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
This article and the concept of animal sentience have helped me to better understand the other minds problem and the Turing Test. The idea that a robot needs to look like a person in order for us to believe in its consciousness initially seemed arbitrary to me. Now, when I consider how animals are treated by human beings, I am beginning to realize that people are a little bit less complicated than one might hope. Our belief in the consciousness of other people is impossible to confirm (hence the other minds problem). However, indistinguishability from ourselves seems to aid us in deciding who is feeling and who is not. I see that something looks as I do, moves through life as I do, and I assume that it feels and hurts as I do. Perhaps this is why the Turing Test is so centred around indistinguishability? Perhaps this speaks to in-group and out-group biases in human beings. This certainly applies to the concept of Key’s paper about fish and pain. Key assumes’s that fish do not feel pain because (in my opinion) fish look so different from human beings. No one is questioning whether or not primates feel pain, perhaps because we see ourselves in primates. However, we all (at least in the class I believe) agree that we would not kick a T3 robot. Seems to me as though there is some cognitive dissonance here.
ReplyDeleteGreat points and I would agree, it seems we are putting a lot of weight on humans/primates and perhaps biasing how we view other species. I think the ideas in these papers speak to the limitations in relying on the Turing Test when it comes to all species that we are questioning feeling capacity. I do not think using the Turing Test that focuses on indistinguishability from us is sufficient to use for a fish, for example. Does this mean that we should be using a "fish-version" of the TT? As an additional aside, I do think it is flawed to give the benefit of the doubt to humans but not other animals, when in reality, we still can't be 100% sure about either.
DeleteThe TT works as well as it does because of our human mind-reading capacities (instilled by lazy evolution). "Stevan Says" they can work almost as well with other species, if we observe and interact with them enough.
DeleteThat's for giving other species the benefit of the uncertainty and treating them humanely.
But for cogsci's "easy problem" of reverse-engineering cognition it is only for the human TT that we have enough mind-reading capacity (and know our "ethogram" well enough) to use. A fish TT is not only not enough for a human judge, it wouldn't be enough for a fish judge either. (Why not?)
I think connecting this to our in group/out group bias is a really good way of framing our exclusion of animals or other things that don't look or act so much like we do. I wonder even, if this bias could be connected to mirror neurons, which might only be adapted to work on humans, but some of this mirroring understanding can be transposed to other beings that look close to us, like primates.
DeleteThis might explain why we are able to feel empathy and recognize consciousness in some beings, but not other. This built-in neural bias paired with our social biases might help explain the strength of the cognitive dissonance we generate about animal sentience
DeleteUpon initial reading of your skywriting I did agree that a proposed reasoning as to why fish do not feel pain is because they look so different from us. However, this raises an ethical question surrounding the use of animal studies. Researchers use a variety of animals in scientific studies, however, monkeys and various primates are favoured because of their similarity to humans. I would argue that a primate more closely resembles a human than a fish. However, if this fact is generally agreed upon by the scientific community, (which can be inferred to be true as the reasoning behind primate studies is their similarity to humans) then this presents two separate options. Either the scientists feel that primates do not resemble humans enough for them to feel pain thus justifying their use in studies, scientists choose to ignore that primates feel pain like us because they look like us. However, as you stated, no one is arguing that primates do not feel pain because we see ourselves in them; thus leaving us with the bleaker and more upsetting option of the two.
DeleteThe fact that people would not kick a T3 robot but will eat fish seems very interesting to me. After all, we cannot know who is feeling and what others feel because of the other minds problem; however, we can guess them based on our interactions with them with empathy by using cues such as heart rates. The ingroup/outgroup bias is also interesting here, as lazy evolution may allow us to more easily empathize with species that look more like us to ensure kin selection -- the selfish genes. It also makes me think about the typicality effect in categorization -- if we consider ourselves as a prototype, we prefer to process items that share more similar features to us than more obscure items because the former requires less information processing. Maybe these are some of the reasons that empathizing with a chimpanzee is easier than empathizing with a fish.
DeleteLeah, don’t under-estimate the laziness of evolution and the power and scope of learning (unsupervised and supervised learning, as well as verbal instruction). Even the feature-detectors of kinship are flexible and modifiable, and not only in mammals and birds. We can learn to fear and hate, and we can learn to love and nurture. Our “mirror-neurons” are tuneable.
DeleteKatherine, right now we are still hurting and killing animals for Food, Fur, Fashion and Fun (the four Fs), even though it has already become completely unnecessary in the well-off parts of the planet.
Don’t you think that once we have renounced and outlawed inflicting all that gratuitous suffering on members of other species – as we have already renounced and outlawed enslaving, raping, torturing, and murdering members of our own – that our judgment about the fraction of medical research on animals that could save (human) lives might change too?
Is it realistic to imagine that people who are still munching on their bacon and cheeseburgers would nevertheless be ready to renounce the life-saving benefits of medical research?
Xingti, yes, empathizing with a chimpanzee is easier than empathizing with a fish, but taste and habit are probably by far the biggest factors. And ag-gag blinds us to the horrors.
In the last reading as well as this one, the connections between the material in this class and life outside of the classroom is becoming increasingly apparent. This article centralized around COVID-19 and yet, the takeaway of the topic made me think more about in-group inclusion and out-group exclusion, and how we humans categorize. As I wrote this skywriting, I realized this sentiment was shared by Bronwen. As mentioned, extension of belief that others are conscious and the other minds problem exists even in the in-group of humans, but the indistinguishability of our exterior assuages the lack of believability that there is consciousness. But with other non human sentient beings we may recognize there is consciousness but the extent of that believability does not permeate our actions. What’s more interesting about this is the consequences we as a species face due to this lack of courtesy to other sentient beings. While the article was very interesting, it’s simultaneously unfortunate to recognize that as a species, not are we only morally wrong and playing a role in agony of all others, but we’re also at fault for requiring the problem to be human-centric for a call-to-action to resonate deeper with many. There’s the hard problem of explaining how humans feel, but an equally hard problem is how to change not only our feelings but also our actions towards other species.
DeleteHow to change others? We have to start with ourselves. The single most positive thing you can do is to stop consuming and using nonhuman animals. The next is to inspire others to do the same. (Yes, in the end it all also percolates to helping other humans in need.)
DeleteHere is information about ag-gag laws in case I am not the only one who stumbled upon the term for the first time:
ReplyDelete"anti-whistleblower laws that apply within the agriculture industry. Popularized by Mark Bittman in an April 2011 The New York Times column (but used long before then by advocates), the term ag-gag typically refers to state laws in the United States of America that forbid undercover filming or photography of activity on farms without the consent of their owner..." (source: Wikipedia).
The law originated in the U.S. However, it arrived in Canada in the states of Ontario and Alberta at the end of 2019.
Yes. And ag-gag is the best way to prevent humans from becoming aware of the unspeakable suffering humans are inflicting. Otherwise could not Americans "give thanks" the way they were doing on November 25.
DeleteAs we discussed in class and I believe most could agree, if all were able to be exposed to the treatment of animals in agricultural facilities, no one would eat meat. Understandably, the companies controlling meat production understand this and attempt to hide this mistreatment through ag-gag to avoid widespread exposure and damage to their reputation and economic position. Do these same laws apply to university research? Are there some sort of lab-gag laws as well? I would have to imagine in some ways, universities can have legal privacy within their animal methods under the guise of intellectual property, but to what extent does this lead to mistreatment? Animal researchers, I believe more than any other profession, would have to confront the other minds problem the most conflictingly, as they simultaneously use animals as a model to reflect human behaviours, disease, and responses to clinical treatment, while the same instance using them in a variety of human and inhumane way to get to their desired end of human understand. I just found this to be a sort of ironic way of looking at animal research for if you ground your research on the fact that animals are like humans, you must then confront that they feel and think as humans do too.
DeleteMaybe I am being cynical, but I am not confident that all people would stop eating meat if they witnessed the atrocities of the meat production industry. After all, I'm sure many people that own and work in such facilities may enjoy a chicken dinner after a days work. There is a prevalent theme in social advocacy today that relies on education to incite action. For example, if we educate people on cultural differences they won't be racists, but unfortunately this is often not the case. In no way do I mean to equate animal cruelty and racism, but I think that in both cases it cannot stop at whistle-blowing if changes in our society are to be made.
DeleteGenavieve, yes, researchers see their victims’ suffering up-close. So do “livestock” producers and slaughterers. Both can get used to it and learn to tune it out -- the researchers with the (sometimes) true belief that they are doing it for human health and the producers/slaughterers with the false belief that they are doing it for human health. Those (like Paul McCartney) who believe that exposure to the horrors will change hearts and minds are thinking of the hearts and minds of the consumers, not the producers.
DeleteLucie, exposure is not just whistle-blowing; it’s meant to reveal to consumers the truth about what they are paying to sustain. (You are right, though, that any horror can be habituated to.) But what my inner pig tells me is that what she needs is not cynics or sceptics, but someone to save her.
This is left over from today's class on Veganism:
ReplyDeleteGetting into arguments about what's more/less ethical is tricky because different people have different values. That being said, what do you make of the fact that vegans and vegetarians must support agriculture more to eat vegetables and avoid killing animals for meat. However, agriculture also indirectly kills sentient animals (such as rabbits, rodents, small mammals that hide in crops) and it's not a small number. Agriculture is also responsible for around 9% of global emissions each year. What's the Vegan response to this?
Also, where do you draw the line for what a sentient being is? If a pig is sentient, is a rat? is an ant sentient? a virus? why or why not?
I am not asking these questions to be confrontational or get into an argument but because I'm curious on others' thoughts.
Laurier, in response to your point about agriculture’s effects on ecosystems, I want to return to some things we said during class. As some people mentioned, under capitalism, no consumption is ethical — all we can do is take a first step towards making our lifestyles more ethical, but by no means is a certain change in diet, like becoming vegan, the ultimate ethical lifestyle.
DeleteMany of the decisions we make in life, as privileged individuals in North America, is based on the suffering of others — whether that be animals or humans. It is thus insufficient to claim that a specific kind of decision is ethical, and all others are not, and to critique decisions based on their negative effects; all decisions have negative effects. In fact, there are no truly and entirely ethical decisions — that is why nobody is claiming that there are absolutely no negative by-products to reliance on agriculture. The only point at hand is that it will reduce suffering of the most sentient beings, given that, as Harnad said, 98% of the animals killed are killed for food, and reduce global emissions.
We also can’t compare a pig and a rat in terms of which is more sentient; there is no way to know because of the other minds problem, but ultimately, all that matters is that both are (with reasonable doubt, but almost entire certainty) sentient. The basis for encouraging a reduction in animal product consumption is not that it will eradicate all animal torture and killing, but that it will have the biggest positive impact on the world.
“This is left over from today's class on Veganism”
Delete(The class was actually on why and how (only) feelings matter. That it is wrong to hurt or kill needlessly was a premise, and veganism was one of the conclusions.)
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to reply to these questions!
“What's more/less ethical is tricky because different people have different values.”
Yes. For the perpetrators it’s all just a matter of value differences.
But do you see how it’s not just a matter of value differences for the victims?
(That’s why the other-minds problem is their problem rather than ours.)
“What do you make of the fact that vegans and vegetarians must support agriculture more to eat vegetables and avoid killing animals for meat?”
Everyone must “support” agriculture, whether vegan or meat-eater. But much more agriculture (and land) goes into growing food to feed the animals (so we can eat them) than if we eat the fruits (and veggies) of the agriculture directly from the same land.
And, as I think Caroline mentioned in class, we get 1/10 as much food from the land if we funnel it through animals instead of consuming it directly.
And used directly, the same land could feed 40% more of the humans on the planet. Many humans are still starving or undernourished today.
(And the animals we no longer breed and feed to suffer and die needlessly for our tastes and habits would not have the slightest objection if their generation were the last of that Eternal Treblinka…)
“Agriculture also indirectly kills sentient animals (such as rabbits, rodents, small mammals that hide in crops)…”
Agriculture kills far, far fewer animals when it is used directly to feed humans rather than to fatten up far more animals for our taste.
But, point taken. Convert human consumption to plant-based and then use the ingenuity that brought as the horrors of factory farming to instead make plant agriculture more merciful.
"…and it's not a small number.”
Laurier, your arithmetic here is so obviously off that you might ask yourself why you didn’t notice it.
Here’s the current animal death toll:
1. C: First, there’s the agricultural “collateral-animal-death-count” that you mention: the total number of animals killed by agriculture in growing fruits, vegetables and grains. Let’s call that number C:
2. But what you completely missed noticing was the fact that C remains exactly the same if we divide the agriculture between growing food to feed people and growing food to feed human food-animals (as we do now) OR we use all the agriculture directly to raise food to feed people. The “collateral-animal-death-count” remains C, either way we do it.
PLUS
3. M: You overlooked completely the direct animal death toll of the animals we raise and feed (so that we can then slaughter and eat them ourselves as meat). Call that M.
3. So, first of all, as I said earlier, M is already much, much bigger than C: M>>>C. So of course (C+M) is still more enormous than C.(C+M)>>>>>>C
4. That means that when you say that C is “not such a small number” you are leaving out two orders of magnitude of difference. We are comparing our current omnivore agriculture, whose animal death toll is (C+M) with the animal death toll of vegan agriculture, which is C, exactly the same as it is now (until we work to make vegan agricultural much more merciful).
How could one make such a big miscalculation? Cognitive dissonance is usually the driver. Using our mirror neurons (and cognition) to adopt the victims’ perspective would have made it obvious that C is not changed at all by a transition from omnivore agriculture to vegan agriculture, but that total animal mortality is changed enormously: (C+M) minus M = C<<<<<<(C+M)
”Agriculture is also responsible for around 9% of global emissions each year.”
DeleteThat refers to the current omnivore agriculture. Now go look up (preferably on Google Scholar rather than Google) the estimates for how much that would be reduced if all agriculture were vegan (down by 2/3rds). (And that’s only part of what each of us can do against emissions, pollution, habitat loss, species extinction and the other threats to life on the planet: Have a look at Greta’s suggestions: all of them are obvious.
”What's the Vegan response to this?”
See above.
“Also, where do you draw the line for what a sentient being is?”
Whether it can feel (anything at all).
And for ethics (since neither neutral sensations nor orgasms matter), it’s Jeremy Bentham’s Principle: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
“If a pig is sentient, is a rat?”
Yes; yes.
“is an ant sentient”
Yes. https://wellbeingintl.org/webinar-series-invertebrate-animal-sentience/
“a virus?"
No; the organ of sentience is the nervous system, which viruses (and microbes, and plants) do not have.
“why or why not?"
See above. If you’re curious about the invertebrate evidence, see the link above. For pigs and rats, all you need is your eyes and your mirror neurons.
“I am not asking these questions to be confrontational or get into an argument but because I'm curious on others' thoughts.”
Curiosity is welcome.
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
DeleteHi Professor, in no manner am I disagreeing with what you have written above, however I was hoping to gain some clarification on one of your points. When you say “that’s why the other - minds problem is their problem rather than ours”, where does that leave us? The ability to point out whose problem it is provides a pathway for others to attempt amendments, but does this not make box us into a passive role?
DeleteHi Katherine! I interpreted the claim that the other mind's problem is the problem of the victim and not the perpetrator to mean that we do not suffer the consequences of the other mind's problem, the animals do. So it makes no difference to them what we believe, the outcome is still the same and it is catastrophic for them. I agree that it could be argued that this puts us in more of a passive role, but I took it as more of an imperative to end the suffering first, and then dig into the other mind's problem. Because we are not harmed by whatever our belief about animal sentience is, they are.
DeleteMy interpretation of the claim was that it wasn't meant to make us passive (we are the active agents in creating harm), but that when given such a consequential issue, we should quickly end the harm, and then attempt to answer the other mind's problem. I believe in this as well, because ethically speaking we are doing much less harm if we stop killing animals and then discover some are not sentient in the way we may or may not believe, then if we are if we continue killing them and only stop once we somehow overcome the problem.
Madelaine, you're right, I wasn't saying to the victim "That's your problem, not mine." I was saying to the observer that what matters is to save the victim, not pondering certainty and uncertainty.
DeleteI see, thank you for the clarification! So I guess this then answers the age old question as to whether we would kick Eric or not.
DeleteYes!
DeleteBased on the discussions we had in class yesterday, I’ve been thinking about the implications of making ethical changes to our diets. We all know that meat and dairy industries are incredibly powerful and harmful, and I wonder whether it is even possible to override this through individual changes, regardless of how many of us change our diets. Won’t the wheels of capitalism keep on turning? Wouldn’t it take many many years for the change in demand to influence how many animals are tortured and killed?
ReplyDeleteOn a somewhat related note, I’ve also been thinking about the potential of lab-grown meat to thrive if changes at the institutional level are made, rather than at the individual level. Currently, strategies for lab-grown meat are being tested in labs, and there have been some successes; however, despite the common belief that lab-grown meat doesn’t involve slaughtering animals, the current success in lab-grown meat research relies on fetal bovine serum, which involves killing animals. For a small quantity of meat, like a burger, many pregnant cows need to be tortured to obtain this serum, and no alternatives to the serum have been shown to work so far.
There is also the question of cost; a synthetic, non-animal serum to replace the bovine serum (and make lab-grown meat more ethical than the current meat industry) would be *incredibly* expensive, making the whole process kind of counter-productive because people couldn’t get access to it.
This brings me to my point. I understand that cognitive dissonance is dangerous, but it is also dangerous to be under the illusion that our actions can actually make a noticeable difference when it comes to deeply rooted issues like animal killing and climate change. It often puts people in a position where they are filled with guilt, and are content with making small changes to avoid looking at the deeper issue, which is fundamentally a systemic and capitalist one.
We can do our part in order to not feel guilty — there is not much harm in doing this — but I strongly believe that only by challenging institutions and big corporations can an impact be made for this purpose. For instance, if more attention and funding was given to research for lab-grown meat, regulations were imposed on corporations, and there was a bigger focus on policy-making to establish inalienable animal rights, so many problems would be solved. Much more so than by encouraging some people to reduce their meat consumption. This, again, won’t really affect such powerful industries as the meat and dairy industries. I’m not usually one to believe that appealing to the state is the solution, but I think that when it comes to engrained behaviours and practices that our ancestors practiced for millennia, relying on individuals to change doesn’t seem feasible to achieve change on a global scale…
Juliette, the meat and dairy industry, like any other consumer industry, depends on consumer demand, i.e., on us. If we stop buying their products, there’s no point their producing it (although this supply/demand curve is distorted by heavy government subsidies, sustained by industry lobbying).
Delete(The transition could perhaps be hastened and smoothed by a gradually increasing cruelty-tax on all production, sale and purchase of animal products, used instead as a rebate on the production, sale and purchase of non-animal alternatives.)
Many different forms of lab-grown meat and dairy alternatives are being developed and tested today. One of them is being developed here in Montreal by a vegan PhD student of mine at UQÀM. His doctorate is on categorical perception, but his work on lab-grown milk is being done at Concordia (on his own). It does not involve hurting any animals. The original cells come from mammary cells in cow’s milk, from a grocery store, and once you harvest them you generate more mammary cells, to produce milk. I’m not up to date, but I think similar no-hurt alternatives are being developed in lab-grown meat to. (You should look into it more, Juliette.)
I personally have no interest at all in food that looks like or tastes like meat or dairy. But if it helps to make people decide to give up meat, so be it. I would have hoped that the huge variety of plant-based food would be enough to inspire people to stop the horrors, but for those who won’t stop till they can get the same taste, it’s better than letting the victims keep bleeding.
I am no friend of capitalism either. But I don’t want to keep the victims bleeding while we fight capitalism. We can give up meat and fight capitalism.
Nor is it clear that it’s easier to convince governments to do the things you mention, Juliette, than it is to convince people not to stop eating meat. In fact, wouldn’t it be easier for voters to convince the government to do those things if they themselves wanted them too? That’s why I thought round-the-clock web-streamed live CCTV evidence of the horrors might at least awaken citizens to the horror; and even if that wasn’t yet enough to convince them to give up meat altogether, it might at least be enough to convince them to support a cruelty tax.
And then declining meat/milk sales from the cruelty tax might be enough to convince the capitalists to transition toward animal-free alternatives.
How to get the ball rolling with CCTV monitoring? It seems that (despite the industry’s ag-gag efforts) enough partial evidence of the horrors on the online media was enough to inspire UK citizens to use protests and petitions to induce the government to require CCTV in all slaughterhouses. The critical missing factor, though, was the web-streaming and crowd-sourcing. The output from the CCTV just goes to (hidden) industry-internal “inspectors.” So there, so far, industry (capitalism) is still triumphing. Yet I think there is hope, though it’s hard for vegan activists to be “patient” while it’s not us but the victims who have to keep bleeding.
Juliette, I think you bring up some very good points. Returning to your argument about the danger of believing that my own independent, individual actions will “make a noticeable difference when it comes to deeply rooted issues” is something I find myself reflecting on a lot. With respect to climate change especially, it often makes me feel quite hopeless as well. I reuse, I recycle, I try to walk everywhere in order to keep my carbon footprint low, but I never feel like I am doing enough. Whenever I use a reusable or paper straw, all I can think of is the 2017 IPCC report saying that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. I can use and reuse my straw as many times as I want, but it will never be enough and it will never change anything. If everyone on Earth were to also have a reusable straw, it would still not be enough, because the root of the problem (in my eyes, at least) is capitalism.
DeleteLike Professor Harnad says, “we can give up meat and fight capitalism,” and we definitely should! It is no secret that we as a society eat too much meat, and this is not only detrimental to our health but also very obviously to the people and other animals that fall victim to The System (capitalized for emphasis). Last class, I wrote in the chat that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and I stand by that. However, there are steps we can take to being more ethical, though everyone has their own definition for the word.
This once again brings me back to one of the plotlines of The Good Place, a TV show that I find myself watching again and again. (Spoilers ahead, proceed with caution) The premise of the show is that people accumulate points over the course of their lives for the actions they take, and only people past a certain point cutoff make it to the Good Place, otherwise known as heaven. One of the main characters discovers that no one has made enough points to get into the Good Place in over 500 years, and this is because the world is now so much more complicated. One can choose to eat a tomato over a steak thinking it is more ethical, but it turns out that the decision will lose them points anyways because the tomato was sprayed with pesticides harmful to the environment, the tomato was picked by an exploited immigrant worker, and all the revenue from the tomato went to a greedy CEO that continues to abuse his workers. I think this is especially relevant in light of the discussion we had in class last Friday. A tomato cannot feel pain and a cow can (OMP-permitting), but a tomato also has repercussions. Thus, I think the gist of it lies in where we draw our boundaries and where we set our own limits regarding ethical behavior.
Do I think that killing animals is wrong? Yes, absolutely. Do I also think that exploiting the working class to the bone in order to serve the interests of the ultra-rich is wrong? Yes! Once again, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but this does not mean that we can go running around doing whatever we want and committing unethical behavior in the sake of anti-capitalism. Personally, I understand this quote to be about being as ethical as we can be while all the while recognizing that small individual actions will not bring about much change until the corporations responsible for all of the widespread destruction and death in the world do their part. No behavior will be entirely ethical until the entire system is dismantled, but as always, much easier said than done. And, like Professor Harnad says, while we sit around and wait for this dismantling, there are real-world consequences for victims.
Maybe I’m just too pessimistic, but it seems like we can’t do much about the meat/dairy industry or we can eventually switch to all plant-based societies but it would take years and years. I also watched The Good Place, Emma, and I thought that was an intriguing connection. Currently, with the meat/dairy industry so intertwined in capitalism and our everyday lives, if we don’t eat meat and choose vegetables, some moral “points” are still lost. If people start eating less meat, the workers in the meat plants will lose jobs, animals will be in withdrawal/pain (e.g. I think not milking cows for an extended time is very painful if they’re used to it regularly ?), we’re contributing to pesticide industries and exploited immigrant workers, etc. The power of the meat/dairy industry is so big that it becomes which of the two options is less worse, not which is better. Unfortunately, both harm the environment (and us)! How can we lessen the power of the meat/dairy industry when they have billions of dollars to advertise their products and convince people to buy and eat their products? They have money to corrupt legislators to not set legal bans on meat and to pay for advertisements online. I don’t think it’s worth not trying at all, but how much can we really do (unless the majority of the 7+billion people in the world stop switch to veganism, but I don’t think that’s feasible in the next few decades)?
DeleteMelody, I agree that it may take some time to culturally shift from meat-based diets to plant-based diets, but I believe the change is happening, already on a much faster scale than we are aware. It wasn’t that long ago that plant-based alternative to meat were far and few between in the grocery aisles. Now, they by no means outnumber the amount of meat that is sold, but they inhabit a significant section of the grocery store, with competing brands and options for people to choose from. In my recent memory, I can recount the growth from only almond milk being available in my grocery store, to now oat, soy, and even macadamia nut milk, with many other options I can’t even recount now. This change wouldn’t have happened without the demand from vegans, vegetarians, lactose-intolerant peoples, and others on alternative diets.
DeleteThe meat and dairy industries are inherently tied to capitalism, but as consumers we can influence these companies. If meat and dairy companies were to see that national public sentiment was growing against meat and dairy consumption, I cannot deny that they might lobby and advertise against this shift. Ultimately, however, if public opinion held steadfast, they would simply chase money and the consumer, shifting their own production to pant-based alternatives. They have the money and means to do so, they simply don’t because the economic incentive to stay in meat/dairy is overpowering with the current meat-eating practices of the public. I’d like to believe that collective small action could bring big change. For now, it may be too much to ask all 7 billion people on the planet to hard switch to veganism. Bit by bit reduction of meat consumption, however, would decrease the incredibly high demand we are at today, which could weaken this power you fear from these companies, until they have no choice but to move to what will be the more economically favorable (as in people seek it) and more ethical means of production.
Emma, be careful to avoid constructing a “Zeno’s Paradox” in your thinking about ethics and personal action. (Zeno was the one who implied that you can never get across the room, because that takes time, and before you can do that, you have to get half way across the room, and that takes time too; and before you can get half way across the room, you have to get half way across half way across the room, and so on. So basically there’s no point even trying…
DeleteNow Zeno’s Paradox was based on a fallacy, or a misunderstanding of time and distance, and the way time and distance increments shrink as they become infinitesimal and approach zero.
But there’s also a fallacy in the notion that “What I do makes no difference, so what’s the point of doing it?” Evolution itself shows that tiny differences can make huge differences if they spread. Genetic differences spread by their effects on survival and reproduction. Dawkins made a (somewhat misleading) analogy between genes and “memes.” Memes are things that organisms do that spread by non-genetic means, mostly direct or indirect imitation. Memes can include actions, words and ideas – including both brilliant, productive ideas and fake news/conspiracy theories, dance steps and kopykat killers. (Both lazy evolution and “mirror neurons” should come to mind.)
First, do as much as you can as an individual, and then devote yourself to spreading the example. (Remember the benign “pyramid scheme” [Week 11]?) The online social media have empowered both good and bad memes to spread faster and more globally than ever. While capitalists are gathering in the wealth, you should spread the word, and the deed. You might surprise yourself how quickly it’s possible to get across the room after all.
And remember the Precautionary Principle and Pascal’s Wager, and the consequences of self-fulfilling prophecies and not even trying. The other-minds problem is the other minds’ problem. If we have the luxury and luck of having a choice, we should choose to try to be part of its solution.
Melody, my inner pig says “Stop theorizing about all the reasons there’s no point trying to cross the room: Just cross it. Save me!”
Genavieve, yes, capitalism is powerful, but as you show, it depends on consumers and demand. Industry can manipulate demand with false advertising, but whistle-blowers can counter that with the truth. Then our mirror neurons can draw their own conclusions.
For this skywriting, I wanted to comment on the “What the COVID-19 crisis is telling humanity” article. Having been a vegetarian for almost a decade, I have long been aware of the reasons why such a diet (especially a fully vegan one) is beneficial, and the environmental and global health arguments are the most fascinating to me. The article focuses largely on how the pandemic is a result of current meat-eating habits, being summarized in the following quote: “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.” Indeed, H1N1 and a majority of pandemics can be traced down to interactions between humans and animals. As a result of both climate change and the food industry, the living conditions of animals, both captive and in the wild, have greatly deteriorated and are leading to an increasing rate of disease within these populations (due to forced migrations, tight unsanitary cages, etc.). Because animals are often forced to live near humans for sustenance and are consumed at an alarming rate, it is very easy for their diseases to percolate into our own species. As much as a wet market may have led to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the way livestock is treated in the West is not any better and has led to outbreaks in the past. Even hunting animals for leisure or sustenance these days is rather unsafe. I agree that if we want safeguard public health in the future, meat consumption and its industry must be halted. That being said, I believe that we must be culturally sensitive when doing so, given how hunting can be a traditional and highly valuable practice and skill. Wet markets, having been to a few myself, also have a cultural connotation that cannot be dismissed.
ReplyDeleteHuman cultural habits vs. animals' agony and blood...
DeleteFair bargain?
It's also worth noting that at the time this article was released, the main theory for COVID-19's origin was the wet market theory but that has since shifted. There has been mounting evidence over the last year that has persuaded scholars to give more credence to the lab leak theory, which is more of a side note but still relevant to the article.
DeleteTo your point about hunting Camille, not only is hunting an undeniable part of human culture but it is our most successful adaptation to the natural world. With 90% of human history being spent hunting and gathering, it's built directly into our biology. While we can raise ethical questions about hunting in the 21st century, I know exactly what you are talking about when you mention a connotation that can't be missed. The way hunters talk about how meaningful and sacred the practice is really makes you think about how we were specifically adapted to do just that and how intensely meaningful it must be to live that lifestyle as our entire being was designed for it.
Culture does and always will be an integral part of human existence and anything that diminishes or damages culture should be disagreed with, if not abolished. However, culture is not static. In fact, I believe if culture were static, it would be doing a very bad job of “doing” what it is supposed to do. In the cultural connotations of wet markets, I believe a more accurate term to describe them would be something along the lines of historical note or significance. I don’t believe that knowing what we know about consciousness and animal sentience aligns wet markets with current cultural values. Another example of this is the dog meat eating festival in South Korea. One could argue that this festival holds cultural connotations to South Koreans, but the prime minister of Korea has recently suggested banning the continuance of this festival as it no longer aligns with the collective morals and opinions of South Korean residents, and aren’t collective morals and opinions an integral part of culture?
DeleteI agree with the point that culture is not static. In fact, culture reflects the attitudes and beliefs of the majority that has power, and it can be reinforced by policies/education/media. etc. That is to say, what is considered "normal" is not necessarily right but because of the power. In my opinion, it is worth doing on our behalf and spreading out the ideas than keeping it silent. Just like the black lives matter or the Me Too movement, it is gratified to see a trend that people began to care more about the rights of the minority due to more and more people speaking out -- the culture is changing. Similarly, veganism speaks for animal rights and seems no different from the previous human rights movements by inferring that we both have feelings.
DeleteLaurier:
Delete(1) The Wiebers & Feigin target article was not about wet markets or lab leaks.
(2) Hunting and meat-eating was adaptive earlier in our species’ history, in our ancestral environment, just as our “sweet tooth” was (Week 7); neither of them is still either adaptive or necessary in our current environment.
(Warfare and pillaging -- maybe even enslavement and rape -- were also once adaptive in our species’ history, but most thoughtful people agree that we should get over it. Yes, some still make a cultural cult of warfare, but lazy evolution has left us the means of getting over it: How?)
Kate, yes, that’s the way that lazy evolution works: instead of genes, it’s memes that mutate and evolve, culturally. This applies also to memes that have a Baldwinian bent, like fear of spiders and any male predilections for coercive mating. (Week 7).
Xingti, me too!
"Vitally necessary?...That means that there’s a conflict of life-or-death interests...In the case of life-saving biomedical research a case can be made for conflict in vital interests: the laboratory animal’s life and the human life it could save.”
ReplyDeleteThis question of when (if ever) research is vitally necessary to the point of justifying suffering seems more difficult to answer than, say, whether taking life-saving medication that contains animal products is vitally necessary. The added difficulty in the case of research comes, in my mind, from the fact that it is not only the hypothesized benefits of an experiment that are relevant, but the likelihood that these benefits/results will be successfully actualized. If an experiment's results are fairly predictable, it is probably because similar research has been conducted in the past. In which case, is repeating the past research really vitally necessary? In the case that a more novel area is being investigated, there is more to be gained if an experiment gives the desired results, but far lesser certainty that these results will in fact be obtained.
So we have this situation where potential gain in vitally necessary knowledge and reasonable certainty that this knowledge will in fact be gained by a given experiment are usually at odds, meaning the risk-adjusted “vital necessity” of any experiment will likely be quite low. Among other reasons (another primary one being that there are always many, many ways to answer a scientific question, so resorting to harmful methods is often due to lack of imagination rather than lack if means), this leaves the number of harmful but vitally necessary experiments, in my mind, at few to none.
(A separate but related question is whether we can in good conscience play with the suffering of others in the context of a risk-benefit analysis at all. It seems illogical to not be a consequentialist about these things, but most of us would still at least hesitate to act this way when it comes to humans. So why would non-human suffering be in a different class, such that we can cold-heartedly calculate whether it is justifiable? Whether in the case of humans or other animals, this isn’t a question I am certain about myself, just something I think is relevant. Though I do think that consequentialist-type justifications of inflicting harm usually assume far greater certainty about the results of our actions than we actually have, so hold less weight in the real world than they might, at first glance, seem to deserve)
DeleteI agree that the percentage of animal research that is potentially life-saving is very low. The percentage of global meat-consumption that is vital for survival and health is even lower, and the number of animals victims is far, far higher.
DeleteConsequentialism? For whom?
The animal slaughter-counter
Delete"But the laws forbidding needless hurting and killing of human beings are already on the books just about everywhere, and most of us abide by and approve of them."
ReplyDeleteJust like the comparison of the global consumption of animals to the holocaust that was made in class, I quite fundamentally am provoked by and disagree with this conclusion that Harnad has made. 12 Million people were killed in the holocaust. The toll that this has taken on humanity is enormous and longstanding, and weighs in particular on the Jewish people, the Roma people, gay people, disabled people, and any of the other groups, including political groups, that were targeted by the nazis. Humans, as we speak, are being ground to the bone, working in our cobalt mines and our sweatshops. To say that there are ‘already laws in place’ protecting human life is to egregiously disrespect the suffering that goes on constantly under all of our noses, and yes, even our high-horse vegan noses. This is in no way a condemnation of veganism, which may be and most likely is a very ethical personal choice. However, massive cultural and traumatic inheritances are passed down from human generation to human generation. Suffering and symptom are wrapped up and stored in our languages. I find it unthinkable to compare the breadth and depth of the suffering humans face at the hands of genocidal regimes, such as that of the nazis, and that of our current global capitalist power structure based on exploitation and resource extraction, to the suffering animals face in a slaughterhouse. I hope that this does not read as an attack but rather as an invitation to sit with the profundity of the human suffering that undergirds our entire world system, and its intensity, complexity, and horror.
Sofia, you’ve been able to articulate a lot of the same thoughts that I’ve had jumbled in my mind over the last few days. We say that there are rules forbidding the needless hurting and killing of humans, but these rules are violated time and time again, day after day, with seemingly no consequence for the violators. Our world and our system is built on the bones of the oppressed, and though there are laws in place, it is extremely naive to believe that said laws are constantly and consistently being followed.
DeleteLike you said, I also believe that veganism is an ethical personal choice. If one has the resources and ability to undertake a vegan diet, I believe that it can not do harm and in fact can do a world of good. However, as I mentioned in my other 11c skywriting, one person going vegan will not change the world, nor will it retroactively undo the slaughter of all animals before.
I agree with you that comparing the Holocaust to animal slaughter does not seem right. Do I think this because I, as a human being, have the animalistic tendency to want to protect my species (humankind) over other species? Maybe. Do I think this because I lost relatives in the Holocaust and have a more personal, familiar connection to it than I would with animals being killed? Maybe. Do I think this because I have been exposed more often to the tragedies and intergenerational trauma that come with over a third of the people of my religion being murdered for no reason? Also maybe. Again, I have been thinking about this since we last had class, and I have not yet really come up with an answer I feel satisfied with. I do not think I ever will.
Both of these were/are needless, preventable killings, yes. Equating them, however, still does not feel appropriate or just in my eyes. I would be interested in hearing the other perspective on this, because I am finding myself unable to take a step back and understand the opposing view.
(1) Yes, the holocaust analogy is shocking. But it is evident, and has been noted, and debated, many times, perhaps beginning with Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “Eternal Treblinka.” The analogy has also been abused, notably by an aggressive animal rights advocate, in Israel, in a way that hurt many aged holocaust-survivors, who certainly did not deserve that. But ask yourself: If the Shoah was “humanity’s greatest crime against humanity” (as I, too, strongly believe it was), does it follow that it was “humanity’s greatest crime”? (It can be revealing to reflect on this in the context of anthropocentrism.)
Delete(2) That torture, murder, rape and enslavement have been outlawed, and condemned by all decent people, does not mean that those laws are faithfully obeyed or enforced. What has to be said, openly, though, because it too is true, is that in the case of nonhuman animals it is still legal to do to them those same things that it is illegal to do to humans. And that most people still continue to condone, demand and sustain doing them (through the capitalism that we are rightly deploring).
(3) In general, be watchful for “Whataboutism” when a (genuine) wrong is being pointed out and deplored. Not only can Whataboutism be triggered by guilt when I am myself guilty of committing the wrong (this reaction is what’s called “cognitive dissonance”), but it can also be triggered by overzealousness about another (genuine) wrong I deplore (like capitalism). (The charitable response to someone knocking at my door for a donation to a battered women’s shelter is not “what about the fight against poverty?”)
After reading this article as well as all the Skywritings, I would like to add something on the topic of eating meat and cultural habits. As mentioned above by Katherine, I agree that culture is not static, and our consumption habits, just like anything else, are subject to change when different priorities or environmental conditions put pressure on them. On the other hand, I don't agree with subsequent comments stating that culture reflects the attitudes and beliefs of the majority in power. I think that unique cultural habits can exist within any social group, regardless of social status. Although laws and social norms definitely put pressure on smaller cultural groups, I don't think they have enough coercive power to systematically dictate the "culture" of even the smallest of groups. That being said, I think it would be difficult to put laws in place that would quickly abolish meat consumption in many social groups where meat consumption is a central part of their culture. This means that we need to think outside the box if we want to create longlasting social change.
ReplyDeleteThis being an advanced psyc class, many of us are probably familiar with the different persuasive machanisms that have been shown to work (and not work) to change social habits. From what I've learned, using fear (such as showing videos of animals being slaughtered) has limited effectiveness in persuading people to change their behaviour in the long term (despite the initial shock). I don't claim to have all the answers myself, but I think that it would be interesting to discuss solutions that take into consideration our knowledge of human psychology. I think we owe it to ourselves to keep in mind that the majority of meat eaters are born and raised into a meat-eating community, and we are hard-wired to adopt the behaviours of the communities in which we have been brought up to ensure support and acceptance from our group.
In a nutshell, taking a step towards veganism is often a hard step away from family and belonging for many people, and any strategy that doesn't take this into consideration is going against human nature and in my opinion, is bound to fail.
Although we have every good reason to promote veganism, I think it would be more productive to take all this into consideration and come up with ways of supporting people through the social aspects of this transition instead of using coercive methods and promoting behaviours that would isolate people from their social circles. Maybe some will find this overly-optimistic, but I think it is within our scope to create long-lasting change that will benefit the animals WITHOUT creating further social divide among people, because we already have enough of that on our hands as it is.
Hi Isabelle, I think these are really good points. Obviously the dairy and meat industries would not be so successful if they were not a deep part of our society and upbringing. While I agree that fear is not a good motivating factor, I think that something that would be helpful in creating social change towards a reduction in the meat and dairy industries could be increasing cognitive dissonance. One way of doing this could be through showing videos of animals being slaughtered, or through talking more about the cruelties animals face. I think that because so much about the meat and dairy industries is hidden away and not discussed much, it allows people to ignore what is happening behind the scenes and reduce their cognitive dissonance. Particularly, marketing tactics that make these industries seem more humane also contribute to this reduction in dissonance. For example, ‘free-range’ chickens makes it seem like these chickens get to live with plenty of space on a farm somewhere. In reality, the law requires only 2 square feet per chicken to have the label of ‘free-range’. Marketing animal products this way allows people to feel better about what they are purchasing, and less likely to feel that they are harming animals. I think you are right that isolating people and shaming people for not being vegan will not be a successful tactic. Rather, I think it would be more successful to attempt to increase the cognitive dissonance by banning marketing such as ‘free-range’ and bringing more attention to the true horrors that are occurring.
DeleteIsabelle, good points. But in exposing animal suffering the intention is not to evoke fear but compassion. Nor is there any question of coercion, just information, and sensitization, to inspire empathy. But all approaches that actually save the victims are welcome.
DeleteEvelyn, it’s still not clear whether cognitive dissonance is an ally or a foe in the quest to halt the horrors. What is needed is a resolution of the conflict of interest that is inherent in the cognitive dissonance between taste/habits and the victims’ suffering. A resolution in favor of the victims. (If increasing the cognitive dissonance helps, that’s good; but it works both ways: the industry can increase the dissonance in the other direction by hyping trivial health factors, such as the need to take B12 supplements.)
Let me also add (not addressed to either of you, but from other threads I forgot to mention): Surely whether it is wrong to hurt innocent victims unnecessarily is not just a matter of “life style choice.”
Despite all the science-talk we’ve done throughout the course, we also had some references from literature (like Funes the Memorious) throughout the course to illustrate different terms. Not to be sentimental (pun not intended) but literature is one of the greatest products of the effability thesis of language and this course only strengthened this belief of mine. And what better way to portray the [other minds problem in relevance to suffering] than through literature itself. Thus, I would like to share an excerpt I was reminded of from a book I’ve read while doing the readings for Week 11.
ReplyDelete[Excerpt from the book “The Faraway Nearby” by Rebecca Solnit]
DeletePain, along with its cousin touch, is distributed universally on the body, providing a sort of boundary of self.
… Physical pain is often lonely, felt only by one person who must trust that others will believe and empathize, and convincing doctors of pain is one of the tasks of the sufferer without overt symptoms or causes. … Empathy is the capacity to feel what you do not literally feel, and Brand taught his young patients a kind of empathy for the extremities that no longer seemed part of themselves. “I feel for you,” people say. If pain defines the boundaries of the body, you participate in the social body with those you empathize with, whose pain pains you – and whose joy is also contagious.
Some empathy must be learned and then imagined, by perceiving the suffering of others and translating it into one’s own experience of suffering and thereby suffering a little with them. Empathy can be a story you tell yourself about what it must be like to be that other person; but its lack can also arise from narrative, about why the sufferer deserved it, or why that person or those people have nothing to do with you. Whole societies can be taught to deaden feeling, to disassociate from their marginal and minority members, just as people can and do erase the humanity of those close to them.
Empathy makes you imagine the sensation of the torture, of the hunger, of the loss. You make that person into yourself, you inscribe their suffering on your own body or heart or mind, and then you respond to their suffering as though it were your own. Identification, we say, to mean that I extend solidarity to you, and who and what you identify with builds your own identity. Physical pain defines the physical boundaries of the self but these identifications define a larger self, a map of affections and alliances, and the limits of this psychic self are nothing more or less than the limits of love. Which is to say love enlarges; it annexes affectionately; at its utmost it dissolves all boundaries.
… If the boundaries of the self are defined by what we feel, then those who cannot feel even for themselves shrink within their own boundaries, while those who feel for others are enlarged, and those who feel compassion for all beings must be boundless. They are not separate, not alone, not lonely, not vulnerable in the same way as those of us stranded in the island of ourselves, but they are vulnerable in other ways. Still, that sense of the dangers of feelings for others is so compelling that many withdraw, and develop elaborate stories to justify withdrawal, and then forget that they have shrunk. Most of us do, one way or another.
I wanted to share this excerpt because it resonates with both Prof Harnad’s interview and the article about COVID19. It also holds a LOT of things we’ve discussed throughout the course regarding the OMP. Prof Harnad states that the other minds problem is not a problem within our own species but for those other species which we do not know feel or deny whether they feel (regardless). To those other species that we do not grant the benefit of the doubt, suffering is at stake, mass suffering.
DeleteAnd as the excerpt states, societies can be taught to deaden feeling (empathy) with different narratives. All these narratives are narratives of cognitive dissonance and there are plenty as we all brought up during class and in the skywritings. COVID 19 was painfully interesting because it was such a clear example of major self-destruction (karma essentially) as a consequence of years of cognitive dissonance. YET there were/are still numerous narratives regarding COVID19 to numb ourselves to the destruction that eventually cycled back to our own because of our ruthlessness. “Ultimately, the survival, not only of other life forms on this planet, but also of our own, will depend upon humanity’s ability to recognize the oneness of all that exists and the importance and deeper significance of compassions for all life.” And to this statement, I could not agree more.
“They may believe animals are not sentient, or that their sentience, unlike ours, somehow does not include the capacity to suffer.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think most humans actually think this. Most people own a pet and most pet owners want what is best for their animals, I am one of them. We feel a sense of shame when we accidentally step on a dog’s tail, for example, and comfort them afterwards. I think most pet owners believe their pets can suffer. Why else are we protective of these animals? Nevertheless, there is still some cognitive dissonance when it comes to the animals we eat. We turn a blind eye and pretend that factory farm conditions aren’t that bad. I understand this and agree with changing our habits to limit/stop suffering. In my case, however, I would find it hard to go completely vegan. My grandmother has a small farm and loves her chickens and cows. She spends time with them, makes sure they are warm and in return, collects eggs and milk. I don’t think that qualifies as animal cruelty and therefore, I don’t feel a sense of guilt eating those eggs and the cheese coming from these animals.
I think you raise an interesting point when talking about your grandmother's farm, which reflect something broader that I've observed in the vegan/vegetarian discussion : sometime, it's the people who are the closer to the actual killing of the animals who seem to care about them the most.
DeleteNow of course I'm excluding, in this, employees in the industrial side of the meat/diary industry where animals are treated like objects and suffer horrible conditions. Instead, the examples I've noticed are small farms and hunters. When working at a nature protection job, I've seen very interesting discussion between employees who were vegan and others who hunted. Both had a very deep care for nature (hunters, after all, spend all their times hunting being in the forest) but also for the animal: while the vegan would never kill or harm an animal out of moral concern, hunters had a much "closer" relationship with those animals and in the end knew them much better. The same could be say, even more strongly, for small dairy and egg farms owner.
So this is interesting because you would think that people who develop deep bond with those animals would be most opposed to meat consumption, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, there are other factors involved (those people sometime rely economically on selling animal products), but to me it suggest that the industrial, large scale meat industry is maybe more to blame than the general concept of eating meat. (Or, in the other way, we could say that farmers/hunters exhibits a spectacular instance of cognitive dissonance)
I agree with your points Louise. I think the continuation and ubiquity of eating meat has more to do with the industry than morals itself. The meat industry is already well established and makes meat readily available for cheap prices. Alternative vegan options can oftentimes be more expensive and options are often limited. This makes it difficult to have a vegan diet, even if one believes that animals have feelings and that it is morally wrong to eat them. So to change how much we eat meat, I think we need to not only have the mindset that animals have feeling, but also change the social convention.
Delete“My grandmother has a small farm and loves her chickens and cows. She spends time with them, makes sure they are warm and in return, collects eggs and milk.”
DeleteCognitive Dissonance is subtle: We hear this, but we don’t ask ourselves “Where do they come from? And what becomes of them when they no longer produce? And what becomes of the calves of the “dairy” cows?”
No, every bit of animal production is tragically tainted and truly terrible, and always was -- even when it was necessary for survival, but more than ever now that it isn’t. You can’t kill kindly. Slaughter is not euthanasia. The occasional local cameos are not what they seem, nor do they scale. In a family farm they are just not visible every day. But on that day they are always visible – to the victim. There is no cradle-to-grave happy fate for “farmed animals except in sanctuaries (if they are lucky enough to be rescued), where they are no longer exploited and can live out the rest of their days safely.
“it's the people who are the closer to the actual killing of the animals [farmers/hunters] who seem to care about them the most”… “Or, in the other way, we could say that farmers/hunters exhibits a spectacular instance of cognitive dissonance”
I think you have answered your own question. And it applies to us too, when we sentimentalize hunters by contrasting them to the horrors of industrial production. For the terrified victims, when pursued and shot, do you think it feels better if the killer feels he loves them?
“The meat industry is already well established and makes meat readily available for cheap prices. Alternative vegan options can oftentimes be more expensive, and options are often limited… So to change how much we eat meat, I think we need to… also change the social convention.”
Actually, except if you just want imitation meat, Kantar (UK) reports that vegan meals are 40% cheaper than meat and fish meals. And UNFSS3021 reports they are healthier and more sustainable.
Why do you think the incorrect belief that vegan diet is more expensive keeps getting repeated without fact-checking?
But changing social convention is a good idea too! (The best first step is to go vegan.)
As others have discussed already, I also think about how can research be determined to be vitally necessary, and when can it be determined as wasteful. There are many obvious cases where animal research is not necessary, the majority of them in fact. But who is the arbiter, who decides when the research actually is vitally necessary? When there is an immediate possible benefit to us? Or if it is increasing scientific knowledge, will this step in research save lives ten, twenty years down the line as a building block? I think this is something that is hard to tell.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I definitely agree with your assessment here. I agree that there are many times that animal research should not have been conducted due to cruel or irrelevant/unhelpful findings. Personally, the biggest problem I find with animal studies is that there are rarely generalizable to humans, so we really don’t learn much from them other than ”okay, great now I know that a dog will salivate if I ring a bell” or “mice get jumpy when you give them cocaine” - but how does this help us understand anything about the human body or cognition?. Additionally, if we assume that animals do have sentience (as Harnad states), then why would it be okay at all to do experimental procedures on animals, unless it does provide a vital scientific finding that is unable to be arrived at any other way [And in this case, I would readily support carrying out human experiments if they can provide vital scientific information]. For example, the discovery that snake venom can be an antidote is clearly very beneficial for medical science, but that does not justify collecting all venomous animals to test if their venom could counteract another poisonous substance. Following this train of thought, I feel like this connects to the example of kicking a T3 robot — if we think that it may have feeling, then we choose not to kick it. It puzzles me why this logic (or benefit of the doubt) is not afforded to other species, when we would so readily give the benefit of the doubt to a potential robot.
DeleteAD, thank you, I found your explanation very helpful. I agree, it is strange that we would quickly give the benefit of doubt to a robot, but not an animal as quickly. For example, we find it morally wrong to do human experiments on unwilling subjects. From an animal's point of view, animal studies are the equivalent of human studies for the benefit of an animal species. This ingrained bias is cultural, social, and biological, but this class has been very helpful for not only offering arguments and viewpoints against this bias, but also by training us to a degree to be more analytical thinkers.
DeleteVital necessity can and should be decisive. But in the case of animals in biomedical research the boundary between vital (V) and non-vital (NV) is fuzzy, as it is between green and blue in color categorical perception, and the sound of ba and da in phoneme categorical perception. But move away from both sides of the fuzzy boundary and uncertainty shrinks to zero. You can’t mistake a focal blue for a focal green. And in research, much of it is focal NV, far from the V/NV boundary.
DeleteWhen it comes to the Four F’s (Food, Fur, Fashion and Fun) the use of animals is almost all squarely on the NV side of the V/NV boundary.
The overwhelming majority of human-inflicted animal suffering overall is the 4Fs, not the focal V biomedical research.
But once the four Fs and NV are abolished, the vegan world (i.e., all of us) will monitor the V/NV frontier with different eyes (and hearts) to make sure that any remaining V is minimal and merciful.
Some V/NV conflicts of interest (between humans, between humans and animals, and between animals, such as between predator and prey), however will remain a tragic but inescapable legacy of the Darwinian facts of life (and sentience).
After reading articles in week11, I have been thinking about what are the forces that drive most of us to eat meat while ignoring the fact that we are taking sentient lives cruelty. After going through the articles on ASent, I feel like we as humans only started to understand animal experiences from the animal perspective very lately. Still, we, however, have been holding their lives in our hands not only in animal research but mostly in the meat industry for a long time. The answer to whether it is moral to eat meat is given in readings this week. Without a doubt, everything we do nowadays impacts animals' lives since we are cohabiting on the same planet, but we could holistically protect animals by being vegan.
ReplyDeleteIn the aims & scope part on ASent, Prof. Harnad suggests two aspects we should consider: the capacity to feel and the similarities and differences in what they feel and how they can feel. I think the second point is precious since without considering the differences, it is easy to be convinced by the argument of analogy like Key proposed in 10a. From my point of view, one of the reasons for most of us is that we don't fully reckon with the responsibility when we are holding animals lives in our hands: we don't understand these animals that much, and therefore most of us don't even know or care what goes on behind those walls where we raise animals for our consumption.
We have things going in our minds, and we tend to assume these are the abilities exclusive of humans, such as consciousness, intelligence, empath, love, and so on. But there are other minds. We ignore the facts that they have a brain with nerves basically the same as ours. The only difference is in the organization of these nerves. When I was reading articles about animals' minds, one story shocked me a lot, and I wanted to share it with everyone in the last minutes.
DeleteIn an aquarium in South Africa, there was a baby bottlenose dolphin named Dolly. One day one of the keepers was on a smoking break, and Dolly saw him smoking through the tank. Dolly went over to her mother and came back to the winder, released a cloud of milk that enveloped her head like a cloud of smoke. Is this pantomime? Perhaps. But I would rather believe that this is art. Dolly had the idea of using milk to represent smoke, and from my understanding, art is something that we use one thing to represent another. We had discussed a little bit about creativity in our last lecture, but we don't even know where our own creativity came from.
Eric says the artist's job is not to succumb to despair but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence. After discussing eleven topics in cognitive science with our professor and classmates, I propose to consider another path for cognitive scientists if we can never solve the hard problem: we use what we know about the mind to remind people that there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity.
Thoughtful remarks. But we are the lucky few. Are we really the ones who need antidotes for the emptiness of existence? My inner pig replies "Save me, and let me live my 'empty' life, as you all do."
Delete(Which Eric are you referring to?)
Something that I have been reflecting on when thinking about the arguments for animal sentience is whether determining whether they have sentience or not is actually important. Whether you call it sentience or animal instinct, it should be obvious that animals do not want to die. We have learned through this course about evolution and how every being on the planet has the instinct to survive and reproduce. This means that all animals (both humans and non-humans) have the innate animal instincts to survive. This is similar to the idea of “vital interests” that Professor Harnad discusses in this interview. “Vital interests” are life-or-death conflicts or interests in which an animal must fight for their life. Every time an animal is killed for the meat industry, it has the instinct to fight for its life, the same way a human would if you attacked them with a knife. Whether or not animals actually have sentience and feel fear at the prospect of dying, or just run from predators upon instinct shouldn’t really matter. It is hard to imagine an animal fighting to the end for its life, and still feel justified that killing them (for profit) is okay.
ReplyDeleteHi Evelyn, this is a very good point. However, I think there is still something important in regards to sentience/consciousness/feeling, as that something is what separates animals from plants. Plants have survival strategies and tendencies, and they evolve, so what is separating them from animals is biology and the presence of "instinct", which can be difficult to define.
Delete"Instinct" is a rather outmoded notion referring to genetically determined or influenced behavior. It is not a very useful description of the plant growing toward light or its roots growing toward humidity. That's better described as a "tropism," which would apply just as well to robots.
DeleteBut surely what matters with animal behavior is whether anything is felt by the animal. We could regret the explosion of a lifeless planet from our solar system, but surely it only matters morally (as opposed to just aesthetically, for our tastes) if the explosion or its aftermath hurts sentient organisms.
This interview, along with Prof. Harnad’s lecture are focusing on the animal sentience. While considering the animal welfare, and the diet, cultural differences for consuming meat, I think many people would agree that we shouldn’t treat animal cruelly, and animal research should be carried out when it is absolutely necessary (vitally necessary). While there’re people cruelly and violently treat members of our own (i.e. criminals), Prof. Harnad states that the other mind problem of interest is more to the organisms outside of our specifies, which some people essentially regard as non-sentient or denying to have feelings(animals). I think the behavior between assaulting animal and assaulting human-being are closely related. Some evidence showed many murders of killing people actually had a history of hurting street animals/pets. I feel like at the moment, some countries still do not have a competent law for basic animal protection(like, sentencing people for publically killing animals, etc., which is a shame), this makes me feel that our society have a long way to go to promote vegan/vegetarian diet and saving more animal lives.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a close connection between cruelty to nonhuman animals and cruelty to humans. That is why both early education as well as public exposure (by CCTV and web-streaming) of the horrors hidden by industry's ag-gag are so important.
DeleteIn the in interview “doing the right thing”, you mention the trolley problem which gives a lens to why we shouldn’t view testing on animals as merely choosing human life over animal life. The trolley problem describes an ethical dilemma of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. I was intrigued to notice within myself that when the problem is phrased in terms of human beings, I feel a lot more nervous and unsure of how to answer the dilemma; one human life is still so valuable. But with animals, I’m less inclined to have this response which is majorly due to my conditioning in society to be desensitized to the subjective experiences of animals. This makes me question how far-removed I am from the issue of animals’ experiences and how significant this really is; after all I acknowledge that they are sentient beings, why isn’t it intuitive to respond to their potential suffering the same way I do humans. Of course part of this is because I actually know what it feels like to be human, but now I’m not convinced this is a good enough reason to ignore the suffering animals go through for the seeming benefit of the human population. Especially when putting into consideration his second point, that when we do animal research it is often career-driven and not for vital interests. So is it really worth it?
ReplyDeleteWorth it to whom?
DeleteUnnecessary meat consumption, hurting and killing animals for recreation purposes, are definitely severe problems nowadays, that a long road is remained to go through to solve them. When I truly respect vegans who strive to fight for this, whether the whole world should become vegan remains a doubt for me. Yes, we are the only species that have the freedom to choose, but in nature, we are omnivores. Eating meat alone is not an issue of morality, what makes it one is the unthoughtful treatment of animals. If we could let everyone be aware of how many consumptions are actually needless and wasteful, the demands would decrease, and animals could be treated more carefully and with more respect. I think the important starting step is to teach all the children (ashamedly speaking, it’s hard for human adults to change their mind) to be respectful with everything, not only animals but also plants, in awe of the amazing nature of life.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, maybe it is not necessarily about everyone going vegan, but more importantly implement more ethical consumption of non-vegan products (whether milk, eggs, meat or fish), there are several ways to do so. Additionally, if everyone were to go vegan right away this would cause a huge economic strain affecting the lives of many, creating even more disparities. While yes the world is changing, and more and more people are becoming increasingly vegan/vegetarian it should be a transition, long-lasting successful change cannot happen overnight. Additionally, more research is needed whether a vegan diet is truly healthy in the long run, without supplements. That being said, the current treatment of animals is extremely cruel and shouldn't be promoted.
DeleteAn example of more ethical sustainable farming is that of Eduardo Sousa who makes natural goose foie gras without gavage, there is no cruelty, no force-feeding involved. In the TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_a_foie_gras_parable/transcript?language=en#t-245994) the speaker explains how the geese feed themselves in preparation for the winter months, they are totally free to eat how much they want, go where ever they want, while being protected of exterior predators. He explains that his geese are so happy that other geese who fly by sometimes decide to land and stay. This example could be what the future of cooking looks like, in an ethical, less harmful way. It should be noted however that in order for this to happen, there needs to be a substantial decrease in animal product consumption.
DeleteZhiyuan: “in nature” we are omnivores (also warlike, sexist, racist, sugar-addicted – traits that may have been adaptive for our ancestors). But lazy evolution has given us the means to fix these natural traits -- and to a certain extent we have.
DeleteDoes it help our victims if we hurt and kill them, needlessly, but “thoughtfully” or “respectfully”? (My inner pig answers: “no.”)
Lola, “naturally”-induced cirrhosis of the liver is less-worse than cirrhosis of the liver induced by forced-feeding, but does that make the killing and eating of the goose less-worse?
An instant transition to global veganism is just a counterfactual fiction. But there are concrete proposals for a leveraged transition.
Killing victims needlessly to avoid having to take B12 supplements?
In the "Doing the Right Thing" interview, the "other-minds" problem is brought up near the end. There are many issues and reasons regarding why humans continue to slaughter animals, and I believe the other-minds problem is a central one.
ReplyDeleteIt essentially comes down to the other minds problem not being a real problem within our own species, but for other species whom we are less certain feel suffering or have sentience. It's to these species that the real suffering is an issue for as humans either don't see them as sentient or don't want to admit that they are and thus the suffering continues.
Do you think we're "doing the right thing" even with species we do recognize as sentient?
Delete