instead of more rational arguments, is generally the key factor.
Joann, good overview. I pin my hopes on compassion (mirror-neurons) too.
DeleteAbout utilitarianism, see this on the trade-off between one's pleasure and another's pain.
Hi Joann, above I wrote a comment about how I think it would be really hard to persuade everyone to become vegan, and I was about to list some of the arguments people would put forth against veganism, and then I saw what you wrote, and I agree completely. I just wanted to add another point being that there are a bunch against alternative meat choices. They will argue that the process of producing vegan meat harms the environment, and on top of that is not organic/natural, thus they would argue that the alternative way is also not the best.
DeleteSelin, yes, there are many arguments for and against. The question is which of them are valid. See the replies about cognitive dissonance.
DeleteIn the article "My orgasms cannot be traded off against others’ agony," Harnad argues against classical utilitarianism (which seeks to maximize the sum of pleasure minus the sum of pain). As Harnad states it, morality exists only because of feelings. In a world of insentient organisms (or zombies), morality would be meaningless. So, at first glance, utilitarianism seems like a compelling idea. However, the problem is not only the incommensurability of feelings but also the bipolarity of pleasure and pain: there is a neutral midpoint where a feeling is neither agreeable nor painful. Instead, they are two different continuums, and there is no way for a welfare calculation to trade pain for pleasure (and vice versa) because there is a qualitative difference between them. Thus, only oneself can determine how much pain (depending on the kind of pain) they would accept to trade for pleasure. Consequently, there is "no way to trade off my orgasms against others’ agony in some sort of integrated net pain/pleasure formula purporting to maximize net welfare for a population."
DeleteRather than abandoning utilitarian calculations, Harnad believes that this problem can be addressed by only taking pain into account (negative utilitarianism). In a unipolar hedonic world where organisms can only feel pleasure (no pain), there would be no welfare considerations. So, only pain matters in welfare calculations, and pleasure would be considered only to the extent that being deprived of pleasure can sometimes be painful.
The readings from Dr. Stevan Harnad and Weibers' "What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity" converge on the ethical treatment of animals and the implications of human behavior on animal welfare and public health. Dr. Harnad, with his focus on cognitive sciences and brain imagery, has transitioned from vegetarianism to veganism, motivated by the moral implications of animal research and consumption. He advocates for the recognition of animal sentience and the ethical necessity to minimize harm to sentient beings, distinguishing between vital and non-vital interests in animal research. Weibers' article, on the other hand, emphasizes the role of human actions in the emergence of zoonotic diseases, like COVID-19, which have severe implications for public health. It highlights how practices like the hunting, capture, and sale of wild animals, overcrowded animal farming, and habitat destruction increase the risk of disease transmission from animals to humans. Both readings advocate for a shift in human behavior towards more ethical treatment of animals, whether it be through adopting veganism or revising practices that harm animal habitats and increase the risk of pandemics.
ReplyDeleteAimée, good summary, but what do you think?
DeleteI have little to add. There is no good argument in any field that argues against veganism (including nutrition; there are plenty of vegan bodybuilders and ways to produce protein like from animal cultures). It should feel like the logical step to benefit everyone is to not consume meat, or any product that hurts animals. It seems now that it up to world organizations and public policy to make these changes from the source of the supply line, and of course if more and more individuals stop consuming and negatively effect the supply line driven by economic forces.
ReplyDeleteCsenge, good summary. Many people, especially young people, are deeply frustrated at the failure of "world organizations and public policy" to "make changes" against human-caused climate change, environmental degradation, pollution, zoonotic pandemics, and other human-caused ecological threats to their short- and long-term future. It is surely relevant to understand that the single most effective thing that every single individual can do immediately -- without having to wait for the "world organizations and public policy" to "make changes" -- is to go vegan, right now.
DeleteThere are plenty of vegans around to show them how shockingly easy it is -- and has been all along, but especially lately. Not only will that have a huge, immediate direct effect in itself, but that growth in the vegan voter-population will also be what persuades "world organizations and public policy" to "make the changes" that will flip the course of the planet from its current disastrous one to the benign direction that will sustain us all.
I wanted to add to both of your points that although the single most effective thing that every individual can do right now is become vegan for the planet, especially given the overwhelming evidence that it is what’s best for animals, humans, and the planets at large, is that we would need people to get over the is-ought fallacy. Many people believe eating meat is good because it’s what we’ve always done, and they can justify it in terms of economics and other terms that continue to disregard animal and our overall planets welfare. I also just wonder how much evidence would be necessary to change people’s minds, when all these fallacies and general cognitive dissonance is at play. Is it enough to show them the positive impact, or is viewing the negative impact without any degree of separation what is best.
DeleteEthan, I don't think it's the is/ought fallacy that's holding us back, it's our self-imposed ag-gag on our M-Ns.
DeleteI was reluctant to share this but as someone who has had experience working in a laboratory where the subjects of the study were animals, more specifically rodents, this interview has significant meaning for me. Every day that I went into the lab I would tell myself that the research that we were conducting was important and that it will one day improve the lives of many people. However, as time passed, I became unsure about the need to use animals as subjects of study because they have no way to agree to the procedures and surgeries that might occur during the experiment, and they have no way to express their discomfort if they are ever in pain. They are bred and then put into cages and the only time in which they are let out is when we start the experiment, and we need to let them socialize with us so that they perform better during the experiment. I am grateful for everything that I learned from working at that lab, but I believe that running experiments on animals should not happen because, even if we do aby by the code of ethics of an institution, is it really ethical to manipulate, cut open, ad inject (among other things) animals?
ReplyDeleteValentina, see this reply. Your heart, and your mirror-neurons, are right.
DeleteI want to try and relate my individual post from 11b to this sections interview with professor Harnad. It’s mentioned that leaving the BBS was because of something that morally troubled him all along and not something that changed over night (just the degradation of his rationalization of animal research). I think the rationalization (as well as general cognitive dissonance) for the general population comes from the degree of separation we have from animal research and the food industry in general. We can turn a blind eye to it all while caring for our pets at home, and not feel as bad as its out of sight out of mind. It’s my interpretation (although I may be completely off basis here) that professor Harnad takes a deontological approach to animal welfare, employing the maxim “do not harm sentient beings”. I say this because the interview is firm in its position of stopping animal harm for the sake of the animals, and it serves as a nice contrast to people like Peter Singer, who takes the utilitarian approach (as I believe many others do).
ReplyDeleteEthan, I think "do not hurt except if vitally necessary" combines the basic principle ("do not hurt") with the utilitarian one (which concerns the deeoly troubling and tragic case of that minority of animal research that is truly life-saving.)
DeleteI also think that both animal welfare and animal research will be perceived very differently once the planet is vegan and the causing animals vitally unnecessary suffering is behind us. Today, the (vegan) elephant in the room is factory farming.
I agree, and also believe that combining the two ethical views, with the heavier emphasis on the deontological maxim of do no harm, is the most pragmatic approach to the entire argument surrounding animal welfare. I also assume that the more people who go vegan would end up forcing factory farms to shut down (at least that is the goal right). I guess its hard to conceptualize a world like that (it almost seems impossible to convince everyone) especially when combatting various logical fallacies that make justifying our current practices extremely easy.
DeleteEthan, you don't have to convince everyone, just enough to force the food-industry to convert to plant-based. But a mounting meat tax producers, vendors and consumers would help encourage them, with the rebate going to producers, vendors and consumers of the plant-based alternatives.
DeleteI am not vegan. I am a vegetarian and I do my best to reduce the amount of animal products I consume though I must admit I do not always succeed. On the question of why doesn't everyone become vegan I can only give my own reasons. While I am able to afford vegan alternatives on a purely calculations-based model the time it takes for me to cook nutritionally adequate vegan meals is not viable for me. Reducing my animal product intake has become a lot easier lately since restaurants have more vegan options its still not perfect. I also care more about humans than animals, I can not prove this is right but it is how I feel, and I would rather support indigenous hunting and fishing rights than contribute more than I already have through generational wealth to the colonial system that consistently harms people in my communities on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteMarie, I'm pretty sure what the outcome will be in your case, eventually.
DeleteThe "vitally necessary" criterion already covers all subsistence cultures whose survival still depends on hunting and fishing. -- But I think there may be a dash of cog-diss in the cooking-time argument... ;>)
Hi Marie, these are my opinions:
DeleteVeganism and supporting Indigenous hunting and fishing rights are not mutually exclusive. I believe it was discussed in class that vegans are not trying to starve people that rely on meat and fish but rather urge the vast majority of meat-eaters who are perfectly capable of choosing not to, not to. And given the fact that most Indigenous belief systems regard other forms of life very respectfully and emphasize not taking more than what is needed, I don't think many vegans are pointing fingers at these cultures. Colonialism is founded in exploiting other people and the point of the last two readings is why we should be equally as opposed to the exploitation of other species. The reason why one should be anti-colonialism is ultimately just a corollary of why someone should be anti-exploitation; anti-suffering. So I think at the end of the day we need to be reducing suffering among anything that can experience suffering—whether the harbinger of that suffering be in the form of colonialism or otherwise (but if it has to be about colonialism, just think back to what the ultimate root of the crimes against animal life in, e.g., Canada is anyways).
I must say, I strongly agree with the claim: "It is human behavior that is largely responsible for the alarming increase in lethal
ReplyDeletezoonotic diseases that jump the species barrier from animals to humans" made in this week's second reading. I believe that we are now living the days that show us that the way we consume meat (or anything for that matter) cannot remain the same. Major problems are arising (like COVID-19) and instead of surviving those instances we should go back to the source and fix it. One argument that I saw in other comments that is still not perfectly countered is humans' history of meat consumption. It is true that mankind has been known to consume meat (from the start of its existence). Even though humans are not hunter-gatherers anymore and the power dynamic with animals has shifted (not vitally necessary) why were we ever in this position then? And why is it so hard for people to give it up?
Garance, primates are thought to be descendants of insectivores. They evolved (genetically) into opportunistic omnivores, which means many primate species can survive and be healthy on either a mostly herbivore diet or a more carnivorous diet, depending on availability. Scavenging and hunting started to help our own Homo ancestors to survive and flourish two million years ago, and eventually led to the recent growth of the human brain and the specializations of the neocortex about 300,000 years ago, including the evolution of language and the invention of plant agriculture. But human diet remains partly opportunistic, varying with availability, and partly cultural, varying with learned local (“indigenous”) habits. As the prosperous parts of the planet are currently in a phase where industrial animal production has shifted availability to animal flesh and secretions, our species, as always, profits from the opportunity.
DeleteBut it is certainly a misinterpretation to say our species is a species of hunters and meat-eaters. It is at least as much a species of gatherers, plant-eaters, and planters. And the “profits” of the opportunity of industrial production are much more monetary (for the industries) than dietary – and the food industry has at least as great a vested interest in our continuing to consume the animal products they produce as the oil industry has in our continuing to exploit the planet’s oil reserves, land, seas and air with pollutants, urbanization while we are on our jet flights, munching our pork and puffing our cigarettes – except that the latter industry (only) had the inopportune handicap of having to face the negative feedback from the health consequences of smoking, which arrive closer to the speed of eating toxic mushrooms on the island than the toxic consequences (to all) of industrial pollution and climate change – let alone the agony and fatal consequences felt only by the victims of the animal industries… (and our mirror-neurons?).
Even before reading the interview and article, I have been alarmed by industrial farming and its extremely inhumane treatment of animals. The article raised the important point of the nefarious ecological and health consequences of industrial farming, which further made me reconsider eating meat. I found the points concerning cultivating compassion for animals as a driving force for a reduction in animal suffering to be moving. I noticed that in a few replies, professor Harnad speaks of how mirror neurons are responsible for compassion, which I also find interesting and sensical, as we are essentially putting ourselves in the shoes of the creature we are mirroring.
ReplyDeleteHi, I can relate to what you said, considering that while reading the interview, I also reconsidered my consumption and my diet. It made me realize how much I don't think about the questions raised and points made in the past couple of readings while I eat, and I felt ashamed of myself. It is interesting that mirror neurons are responsible for compassion, and I'm wondering whether the neurons fire when there's any link to the compassion we feel initially. Say it is not direcltly putting ourselves in the animals shoes, but when we eat meat, do the same neurons fire, would the compassion neurons fire when we do anything linked?
DeleteOmar & Selin, don't think of M-Ns as single neurons firing, but as looking in a mirror when you are thinking of eating meat, and seeing and hearing instead a terrified creature, bleeding and shrieking (the way the hyperlink to the Hungarian pig torture video faithfully portrays it) instead of a quaint folk custom that serves as an appetizer to a hearty meal.
DeleteHi, my comment got deleted again ? I don't know if it's because I commented a couple of times, but I realized it got deleted when I was compiling all of my skywritings and looking for the links. Here is my answer to the thread:
DeleteI just think that eating meat is so normalized in today's world that most people, including myself, don't think anything more when we eat meat. But after watching videos like this one, and having watched other documentaries -- there was one on Netflix, I remember, it became pretty popular, I have a hard time consuming any animal products. If I ever did, I consumed meat because of the nutrients, but at this point, I don't feel good or comfortable consuming any animal product.
“What is good for nonhumans and the earth is virtually always in the best interest of humans, given the profound interconnectedness of all life” write authors Weiber and Feigin.
ReplyDeleteAdvocating for compassion for non-human species on the basis of the moral and ethical wrongness of causing harm and suffering to another feeling being is highly admirable and undoubtedly significant, but truth is, a lot of humans simply don’t care unless it affects them directly. For that reason, I can see why so many other students wrote in their skywritings that they found Weiber and Feigin’s paper to be so unsettling and disturbing.
It is funny how this may be the one of the biggest chances we get to change human consumption of animals, not because we acknowledge that animals are sentient beings with lives just as valuable as ours, but rather because we are now rapidly becoming aware that our treatment of other species is having disastrous effects for our own species. Once again, anthropocentrism and humanity’s self-interest shine through, but hey, at least this time it can align with our mirror neurons and be used to do some good.
Paniz, yes, we are more likely to do something that is in the interest of others if it is also in our own interest. Even moreso if not doing something that is against the interest of others is also against our own interest.
DeleteBut it takes mirror-neurons to feel the interest of others as one's own. That's how a parent feels about the interest of its young. (And it has millions of millions of years of evolution behind it.)
Let's ask our friend GPT(4):
“How long ago did mammals evolve?”
DeleteGPT4:
Mammals are believed to have evolved from early amniotes, a group of tetrapod vertebrates, around 200 to 160 million years ago during the late Triassic period. This was a time of significant evolutionary change, following the mass extinction event at the end of the Permian period. The earliest mammals were small, nocturnal creatures that diverged from their reptilian ancestors, leading to the diverse range of mammalian species we see today.
“How long ago did birds evolve?”
GPT4:
Birds are believed to have evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Mesozoic Era. The exact timing is a subject of ongoing research, but it is generally agreed that the first true birds appeared at least 150 million years ago, during the late Jurassic period. Archaeopteryx, often considered one of the earliest and most primitive birds, lived approximately 150 million years ago and displayed a mix of avian and dinosaurian features, providing key evidence of this evolutionary transition.
“What was the timing of the evolution of k-selection vs r-selection, and with which species? Please relate these to the timing of the evolution of precocial versus altricial offspring, parental investment in their progeny, and, if possible, mirror-neuron capacities to perceive the needs of their young.”
DeleteGPT4:
The concepts of r-selection and K-selection in evolutionary biology describe two divergent strategies organisms use for reproduction and survival, and they relate closely to the development of offspring and parental investment. The evolution of these strategies likely occurred over a vast timescale and is tied to the broader evolutionary history of life on Earth.
Evolution of r-Selection and K-Selection:
r-Selection: This strategy is characterized by high reproductive rates, low parental investment, and typically, a high mortality rate among offspring. Organisms that follow this strategy (r-strategists) are often able to reproduce quickly in unstable or unpredictable environments. Examples include many insects and some fish species
K-Selection: K-selected species tend to have fewer offspring but invest more heavily in their survival. This strategy is often seen in stable environments, where competition for resources is high. Examples include larger mammals, including humans, and birds
Timing and Species: The development of these strategies likely coincides with the diversification of life forms, particularly after the Cambrian explosion (about 541 million years ago), when ecological niches started to become more varied and complex. r-selection might be an older strategy, as it aligns with the fundamental need for rapid reproduction in early, simple organisms. K-selection likely evolved later as organisms became more complex and as stable ecosystems where intense competition could drive the evolution of increased parental investment
Precocial vs. Altricial Offspring:
Precocial Offspring: Precocial species are born in a relatively mature state, with abilities like mobility and some degree of independence shortly after birth. This trait is common in many K-selected species
Altricial Offspring: Altricial species are born in a helpless state, requiring significant parental care. This trait is often seen in species where high parental investment is part of the reproductive strategy
Parental Investment and Mirror Neuron Capacities:
Parental Investment: The evolution of parental care and investment likely developed hand-in-hand with altriciality in species where offspring survival depended on such care. This would be particularly pronounced in species that evolved under K-selection pressures
Mirror Neurons: The role of mirror neurons in perceiving the needs of the young is an interesting area of speculation. While the exact timing and mechanisms of the evolution of mirror neurons are not well understood, it's plausible that they would play a role in the evolution of complex social behaviors and empathy, particularly in species with high parental investment. Mirror neurons are associated with the ability to understand and empathize with others' actions and intentions, which could be crucial in caring for dependent offspring
Evolutionary Timing: The evolution of complex social behaviors and the neural capacities to support them, like mirror neurons, would likely coincide with the emergence of more complex, social, and K-selected species. This would include many mammals and certain birds, possibly evolving significantly during the Cenozoic era when mammalian and avian diversity greatly expanded
In summary, the evolution of r-selection and K-selection strategies, along with the development of precocial and altricial offspring, are deeply intertwined with the broad patterns of life's evolutionary history. The evolution of complex parental behaviors and possibly mirror neuron systems would be a more recent phenomenon, coinciding with the rise of more complex, social, and K-selected species.
“Does this relate in any way to (1) how well parents, (2) male or female, can (3) detect whether other organisms, (4) conspecific and non-conspecific, are their own? Might it be related to (5) own-kin, non-kin, and (6) cross-species adoption and (7) altruism?”
DeleteGPT4: Your question touches on several fascinating aspects of evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology. Let's explore how the reproductive strategies (r-selection and K-selection) and offspring development (precocial and altricial) relate to parental recognition, kin detection, cross-species adoption, and altruism.
1. Parental Recognition of Offspring
K-Selected Species: In species with high parental investment (K-selected), the ability to recognize and care for one’s offspring is crucial. This recognition can be more sophisticated in species with altricial young, as these offspring require more prolonged and direct care.
r-Selected Species: For r-selected species, where the emphasis is on producing many offspring with minimal care, individual recognition of offspring is less critical and often not present.
2. Gender Differences in Parental Recognition
In many species, both males and females have mechanisms to recognize their offspring, though the extent and nature of this recognition can vary widely. In some species, females are the primary caregivers and thus have more developed recognition systems, while in others, males play a significant role in parental care.
3. Conspecific and Non-Conspecific Recognition
The ability to distinguish between conspecific (same species) and non-conspecific individuals is vital for many aspects of survival, including mating and social interactions. This distinction is usually well-developed across species, though errors can occur.
4. Own-Kin vs. Non-Kin Recognition
Kin recognition is a significant aspect of social behavior in many species, particularly those that live in groups or have complex social structures. It can influence mating choices, altruism, and parental care.
In K-selected species, particularly those with altricial young, the ability to recognize kin can be crucial for ensuring that parental investment is directed appropriately.
5. Cross-Species Adoption
Cross-species adoption is relatively rare but can occur. It's more likely to be observed in K-selected species, where strong parental instincts might sometimes be misdirected towards non-conspecific young.
This behavior might be influenced by factors like the presence of young at a critical period for bonding, the absence of one's own offspring, or even errors in kin recognition.
6. Altruism
Altruism can be understood through the lens of kin selection theory, which posits that individuals may act to benefit relatives even at a cost to themselves, thus ensuring the survival of shared genes.
Altruism extends beyond direct kin relationships in some species, particularly in those with complex social structures. It can be influenced by factors like reciprocal altruism (where helping others is reciprocated) or group selection dynamics.
Summary
In conclusion, reproductive strategies and offspring development types do indeed relate to how well parents can detect their own offspring, whether they are more attuned to conspecifics or can mistakenly extend care to non-conspecifics, and the dynamics of kin versus non-kin interactions. These factors are intricately linked with broader themes in evolution, such as the development of social behaviors, altruism, and the complex interplay between genetic, environmental, and behavioral factors in the survival and success of species.
“And might mirror-neuron capacities have a hand in some of this?”
DeleteGPT4:
Mirror neurons could indeed play a significant role in the behaviors and phenomena you've outlined, particularly in species with complex social behaviors and high parental investment. These neurons, identified for their ability to activate both during an individual's own actions and while observing the actions of others, are thought to be integral to understanding and empathizing with others' intentions and feelings.
Mirror Neurons in Parental Recognition and Care
Empathy and Care: Mirror neurons might help parents, especially in K-selected species, to empathize with and respond appropriately to their offspring's needs. This is crucial in species where offspring require extensive care and nurturing.
Learning and Mimicry: In raising offspring, particularly altricial ones, mirror neurons could facilitate learning through imitation, an essential aspect of development in many species.
Role in Kin and Non-Kin Recognition
Social Understanding: Mirror neurons contribute to social cognition, which is critical for differentiating kin from non-kin, especially in complex social structures.
Emotional Resonance: They might enable individuals to resonate emotionally with others, enhancing kin bonding and potentially even leading to altruistic behaviors.
Influence on Cross-Species Adoption and Altruism
Cross-Species Empathy: While cross-species adoption is rare, the empathetic responses potentially facilitated by mirror neurons might play a role in such occurrences, especially in highly empathetic or socially complex species.
Altruistic Behaviors: The understanding and empathy that mirror neurons facilitate can extend to altruistic behaviors, potentially even towards non-kin or cross-species interactions.
Broader Implication
Social and Cooperative Behaviors: Mirror neurons could be a key element in the evolution of cooperative behaviors, social learning, and complex group dynamics.
Understanding and Responding to Emotional States: In terms of understanding and responding to the emotional states of others, mirror neurons might provide a biological basis for these sophisticated social interactions.
In summary, mirror neurons likely contribute to a range of behaviors related to social interaction, empathy, learning, and caregiving in various species. Their role in these processes underscores the intricate connections between brain function, behavior, and evolutionary biology.
Professor Harnad, do you think that it's possible for humans to have a sort of symbiotic relationship with animals for certain animal products? Obviously meat is out, but is there a way to ethically consume other things if we all drastically reduced our consumption of milk and eggs, and stringently applied animal welfare laws? I guess I'm also asking whether you think being vegan is the only way to completely avoid animal suffering, or if it's just the only practical way to do so today, with the way the agricultural industry is set up.
ReplyDeleteI had a similar question, Aya. I'm Veggie, and try not to buy animal products, but at home, I'll gladly eat eggs from my friend's (non-industrial) farm, where I know the chickens are treated really well, are genuinely free-range, and are going to lay eggs regardless of whether I eat them (and those eggs are nothing like anything I've gotten from a shop). I know your question is meant for Professor Harnad, but I think that on the individual level it's certainly possible to avoid animal suffering without being vegan. But... I don't know if it's possible on a global scale--and definitely not today. I think a world could exist where most people could ethically consume some, probably very few, animal products, but I don't think that world looks very much like ours. Certainly, trying to keep the same amount of livestock in the world and convert to ethical agriculture would present it's own enormous host of problems. Sometimes people arguing for eating meat will say that if we didn't farm animals for consumption they wouldn't even exist anymore, and that a bad existence on factory farms is better than no existence at all. I think it's silly and not convincing, but not fully out of the question when considering an agriculturally-ethical world. Wild animals account for only around 4% of mammalian biomass, whereas livestock is approx. 60%. Commitment to ethical agriculture has to include a reduction in total livestock populations. So, I think an ideal world wouldn't be completely vegan, but it would have to have small-scale farms where ethical consumption of animal products is possible and probably necessary--60% of the world's mammalian biomass, already domesticated, can't be completely undone.
DeleteThanks for your reply Elliot! I do appreciate it and I didn't mean to shut anyone else out when I directed the question at Professor Harnad. This is all really interesting and is giving me a lot to think about.
DeleteAya, Elliot has answered far better than I could. The answer is, yes, but it's a question of scale.
DeleteEveryone asks the "ethical meat/eggs". My mirror-neurons tell me that it's true that no mother cow would have had any objection to having been bred to live her full life-span grazing and gambolling in the fields, with equally happy free-range bulls, bearing calves, both male and female, likewise free to live their life-spans grazing and gambolling. And my mirror-neurons also reassure me that she would have no objection to her human friends helping themselves to a little of her milk, gently purloined for human consumption, as long as she is left enough for the needs of her calves too.
But you would not get the same happy acquiescence from the actual selectively bred and genetically modified gene-lines that produce those oversize udders designed to overproduce milk, so they have to be constantly milked until, her diseased, inflamed udders give in after about 4 years of constant, and brutal (artificial) insemination and pregnancy, during which her calves are torn from her, within a few days of birth [lest they consume her milk, intended for us], leaving the mother agonizing [yes, see the youtubes], her male calves to be raised for veal or just discarded, the females destined for the same ordeals as their mothers, which are ended -- after 4 miserable years [out of a normal life-expectancy of 20 years or more] standing upright, day and night, in a stall connected to an automatic milking machine, till her udders are spent, deformed and lesioned, and she can no longer stand upright, to be hoisted by a machine resembling a snow-plow, to be transported to the slaughterhouse that will at last end her miserable life in terror and pain.
So, as Elliot says, the "ethical milk" is not enough to be able to fill the human demand for dairy products while providing the fields for the grazing and gambolling cows, bulls, and their calves, male and female, lifelong, even if the mothers' udders don't carry the genetic curse that disfigures and destroys them when they have passed through what would have been the bloom of their youth.
And this ethical milk would have to be miraculously sustained by providing all those gambolling fields for all their generations -- fields, that, let's not forget, could have been used to grow a plant-based diet to feed a lot more humans.
The moral of the story is that "ethical milk" is not even faintly sustainable -- and the wags who opine that even the 4-year life of the commercial cow is better than not to be born at all should try living that life and then let us know whether it was worth it.
There are other alternatives, if we must have our cow's milk. Ask me in class about the project of my (cogsci!) doctoral student to produce cow-less cow's milk.
Delete(As far as I am concerned, anything that will put an end to animal suffering for humans' 3 Fs (Food, Fashion, Fun) is welcome -- but I'd rather we had given it up, now, because of monstrous and unnecessary suffering they entail (not because we persdisted until an alternative could satisfy our current taste preferences...)
No one asked me in class. Here's what my (vegan) UQAM doctoral student, Lucas House , whose thesis is on categorical perception, and his (vegan) McGill student girlfriend, Jennifer Coté, do on the side.
DeleteI was thinking the same thing Aya. We definitely shouldn't continue needless cruelty to non-human animals, but this doesn't necessarily entail that we cease all relationships with them. The same way we have mutualistic relationships with our pets, we can surely find a way to achieve an ethical, mutual relationship with other non-human animals as well.
DeleteThe production of cow-less cow's milk is very interesting, and something I can totally get on board with. A lot of alternatives to cow's milk already exist, though, like what your doctoral student makes clear on the website, these are not quite the same, and so if we want people who enjoy cow's milk to move away from its harmful production, the best way to do so is to give them the actual product they want, but without all the harm. Though, I must question where these "mammary cells" come from in the first place. Are these extracted from actual cattle? How ethical of a process is that?
They are not extracted from cattle. They are extracted from milk (from cattle rescued from slaughter).
DeleteThe interview with Professor Harnad makes the distinction of vital interests and regular interests. A carnivore must eat meat or die. Prey under attack may need to kill to survive. If there is a feasible alternative, this becomes only regular interest. There are grey areas such as using animals for life saving research that could not be done any other way. However, eating meat is not a vital interest for humans as we could survive otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe COVID article points out that humans have a tendency to only react to urgent crises of death, destruction and personal threat. It is vital to end the unnecessary harm of animals before it comes to this. I believe a large obstacle that we are currently facing is that a lot of energy and attention is turned towards whether animals are sentient at all, rather than trusting our mirror neurons and focusing on solutions. From a behavioural standpoint, it may be most feasible to raise future generations as vegan in a society where this is more accessible than the alternative, rather than to convince adults to change their own habits.
Nicole, yes, the place to start is in the prosperous parts of the planet, not the subsistence cultures. But a plant-based diet would feed a lot more people than the prevailimg one now.
DeleteI share the same perspectives, Nico! While Professor Harnad's advocate on minimizing animal use in research and distinguishing vital from regular interests is crucial, it's also true that perspectives on necessity can vary widely. The Wiebers and Feigin paper underlines the urgent need to reconsider our interactions with animals, especially in light of zoonotic diseases like COVID-19. The interconnectedness of life, as they argue, is a powerful concept. It's not just about avoiding disasters but more to foster a compassionate, holistic approach that benefits all beings based on our beliefs of "sentience".
DeleteAt this point of discussion, are we taking a step back from looking into the HP though? The closest I can get is - in the context of animal sentience and human-animal interactions, the debate touches upon this problem by questioning the subjective experiences of non-human beings and their moral implications, indirectly.
Kristi, it's about OMP (and the meaning of life), not HP.
DeleteI am curious what Prof. Harnad (and others) think about veganism across people with different levels of logistical access? It seems like a lot of the arguments we’ve seen from Prof Harnad on why to become vegan contain a significant moralistic component, and even if people agree that factory farming is a bad practice for the harm it causes animals, this does not have any bearing on one’s ability to afford alternatives or access them if they live in a space without many resources. Does being practically unable to sustain a vegan diet have a reflection on the individual’s ability to empathize? And what bearing does this have on their OMP? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteMadeleine, if you reflect on the "vital necessity" criterion you will see that not only are the (few remaining) subsistence hunting/fishing cultures as exempt as Felids, but the same is true if and when a vegan diet is truly unaffordable in an urban setting. What make one imagine otherwise? (Consider the tricks cognitive dissonance plays on us...)
DeleteThose three papers address urgent topics that should be diffused more widely, and will hopefully evoke a common sense of consciousness in the population one day. As we defined it through the course, cognition is doing the right thing with the right type of things. Now, we could ask ourselves what is the right thing to do with our alimentation habits. We are used to buying meat in a very appealing shape, for example some meats have unnatural bright colors such as the salmon or the pork that we find in the commerce, but furthermore, most consumers don’t experience the act of killing. We just see a chicken breast in a grocery store’s alley without any contact with the animal, and it might objectify it.
ReplyDeleteNow, if we assume that the vast majority of people wouldn’t be psychologically able to kill a cow, a pig or a chicken in order to eat it, it means that doing the right thing with the living animals is to let them leave. Now, how can we explain such a large meat consumption? It may be due to the stores selling animals in such a different shape that we don’t associate those with the living organisms they used to be.
Adrien, Baldwinian evolution has empowered us to make a culture out of just about anything, including the ritual genital mutilation of girls. Mirror-neurons can be heeded or blindfolded.
Delete(But you're right that commerce has the incentive and the resources to blindfold our mirror-neurons with Ag-Gag laws, cosmetically camouflage the cadavers, and promote the product as a tasty necessity for our health.)
Adrien, your observation about the disconnect in meat consumption and the professor's reference to Baldwinian evolution both underscore a profound aspect of human culture: our ability to normalize and ritualize practices, even those that may be ethically questionable. This capacity, as the professor notes, can lead us to overlook innate empathetic responses, such as those suggested by mirror-neuron activity. The role of commerce in shaping these cultural norms, particularly in masking the realities of meat production and consumption, is indeed significant. It highlights the complex interplay between our biological predispositions, cultural practices, and commercial influences.
DeleteMarie-Elise, understated, but accurate.
DeleteI think the concerns about disease transmission between animals and humans are extremely valid in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think the idea that our future “depends upon humanity’s ability to recognize the oneness of all that exists and the importance and deeper significance of compassion for all life” is very true. I hope that in the future lab-grown meats can phase out factory farming in the west, vastly reducing the suffering of animals. However, I think the idea of changing our relationship to other life raises an interesting question about our relationship with animals, and our position in the world as Westerners.
ReplyDeleteIn many indigenous and traditional cultures, the hunting, sacrifice, and consumption of animals plays a vital social role in the community. Many indigenous people might go so far as to consider the their traditional relationship with animals to be so significant as to constitute a “vital necessity”. The slaughter of whales in the north sea (which is sustainable) is an indigenous cultural practice of the Faroese. Cockfighting in Bali is considered a vital cornerstone of village life. In villages in Hungary, may peasants slaughter a hog to celebrate a wedding. Certain Sub Saharan Africans sacrifice goats on Easter Monday. Canada’s indigenous Inuit consider seal hunting a vital social dynamic encouraging bonds not only with the land, but also between elders and young men. None of these communities are literally vitally dependent on these practices - the Inuit could be told to go pick up lettuce at the grocery store, and Hungarian peasants could adopt the more sanitized western practice of (vegan) wedding cakes.
My question is this: In each of the above instances, banning (or shaming, or discouraging) these cultural practices would reduce animal suffering. But who are we (as enlightened westerners) to tell indigenous groups how to regulate their relationships with animals? Furthermore, if we decide to permit seal-hunting or goat sacrifice on cultural grounds, why shouldn’t we permit weisswurst and deer hunting as indigenous cultural practices of the black forest Germans?
Dani, the first and far vaster priority is not indigenous cultural practices, but the unimaginable horrors of factory farming. With that going on, at an unprecedented scale of suffering, worldwide, and growing, why would you focus, I wonder, on protecting cock-fighting in Bali? or Disznó szúrás in Dédestapolcsány?
DeleteI think Daniel’s inclusion of cultural practices does not necessarily diminish the significance of the issues with factory farming. Our relationship with animals regarding ethical and cultural considerations is very multifaceted and I think balancing the need for global reforms in industrial agriculture with respect for cultural diversity is a complex challenge. The scale of issues associated with factory farming however–the immense suffering experienced by animals, along with environmental and public health implications–is most definitely an urgent global concern that is much more dire. Both issues warrant attention but they also operate on different scales…I suppose we need to start somewhere first. I sympathize with your thoughts–who are we, “enlightened Westerners” to impose our beliefs on Indigenous cultures? But perhaps it would be hypocritical for us, and we would have no place to even suggest changing the relationships between humans and animals, if we don’t first tackle the larger problem of overcrowding, routine use of antibiotics, environmental degradation, and ethical treatment of animals on a massive scale.
DeleteElizabeth, let 1000 flowers bloom...
DeleteI grew up in a culture where it is normalized to slit a sheep's throat in front of the whole family once a year for festive purposes. I still remember vividly the disgust and hurt I felt when I noticed this event for the first time ; I was 5. Something that really stuck with me from our discussion last class is that some things trump cultural practices for us and for our mirror neurons. I found the CCTV initiative interesting in that sense because I'm guessing we're not realizing the hurt inflicted to the animals we're eating, we're casually escaping that cognitive dissonant state until we get to see it with our own eyes and realize how incredibly cruel what feeling beings can do to other sentient beings. I was moved by the discussion we had about it being the biggest crime that humanity is committing as well. Scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that many animals possess thinking and feeling abilities, experiencing pain and suffering in ways analogous to humans. It is incumbent upon our legal system to reflect this understanding, extending fundamental protections to these sentient beings. This shift is not merely a matter of compassion but a necessity of justice, aligning our laws with the evolving societal recognition of animal sentience. Just as historical legal systems evolved to rectify injustices against marginalized human groups, so too must our current system evolve to acknowledge the rights of animals, ensuring they are protected from cruelty, exploitation, and neglect - starting at least with animal farming.
DeleteI used to have some opinion towards vegetarians, as some protests I knew from the internet have negatively influenced others' daily lives. Also, I really have the question whether we should moralize human being, as, in fact, we are just omnivores.
ReplyDeleteBut the article, "My orgasms cannot be traded off against others’ agony," changed my impression about vegetarians and vegans. We and other animals are all sentient entities in this world, and it is hard to tell that our comfort should be based on the suffering of other individuals (the "individual" here is also including animals, which captures science as with us). This is should be the outset to stop the animal suffering from our action. Especially, some actions behind the commercial activity is awful (ex., chick culling mentioned few weeks ago).
However, from my perspective, to be vegetarian or vegan is kind of self-regrading action, especially it is too hard to pursue others by words. I also concerns (may off-topics) that the radical protests seems lead to some backfire instead.
Evelyn, what is needed is to reach people's mirror-neurons. The best way is to webstream CCTV from from where factory-farm animals are born and reared, all the way to to transport reared all the way to slaughter. Your mirror-neurons will do the rest...
DeleteI do agree that such cruel processes should be transparent and shown to people to raise awareness of how animals are being treated for our meat and clothing production. I myself, being a meat-lover for years, never thought of becoming a vegetarian, but since taking this course, I became more aware of the issue and did my own research on how the meat that I am eating are being made. It made me feel so sorry for the animals and ever since becoming aware of the meat production process (for beef and chicken specifically), I stopped eating chicken and reduced my consumption of beef. And even more so, after reading the interview that Professor Harnad had with Marc Bekoff and watching the Ted-Ed video, it is more shocking to get to know that 98% of the animals that are killed by humans are killed for food. Even in the Ted-Ed video, the footages that Wollen shows of how cruelly animals are killed for food, clothing, sports, etc (ex. 5000 lions being killed with guns or spears in South Africa for sport, a baby seal pups being skinned in ice, etc) are extremely disturbing and gruesome to watch. So I think it is imperative that people are aware of such processes, so that their mirror neurons can make them empathize with and feel compassion for these animals.
DeleteI had a similar reaction as Mita did to these two readings:
ReplyDeleteHarnad's interview points out that unlike with the Felidae, we are not "obligate carnivores" - it is not the case that "if [we] do not eat meat, we die." Thus, meat is not vitally necessary for us.
The Wiebers & Valery article furthers this point, demonstrating that our consumption of meat is not only vitally unnecessary for humans but that it might even be harming our health by causing disease outbreaks.
An additional point that can be taken indirectly from Wiebers and Valery's article is that our consumption of meat not only puts humans but also animals at risk of deadly contagious disease. This adds yet another thing to the list of sufferings that the consumption of meat imposes upon animals as if pain, stress, fear, and loneliness ("Harnad on Other Minds", 6) were already not enough.
Ohrie, a sensitive comment -- but where is the Mita sky you are referring to?
DeleteProfessor Harnad's interview was very intriguing to me. In particular, it made me think about the issue of animal testing, specifically in the cosmetics industry. I believe that animal testing serves as a prime example of how we exploit animals for reasons that are not essential to our survival. There is nothing in the cosmetics industry that is so crucial as to justify the horrors of animal testing. I strive to use only products that have not been tested on animals, and while there are an increasing number of cruelty-free brands available, I believe that we still have a long way to go in this regard. This is yet again another example of wrong but widespread beliefs that humans are superior.
ReplyDeleteLili, yes, the four Fs (Food, Finance, Fashion and Fun).
DeleteAs a believer in the fight against mass deforestation and in the (separate, I thought) fight against factory farming, it was somewhat uplifting to see overlap in their proposed solutions. The damage we are causing when converting forests into farmland with the purpose of raising animals to be consumed seems like it can be somewhat reduced when we consider that agricultural farming of plant-based food sources could feed more people with less land.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, I find it concerning how rarely factory farming is discussed, and how hidden the horrors of it are from most of the general populace enjoying the benefits of it. It seems likely that many, many empathetic people would seriously reconsider their meat consumption were they more aware of the suffering the animals they so casually eat had gone through.
Adam, I agree with you. See the mirror-neuron initiative video just after the Wollen video above.
DeleteListening to advice from a hypocrite is never fun. But their failure to meet their own standards shouldn't undermine the potential value of their ideas. So let me start off by saying that I am a hypocrite. That being said, Harnad's article reminds us of the immorality of inflicting harm on other living beings unless vitally necessary. This seems pretty self-evident, but somehow becomes debatable when we consider diet and lifestyle. Many of us seem to have been sensitized to animal suffering after watching some traumatic documentary about the meat industry and for some, it was enough to prompt a change in diet. It seems to be the case that children have an early empathy and compassion towards animals, which then gets overshadowed by societal norms that deem meat consumption as "normal" and actually make it easier for us to justify meat consumption (although people can also change their diet and lifestyle at much later stages in life).
ReplyDeleteMiriam, you are not a hypocrite; you just haven't yet gone the distance (but I think I detect signs that you will). The fact that you call yourself a hypocrite is a sign that you are not in denial. I think your M-Ns will eventually do the rest.
DeleteAfter seeing all the harms it poses on the environment, public health risks, the suffering it causes,etc. The next natural step would be to change our behaviour and habits in order to change that, but it seems like not many people are heading in that direction. I think the issue lies in the fact that most of us are completely aware of what happens because of our dietary habits, but we either choose to turn a blind eye to it or simply aren’t compassionate enough to care about it and would rather choose short-term enjoyment over the long-term consequences and the position it puts animals in. So, how can we convince people ‘to do the right thing’ when they don’t see anything wrong with what is currently happening? What else can we do besides ‘respect their personal choice’?
ReplyDeleteAndrae, you are right that not many people have arrived yet, but many more are heading in that direction. (We can respect their personal choice, but the planet may not...)
DeleteI agree with Harnad's opinions on the conflict of vital interest criterion as a moral principle. One must consider if using animals for study is acceptable in situations in which human life is not in jeopardy. His plea for stricter rules in biomedical labs and the food and fur industries echoes the pressing need for clear ethical guidelines and responsibility. The advocacy of a vegan lifestyle to avoid needless suffering of living creatures is in line with the growing understanding of the moral consequences of our choices. The idea that individuals bear a moral responsibility to reduce the suffering inflicted on animals is a humane standpoint that transcends species boundaries. Additionally, considering the notorious use of animals in psychological research, Harnad's call for more stringent regulations gains particular significance in a field where ethical concerns have been prominent.
ReplyDeleteJulide, especially here at McGill, where so many human lives have been saved by vital animal research, but so many animal lives have been blighted and blotted by that inevitable proportion of all research that benefits no one but the researcher. Research rules need to be radically tightened now.
DeleteI agree. McGill's strong focus on psychology has undeniably led to groundbreaking discoveries, but it's also associated with a substantial amount of animal research. Given McGill's significant contributions to the discipline, addressing the moral issues raised by the use of animals in psychology study has even greater importance. The large number of animal research carried out here emphasizes the necessity of close examination and adherence to strict ethical standards.
DeleteJulide, yes, and let's not forget that by far the biggest cause of suffering is industrial farming, without the remotest claims to vital necessity, but rather the opposite, and virtually no protection. (But here at McGill, the mice, rats, rabbits, cats -- and marmosets -- need far more protection too.)
DeleteYour point about the wider ethical dilemma of suffering in industrial farming underscores a significant moral challenge that goes beyond the realm of academic research, one that we can't disregard. It makes us consider the broader ethical responsibilities we bear in various domains. I usually avoid delving into details about animal farming due to its deeply disturbing nature (I know this is not what I should be doing). However, this time I clicked on the link and once again I am speechless.
Delete"It is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary." This quote in prof Harnad's interview really stuck with me. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, and I never considered the implications of my dietary habits and the normalization of the use of animals in research. It is not vital for me to eat meat, it is not essential for my survival to end another sentient being's life for the benefit (or let's say wants) of my own. I never thought of sentience being an essence of being for animals, I knew they feel, but I think it didn't resonate with me that it is inhumane to inflict pain on them just because the belief that they are, as descartes would say, mindless machines. I think what also really gave this quote leverage was the Wiebers & Feigin reading, it pointed out to me how our unethical interactions with animals bring around more harm than good. Our farming practices, dehabitation and disturbance of the natural ecosystem for gluttony and greed brought on diseases that were interchanged between us and animals, it harms us both! This quote alone has strongly encouraged me to consider exploring veganism and straying away from the violation of animals right to sentient being!
ReplyDeleteJocelyn, good summary -- which is why industrial ag-gag is the real enemy, blind-folding our mirror-neurons, white-washing their industry, and keeping consumers hooked (just as adding sugar, salt and fat to just about any product does -- and how adding smoking to beer-drinking did until recently; fortunately the counterpart of ag-gag did not work there, and the warning labels and images are out...).
ReplyDeleteIn the 11(b) skywriting, someone asked how we can get mass amounts of people to stop animal cruelty and change their eating behaviours when it has become so normalized. I think that while empathy and mirror neurons have roles to play here, the fear of zoonotic illnesses might be a greater motivator(due to our investment in keeping our species alive). I have a bit of a morbid interest in virology and immunolgy, and have been following the bird flu variants (H5N1, H7N9) in the news for the past 5 years. It is truly terrifying the effect that either of these viruses could have should a mutation making it transmissable from human to human(given the high mortality rates in human and animal cases). To think that this and other zoonotic illnesses could be/could have been avoided by changing extremely cruel practices is incredibly frustrating. I am not a vegan, nor a vegetarian. I really tried in highschool to become a vegetarian, and soon began experiencing health problems which deterred me from the lifestyle. Reading these two articles however makes me want to put more effort into consuming less meat, and doing more research into adequate protein sources, and supplements. I can at least do my part by trying to purchase cruelty free non-food products.
ReplyDeleteJosie, if you have medical reasons, you are exempt by the vital-necessity criterion. I hope this will improve. Fortunately, for most people going V (including me -- see above), there are no health issues and it is clear sailing from day 1. Your heart -- and M-Ns -- are already in the right place.
DeleteReflecting on the insights from the readings, it's evident that the recent global health crisis was more than a medical challenge, but a call to reevaluate our relationship with the natural world. The pandemic, likely originating from human-animal interactions, emphasizes the consequences of our actions on the broader ecosystem. The scenario should compel us to question how our treatment of animals and nature reflect on us as a species. It seems that our survival hinges not only on technological solutions, but also on a fundamental shift in our ethical stance towards other beings. The pandemic serves as a reminder that our well-being is linked with how we coexist with all forms of life. As we navigate these turbulent times, and possible times to come, we must consider whether our current practices align with a sustainable and compassionate vision for the future, not just for humanity but for all inhabitants of Earth.
ReplyDeleteNicolas, all your points are well-taken.
DeleteI don’t have much to add to the discussion for this week, as it all is pretty obvious what the next best step is to take to avoid the numerous issues resulting from the way we consume meat. However, changing the way humanity thinks has never been an easy feat, and it will require significant effort to overthrow a practice that has been held for thousands of years. Humanity will never act until it is in their best interest to act. Only when the worst possible outcome is knocking at our door will we kick it into high gear and address the issue, but by that time it will be too late. It is not in human nature to be proactive or to do something it doesn’t want to do, so I fear we have a significant challenge ahead of us in trying to address what is the root cause of so many of humanity’s issues: excessive meat consumption.
ReplyDeleteStevan V, you are right that "changing the way humanity thinks has never been an easy feat." But, in this case, what is facing an individual is not the task of changing humanity but of making one (small) change oneself. Is the difficulty of "changing humanity" relevant to that personal question? (Be advised that cognitive dissonance is extremely resourceful in resolving such dilemmas in favor of one's own predilections by adjusting the weights on different rationales...)
DeleteOften when debating veganism with my parents the argument of meat consumption being natural for humans and necessary to our health arises. I think professor Harnad did a great job at explaining the difference between vital interests and regular interests in this interview. In this morning’s lecture, I became extremely aware that meat consumption is a luxury and not a necessary evil, which I believe many are convinced is the case. The idea expressed in ‘My orgasms cannot be traded off against others’ agony’, really highlights this. People need to be more aware that their orgasms are at the brutal cost of life.
ReplyDeleteMaria, in this figurative sense, yes. (They are not a polemic against proximal incentives in general -- the ones that keep us eating, and reproducing: The Blind Watchmaker cannot afford to be that lazy... And there's a bit of a nod to the HP in all this: what is it?)
DeleteThis section’s readings and videos tackle ideas about how humanity might consider animal sentience in order to do the right thing AND save our environment and species moving forward. Several of my fellow classmates clearly understand how unethical and immoral the consumption of meat is for ourselves and the planet. A consistent theme I’m picking up on the other skys though, is HOW do we make real change within our society? Well, I think the basis of any real change happens at the level of our education systems; we need to be teaching our children exactly the effects of their actions and what their power is to solve the issue. As young children, we could have class in primary school that teach children to consider the feelings of all living beings; these concepts can become more complex as children get older, where we start teaching the real effects of mass consumerism and factory farming; further, and importantly, we could have better courses teaching children about alternative recipes for cooking without meat, lessons they may not be getting from home if their parents are not as aware. I think to really instill change in society’s outlook towards animals, we need to break the cycles of generational thinking/trauma and make alternatives accessible to people who may experience resistance as they are growing.
ReplyDeleteKristi, lots of good ideas, but education is the reduction of uncertainty and in today's media cacophony (including chatbots and X-formerly-known-as's), information from parents and public schools is facing a lot of competition, with commercial interests enjoying a competitive advantage.
DeleteIn Professor Harnad's interview, it is mentioned that unlike Felidae, humans aren't bound to a meat-centric diet for survival. We can nourish ourselves without meat, a notion challenging the idea of universal veganism due to our evolutionary history. Our world now operates under preset norms, making complete global veganism impractical. Examples of humans harming animals for personal gain, like the mass killing of dolphins in Japan and elephants in Africa, are disheartening.
ReplyDeleteWe can make a difference by adopting more less cruel production methods, such as free-range chicken farming, albeit at a higher cost. This paradox – that ethically produced animal products are pricier – complicates the shift towards more humane practices. Are there ways to make ethical choices more accessible to all? Is it possible for society to encourage responsible consumption without economic barriers?
Rosalie, kid-sib did not understand your point about "preset norms" and "universal veganism." No one has suggested that humans have a vegan history: We have an omnivore history. We can survive and be healthy as herbivores or as carnivores, and we've shifted, opportunistically, throughout our evolutionary history.
DeleteNor is it clear what you mean by "preset norms": on the contrary, human norms vary across cultures and environments and time. In a subsistence hunting/fishing environment today (although they are increasingly rare), eating meat and fish is still a vital necessity today. But in Montreal today, that is not true.
Food prices vary, and they covary with demand, availability and taxation; and those are always changing.
In Germany today, the price per calorie is lowest for vegetarians, somewhat higher for omnivores, and somewhat higher for vegans, partly because meat is taxed less than plant-based foods. The authors conclude: "Overall, our evaluation shows that plant-based diets do not have to be more expensive than an omnivore diet. Financial constraints are not necessarily a barrier to switching to a more plant-based diet."
Suggestion to all: be careful to disentangle the objectivity of the arguments you adduce from any wishful thinking dictated by cognitive dissonance...
I thought this was a very thoughtful and interesting reflection on the consequences of COVID-19, and how we can learn from them in terms of our agricultural practices. There is a lot to be learned from the pandemic, and it can be overwhelming to consider adaptations to large scale practices along with the personal scale adaptations that everyone had to make. I think their argument about preemptive measures, rather than reactive ones, given the wealth of evidence that so many diseases like COVID have arisen from irresponsible agricultural and farming practices is an important one. Contrasted with the prior weeks of this class, in which we’ve been tackling potentially unanswerable questions in understanding and reverse engineering consciousness, it is both refreshing and disheartening to see a problem with such an evident solution. The only question is whether we do it.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine, good points, but all but one of the weeks of the course have been on the (solvable) EP rather than the (possibly unsolvable) HP.
DeleteThe distinction presented within the interview between vital research and all other forms of research mostly used for career growth really stuck out to me. This is such a basic concept that I feel we do not have enough restrictions for. There is a lack of strong regulation when it comes to what we can and can’t do in the name of science. While I do think that there has been some incredible work produced from animal studies that has changed the way we are able to function in the world, it is worth noting the possibility that we could have obtained many of these same results without inflicting the mass amounts of animal cruelty that we see. Additionally, it is clear that many experiments are not really all that necessary in the first place and are rather used in order to further an individual’s career or create impressive results. Overall, the amount of pain we inflict seems to be completely unjustified, especially when we are aware of the consequences.
ReplyDeleteLimiting my animal product, specifically meat, intake lately has been on my mind as the environment worsens and more plant based options are becoming easily accessible, and this reading highlighted a few of the reasons I have made this conscious decision. The article brings to light the idea that we, humans, put animals in these horrible environments because it does not affect us in any way except morally, which is easy to ignore; however, this article puts into highlight the Covid-19 example to disprove this common idea that it doesn’t directly affect humans. Due to poor conditions put in place by humans, humans got and spread Covid-19. This reminds us that everything is a cycle and what we may not think affects us, really does. While most people disregarded the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued to be a part of the problem of overconsumption of animal products, it is important to highlight that the virus outbreak mainly stemmed from the poor market conditions of these animals put in place by humans. Reducing meat consumption and advocating against the mistreatment of animals in these market conditions not only help the animals suffering, but also in return help humans and the environment.
ReplyDeleteDelaney, much the same words can also be said of the climate crisis.
DeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading this interview with Harnad. I have never thought about the normalization and industrialization of animal products as a failure of categorization, i.e., not doing the right thing with the right kind of thing. I appreciated Harnad’s vulnerability when discussing his involvement with the BBS, which published studies involving animals. He said that he was deeply ashamed and he hit a breaking point where he could no longer make excuses for what had been going on. What stood out the most was that when explaining how he came to that decision, he said that he hadn't learned anything new; he was simply unable to continue knowing that “it is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary." This is the reality for most people because most know what is right yet they continue to do the wrong thing, so this opened my eyes and made me reconsider the justifications that I make for myself.
ReplyDeleteMegan, "cognitive dissonance" (which goes by many other names) is a powerful and ubiquitous factor in cognition.
DeleteEven the necessary truths of mathematics — the 1st of Descartes' 2 certainties [what's the 2nd one?] — is just a conditional formal certainty: IF the axioms (premises) are assumed to be true, THEN the theorems (conclusions) are necessarily true, on pain of contradiction with the axioms (premises).
But that means that all you have to do is change your assumptions to make a different conclusion true.
And that’s what happens in cognitive dissonance: it’s the difference between deductive reasoning (reasoning from the premise (P) to the conclusion (C)) and rationalization (R) (reasoning from the conclusion to the premise).
Examples of rationalization:
(C) I want to keep smoking. (P) The evidence says smoking can cause cancer. (R) But many evidence-based studies are flawed, and my grandfather was a lifelong smoker and lived to 102…
We all do it occasionally, in little things: (C) I want to go out tonight. (P) I have to write this important report tonight for a deadline tomorrow morning. (R) But if I get up early, I can still write a short report fast, …
(We know that we usually pay for this kind of rationalization.)
But for some of our rationalizations, it’s others who pay…
From just reading through the diverse and insightful reflections found throughout this skywriting group on the ethical considerations of our diet and its link to the treatment of animals, I propose a new perspective: the link between compassion and consumerism. Modern consumption is a very complex web where it becomes more common for our moral compasses to be overshadowed by convenience. Economic barriers to ethical consumption along with environmental aspects of dietary choices and broader cultural implications are all fundamental points in relation to our professed values of compassion and the difference found in actual daily practices. It is easy to exclaim a need for compassion and still partake in consumption patterns that conflict with this ideology. The main idea brought forward through this collective skywriting is the need to reconcile our actions with our ethics and align our behaviors with actual compassion. This leads me to the following question: how can we as a society help create a culture of genuine empathy that extends to consumption habits when faced with long standing traditions that partake in the opposing ideologies? Moreover, how can this be done without, for example; cutting out all animal products from a nutritional standpoint?
ReplyDeleteStefan, the very same question could have been asked about slavery, the subjugation of women and other terrible things we have done out of tradition and habit. I think the ethical inclinations of the majority of people are toward decency, and so are their mirror neurons. But passivity cannot make them prevail. I hope CCTV (and the other media) will reach enough people's hearts (and mirror neurons) so they can vote by their own example.
DeleteIn evolutionary psychology, individuals tend to adopt behaviors that enhance their well-being and contribute to the continuation of the human race. As a result, some evolutionary traps might have been developed that no longer suit our modern lifestyles. As for cognitive dissonance, one example for me could be eating vegetarian food for religious purposes, but I felt weak and unsatisfied in doing so. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to support the advancement of productivity and technology.
ReplyDeleteThe invention of new technologies can potentially cause a cognitive shift and help us overcome these genetic traps. For instance, the development of more affordable clean energy sources, widespread availability of tastier and cheaper vegan food can contribute to reducing our reliance on meat consumption. While the growth of productivity and technology may not resolve all issues, it does offer some relief and solutions, allowing us to avoid falling into a deeper state of pessimism.
I found Leadebeater’s article In Defence of Tears very interesting. His anecdote about seeing slaughtered pigs hanging from hooks at a young age consolidated something for me which has crossed my mind before. I choose to believe that most human beings by nature are good, and that if most were to see a living thing suffering in pain they would be severely disturbed and have a feeling that what they were seeing is wrong. However, I think that most of us who were brought up in meat-eating, urban households were never exposed to information or content regarding the industry, and chose not to seek it out because of the anticipated internal dissonance it would create. Furthermore, most of us who live in cities do not grow up around cows and chickens, and have likely only seen them at the odd petting zoo. This to some degree barricades many from seeing these animals as real and feeling. A friend of mine had a pet chick during covid, when everyone was stuck inside and suddenly started fostering animals. One day she was holding it and got startled, dropped it, and the chick died. Following the incident, she stopped eating chicken. I’ve always found this story very telling, because despite eating chicken her whole life which was likely killed far more painfully than that chick was, something about witnessing its suffering first-hand changed things for her. Similarly, it wasn’t until a couple years ago when I watched a documentary for one of my classes about the meat and animal product industry that I had to finally face how horrendous the industry is, and began to properly consider what products I was buying and consuming. For things to change, I think we need to properly face what the industry is doing and consume content which is painful, upsetting, and uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI think that Wiebers and Feigin’s article on the numerous diseases that have origins in the sale of animal products for human consumption could appeal to a much larger audience than many other facets that make this industry detrimental. While it should be enough for people to care about the devastation that this mistreatment of animals causes to the animals themselves, people have known for their whole life that the animals they consume are mistreated. Weiber and Feigin’s article highlights the detrimental effects that this type of overconsumption has on the human population (and since humans are often selfish), this view could bring attention to the issue in a way that is not widely talked about. It is very effective to see the vast list of diseases like Covid, Swine Flu, SARS, H5N1, HIV, and more that have impacted so many people on a personal level.
ReplyDeleteThe interview highlights the moral imperative to minimize harm to sentient beings, advocating for veganism as an ethical choice. The interview emphasizes the role of human behavior in diseases' emergence from our reckless industry practices, pointing to practices like hunting, overcrowded farming, and habitat destruction.
ReplyDeleteThese actions not only threaten public health but also reflect our responsibility towards animals and the environment.
Although, hopefully, one day, the feelings of other nonhumans and sustainability will be achieved, thanks, prof, for bringing to attention of the issue and for a reevaluation of our relationship with animals and our responsibility to protect their feelings and well-being, as well as our own. :)👍
I think the cruelest thing one could do is put animals in a dark room with barely little space for the rest of their lives, since we know they can feel. I think humans are a bit hypocrite in that way because they know animals can feel, but until they do not "see" or "watch" a video of the conditions animals are in, they do not feel like it affects them directly.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is even if they do see those videos and pictures they will feel a moment of sadness and maybe shame but scrolling on instagram and tiktok has made us lose our attention span to such lows that they will forget about it the next minute. I don't want to generalize but this is what I've been observing in myself. Trying to lose the habit.
DeleteAgreed ! The interview goes beyond the realm of dietary choices, delving into the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in scientific research. The connection drawn between mass production in farm factories and the potential for the transformation of animal microbes into human pathogens shows the impact of how we treat animals.
ReplyDeleteAdrienne, you further expands the discussion to the ethical considerations within academic and research contexts. The temptation to prioritize career advancement over ethical concerns is a real challenge, especially for those in psychology or cognitive science.
Prof. Harnad's emphasis on minimizing suffering above selfish concerns serves as a reminder for us who are still young and can still make the right decisions, if we ever want to be researchers or do a PhD.
In his TED talk, Philip Wollen highlights the atrocities done to animals to benefit humans and advocates that animal-right is the greatest social justice issue since abolition of slavery. To justify this statement, he lays out numbers and statistics that show how impactful our behaviors towards animals for our planet and its resources. He further argues that meat-consumption as a lifestyle in the West has serious repercussion in poorer countries, and that reducing meat consumption by 10% would feed 100 million people and eliminating meat from our diets would end starvation forever. He sees peace as the presence of justice, blind to race, color, religion, and species, rather than just an absence of war. This talk ties to the OMP for other species, as we have good mindreading abilities within our species, but this capacity doesn’t extend to other sentient beings. Or maybe we do know they are sentient; we just don’t care enough to change our habits.
ReplyDeleteI found this following text interesting: “The principle is there: It is wrong to hurt or kill a feeling being if it is not vitally necessary. I even think that most people would agree with it, in principle. But in practice, they may ei‐ ther believe that (1) the hurting and killing is vitally necessary, or that (2) the beings don’t really feel the hurting, nor lose anything in the killing: They may believe animals are not sen‐ tient, or that their sentience, unlike ours, somehow does not include the capacity to suffer.”
ReplyDeleteThis text recognizes sentient beings' intrinsic worth and autonomy, emphasizing their right to live free from unnecessary harm or killing. It attributes this value to their ability to experience and endure suffering subjectively. The text proposes a clear moral guideline to avoid causing harm unless there are no other viable options, promoting compassionate and sustainable treatment of animals. Also, it reminds me of some ethical philosophies, like utilitarianism, which prioritizes reducing suffering and respecting individuals' experience of well-being. However, this principle is very controversial, but in my opinion, killing and hurting on a limited level is the principle of the world; it is like the survival of the fittest in natural selection.
Utilitarianism is formal and abstract, and comes in many different flavours, with different assumptions, with many competing formal arguments.
DeleteEvolution is concrete and blind (and lazy). If a genetic trait increases the survival and reproduction of its bearer, that gene will, by definition, increase its frequency in the gene-pool from generation to generation, and if it decreases survival and reproduction, its frequency will decrease.
But evolution, being lazy, will neither increase nor decrease gene frequency if it neither increases nor decreases survival and reproduction.
There was a time in the evolutionary history of our species when the capacity and the Baldwinian disposition to hunt and fish increased survival and reproduction. (It still does for the few remaining subsistence niches left today.)
But for most of us it is no longer necessary since the invention and Baldwinian evolution of plant-based agriculture.
But our tastes and habits have not changed, because carnivory has not diminished our fitness (yet). Like our sweet-tooth for sugar, which persists despite tooth-decay, obesity, diabetes and ADHD, the adaptive consequences have not been strong.
I'm hoping our mirror-neurons, which are as ancient as mammalian parental investment, will update our behaviour (if they are not blinded by the ag-gag efforts of the meat industry.)
Harnad applies the turing test to animals in the final part of his interview. He says that the Turing test prods at the other mind's problem in that the only way we can know that others are not mindless is by observing their actions (we cannot observe their thinking) and being unable to distinguish what they do from what we do, and further what we feel. It is obvious that animals are distinguishable from us from T1 to T4, they don't look like us and they definitely cannot write an email, in this easy problem why they are different from us, but this doesn't get at the hard problem, their difference does not determine to us that they cannot feel.
ReplyDeleteKate, none of this is the HP: it's all the OMP, and it's enough all the way down to invertebrates.
DeleteI appreciated the dialogue on veganism, particularly the parts on "vitally necessary" causing of suffering. The mention of Felines as obligate carnivores is interesting, homo sapiens being of course opportunistic omnivores, which brought me to think about the conditions for being both a social animal, and an opportunistic omnivore.
ReplyDeleteThere's a definite paradox in human's capacities to empathize, and to turn off empathy when needed, my tupi-guarani ancestors had domesticated pets with whom they shared emotional bonds, and yet also cannibals, perhaps as opportunistic omnivores we needed to evolve the capacity to inhibit our mirror capacities, or more likely having the capacity to learn to inhibit them led to advantages.
The line between the evolutionary benefits and hindrances of extending empathy seems blurry to me, extending our empathy to wolves brought us a significant advantage, but if we hitherto extended our empathy to all creatures we wouldn't be where we are, for better or worse.
Johann, you are mixing up the ancestral environment with the current one.
DeleteUnfortunately I think the cognitive dissonance used to ignore our mirror neurons in regards to animal torture is so entrenched that even the most scary human consequences (antibiotic resistance, global warming, pandemics, etc..) don’t seem to move enough of us into action. I think we need to find ways to incentivize people on a personal level into a meat-reduced and ultimately with gradually lasting change animal free diet. One thing could be changing how we use language, instead of saying ‘reducing meat consumption is better for XYZ in your health’, we say ‘eating meat decreases your health by XYZ’. We don’t say ‘smoking less cigarettes improves your health’, we say ‘smoking cigarettes significantly decreases your health’. I haven’t studied human motivation, so perhaps this is not the best way to go, but the large worldwide consequences (global warming, billions of animal slaughters, etc) don’t seem to be working even if people do believe them! Some things just feel too big and people may feel like their efforts won’t change much.
ReplyDeleteSide note, I noticed while writing my sky that even using the word ‘meat’ instead of animal only encourages my cognitive dissonance!
Kaitlin, I doubt the problem is with how it's said, but the solution may lie in part with what is said.
DeleteOne thing I’d like to say about this interview is that the interviewer did not really seem to understand how the brain works. I also agree on the point where a lot of people contest things like veganism saying “Oh, but your cats aren’t vegan!” They are not! It would be against my principles as a vegan as they are carnivores and they would suffer if I put them on a vegan diet, and I would never want to harm mine or any other animals. We, however, are adapted to be able to do otherwise as we do not require meat to function. People love to debate the moral philosophies of veganism while not even doing the beginning work to be ethical themselves. Being a vegan is doing the right thing with the right thing because the right thing with sentient beings is to not harm or kill them without absolutely needing it. In relation to the article on COVID-19, as a personal note, I think the individualism that underlies consuming meat also underlies the lack of empathy in people’s COVID-19 response. As far as the development of the virus and its ties to meat consumption as a zoonotic disease, I think it is true that ending factory farming and moving towards more plant-based diets would very much contribute to the health of the community, decrease antibiotic resistance, as well as have benefits to our environment, and is simply the ethical option.
ReplyDeleteThe principle focuses on minimizing animal harm, particularly in human activities like breeding and killing. It encourages exploring alternatives to meet human needs without causing unnecessary suffering. Recognizing the ongoing debate about defining "necessary" harm, it stresses the importance of continuous reassessment.
ReplyDeleteRegarding utilitarianism, the philosophy aims to optimize well-being rather than pursue unlimited maximization, acknowledging the potential justifiability of some harm with scrutiny.
In essence, it shows conversations about aligning practices with the well-being of sentient beings, serving as a starting point for ethical considerations within practical limits. Despite the controversy, it promotes compassion and mindfulness toward nonhuman experiences.
Humans, before the agricultural revolution, had been living no differently from other species: scavenging plant matters and hunting for other animals whenever they could. It is only after establishing settlements that humans grew crops and herded livestocks. Which is also the start of the massive spread of diseases, as sickness could spread in the settlements instead of dying off in a hunting-gathering lifestyle. Back then, eating animals was a necessity for survival and nutrients. Though I am not against veganism, as I agree that slaughter houses these days are brutal and that I believe that livestock also feel. However, if I may point out that vegan options are more expensive, as it is often regarded as a high-class hobby. Chicken legs in supermarkets go on sale for 0.99 per pound, and only a few vegetables match that. Even if one can base their personal diet on beans, which is cheaper than meat, the prices of vegan options in public places are more expensive than regular meat options. I am not saying that veganism is not achievable, but I’d like to think that the stakes are too costly for students. Nevertheless, I don’t doubt that our generation will have more vegans as time goes by (graduating and living a stable life), and influencing the next generation as well.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument. It's really sad that organizations and companies are turning something so humane as veganism into an avenue to make even more profits. Cooking at home is always less costly. And cooking vegan is even less costly than cooking "normal" at home. Here's a link of vegan recipes that don't cost too much if you or anyone's interested: https://thegreenloot.com/cheap-vegan-dinner-recipes/
DeleteThere's no economic difference that ending the meat subsidies to farmers and a leveragedmeat tax could not remedy, leaving everyone better off and better fed (just as damage tax could remedy many environmental harms).
DeleteAs Professor Harnad mentioned in the interview, vital necessity is the central idea behind why we should be so much more concerned about animal welfare. This applies to the food, fashion/cosmetics industry, as well as research with animals. Even though seeing animals as food contributes the most to animal suffering, the unnecessariness of (most, around 95%) animal research is particularly disturbing to me. As someone who does not eat animals, I often advocate and try to inform my close ones for the unnecessariness of eating animals. Mostly I am not successful, either people agree that animals do feel but prioritize their taste buds and comfort, or they simply do not care at all. However, increasingly, I am starting to be more informed on the implications of animal research. As far as I know, all medications need to be tested in animals before human trials, but only 1 in 9 drugs are successful in human clinical trials even though they succeed in animal experiments. This is frustrating, in which there is an enormous range of severe suffering imposed on animals, yet most of the research done is absolutely not necessary for advancing biomedical research or medicine. Grants and publications seem to be much more prioritized than the wellbeing of sentient creatures.
ReplyDeleteTo add on the comment above; I realized that scholarly papers on this translation issue of animal models mostly criticize researchers for not building better models, and seem to be interested with solely increasing translation and reproducibility. However, discussions about compassion and the moral implications of using animals for research are pretty rare in these papers. The Leadbeater (2019) article had a touching quote on our overall perspective: “Anthropomorphism is encouraged in bedtime stories, but when we put away ‘childish things’ most of us leave our empathy for animals behind too.”
DeleteI have to admit that this photo taken in a slaughterhouse is truly a sickeningly bloody and brutal murder that shook my empathy, especially when I realized that the dead cow's face had a human-like facial expression, and the same red blood that covered the entire floor. When we consider other species, this anthropomorphism may mislead us into constructing a measure of equivalent or identical pain, because this standard cannot be fully realized in other minds problem, i.e., it is impossible for other species to feel pain or have the same kind of pain as humans. As Prof. Harnad says, many people would thus separate feelings from non-human animals and treat these animals with a predominant interest in reality. However, anthropomorphism is a direct and effective way to extend the mind-reading ability of other species to emotionally attach to animals.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Chinese government's policy of banning the trade and consumption of wildlife, as I have a relative in my family who works for one of the wildlife-rich environmental protection bureaus, most of the buying of wildlife is based on speculation about people's curiosity and desire to experience it in an appetizing way. And unfortunately, most of the people who hunt wildlife are not capable of teaching the awareness and understanding of the dangers of the examples mentioned in the article because most of the poachers are profit-driven and their social-economical status makes it difficult for them to have the same beliefs. Therefore, I feel that education is an important part of the process, and how to make more people, or those who are more inclined to do so, aware of this crisis is far-reaching.
ReplyDeleteReading this interview made me think of Planet Of The Apes (amazing movie 10/10 would recommend). The apes that are being tested on gain higher intelligence and start a revolution to be free. It’s just a movie and it’s unlikely that the events that happen in the movie would take place in real life. But I think it has a very powerful message about how we are hurting animals for almost no reason. I completely agree with Professor Harnad on that hurting or killing an animal including other humans should only be done if vitally necessary.
ReplyDeleteIn the article we can see that the way animals are being treated is affecting us negatively in the long term as well. Even if you don’t believe the sentience of animals, you believe in your own. Humans, by nature, are selfish. So be selfish but be smart with it. Animals should be in their own habitats and we should be in ours.
Wiebers and Feigin’s article provided to be a reflective read for myself. The article underscores that proactive action is essential to prevent future crises. In rethinking both our relationship with other species and with our environment we can safeguard not only our future, but the futures of countless animal species who may not have the affordances that we do. The environment is resilient in and of itself, but it’s the byproduct of environmental changes that affects animal life in a meaningful way—ie. ocean temp raising by a small fraction can wipe out many fish.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles and watching the video, it made me conduct more research about the animal cruelty done in slaughterhouses for the production of food. Studies show that the process of producing beef in a slaughterhouse not only affects the cows, but it also affects workers in the slaughterhouse that kill the cows on a daily basis. Research has shown that slaughterhouse workers tend to get PTSD and psychological trauma, which include having higher rates of anxiety, anger hostility, phobic anxiety, somatization, and psychotism. This itself shows that our mirror neurons, which makes us empathize with these animals are making these workers feel guilt and remorse, which leads them into getting PTSD and psychological traumas. Thus, these gruesome processes not only affects animals but also affects humans, since they are killing these sentient animals, witnessing their death everyday.
ReplyDeleteI agree that although we are not sure whether animals have feelings, we nevertheless should refrain from hurting them unless vitally necessary. Even if there is hard evidence suggesting that animals, at least certain species, are not able to feel anything, I believe that it does not mean that we can abuse them. Think of it in the case of people with congenital insensitivity to pain and anhidrosis, would you hurt a person without feeling guilty because you know they won’t feel the pain? I guess anyone who is able to empathize would not do this, even though they know that the person being hurt cannot really feel it, because the harm to that person is still real. Why wouldn’t this be the same with animals? If we don’t hurt a person with CIPA because we know we are still causing harm to them, then we could also choose not to hurt the animals even if they cannot feel pain. One might argue that the former is true because it happens to our same kind. But there are also consequences with hurting and killing animals, which is the extinguishing and extinct of certain species that is mentioned in Wiebers and Feigin’s paper, and surely it is a concern to human being.
ReplyDeleteYihei, CIPA is not insentience, and, there are other negative feelings besides pain (fear, stress, anxiety, depression). Harm is not the same as damage: One can damage nonliving things, but what would it mean to say we harm a stalactite if we damage or destroy it? Not all living things are sentient; some are alive but do not feel (e.g., fungi, plants, single cells, jn vitro organs).
DeleteIt is clear that we cannot study the HP currently, because of HP and the barrier of OMP. But we feel that we feel. A turing test through reverse engineering process is an approach to solve the EP, which in terms to address with HP, based on the fact that by solving EP, we could finally tell if there is still space leaving for HP at the end. But how about the study of sentience of animals? By study the neural structures of sentient creatures, is it enough to draw the distinguishing line between feeling and non-feeling? It seems like this is what we can do so far. Therefore, in order to solve the OMP, not only is a milestone in HP, but also for animal science.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it catches my attention when I think about human abortion. It is debatable that when is the critical period for human embryo to develop feelings. The moment when neural system is roughly developed to certain completion? Or certain module is formed responsible for feeling.
Eugene, if mirror-neurons are not enough to inspire mercy for animals, it is unlikely that hurting them even more with invasive neuroscience will inspire us to be any kinder.
DeleteWe are privileged to be able to choose whether or not to be vegan when the animals we consume cannot choose their fate. We are privileged to decide to learn about factory farm environments when it is the conditions the animals we consume live in. We are privileged to be able to choose our diet when climate change has to be met with collective action.
ReplyDeleteMiriam, I guess what you mean is that we have a choice but our victims do not.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI read professor Harnad’s interview at the beginning of this class actually and it was funny to see it back here at the end of it the course. My take on the COVID-19 article as always comes from a pragmatic perspective. I am not a religious person, but I know that many are. The rhetoric that is used in the article can easily be co-opted in a religious context and as one possible example we could say that this is God’s first warning/punishment for our (as a species) horrific treatment of animals. Messaging and effectual change is everything in this issue and getting change to happen requires strategy. I appreciate this article because of its holding to the line and using this opportunity to speak upon the wet-market and factory farming industries and seizing this to call for change and prohibition.
Harnad argues we should be much more concerned about animal welfare. One rather insubstantial criticism of this view is the non-realist view of reality; it appears likely that in fact, with more careful considerations, many or most people would come to the realization that it is not acceptable for them to eat factory farmed meat, according to their own preferences. Harnad correctly points to this currently being a choice, in nearly all practical cases and more so in the west.
ReplyDeleteThe COVID-based reason for avoiding animal cruelty is, on the other hand, plausibly a much weaker one. In fact, it seems likely that COVID has a lab-origin, and if true this would seem to argue for better regulation and safety around gain-of-function research, and weaken the interviewers' point. I also think factory farming has such unbelievable proportions that the marginal impact of reducing this horror is much, much higher than trying to reduce experimental animal suffering, though this of course is also a major and critical concern.