Animal sentience

[Fishnut]

It's often struck me as strange that in order to do research on fish I've had to apply for ethics approval from an ethic board, euthanise the fish humanely, and justify each and every death, yet the fish I eat most likely spent their last moments in a hold or on a deck somewhere gasping for breath and being butchered in ways that took convenience, not pain, into account. So I found this piece on animal rights rather interesting. I don't think much of the writing (and won't be buying the book it's based on) but it's got some thought-provoking nuggets.

It got me thinking about how arbitrary we are in provisioning rights to non-human organisms. Why are fish being killed by scientists given so much greater legislative attention than fish being killed by fishers? Obviously I understand on a practical level - there's no way that we could euthanise the number of fish being caught on commercial vessels in any way that is economically viable. But we have chosen economic viability over ethical considerations without, I suspect, really thinking about it. We have (mostly) decided that fox hunting is callous and incompatible with modern Britain, but say and do nothing about the foxes and other animals killed by cars in far greater number.

Even though we've moved away from the scala naturae as a model of evolution, we still seem to believe in a cognitive version, giving more value to those with cognitive abilities closer to our own. Again, I recognise the practical need for this - we can't give the same level of consideration to, say, an ant as we give to a cow. But why do we think that's ok? And where between an ant and a cow do we find the divide? The piece mentions the possibility of sentience in plants and single-celled organisms which seems like quite a stretch to me and may be dependent on how you define sentience but that raises the question of whether we go for an inclusive or exclusive definition of sentience and what the consequences of that may be.

If we do accept all organisms as sentient and worthy of legal protection, how does that change things? Does it change things? Given we seem to be pretty incapable of valuing most human life does legal recognition of non-humans even matter? Is level of sentience even a good indicator of value?

I've got no idea so thought I'd ask.

[Cardinal Fang]

What are we meaning by sentience?

(Not being sarcastic. Genuinely don't know what the definition is)

CF

[Fishnut]

It's a good question and one that I don't have a good answer to. I suspect it's got different definitions depending on who's doing the research and what they're researching. The fact that some are claiming plants have sentience suggests that the definition has got much broader than any we as lay people might recognise.

This is the Science Direct topic overview on sentience. (I don't find the SD overviews particularly useful but they must have some excellent SEO going on as they're always at the top of the page).

[Sciolus]

It got me thinking about how arbitrary we are in provisioning rights to non-human organisms. Why are fish being killed by scientists given so much greater legislative attention than fish being killed by fishers? Obviously I understand on a practical level - there's no way that we could euthanise the number of fish being caught on commercial vessels in any way that is economically viable. But we have chosen economic viability over ethical considerations without, I suspect, really thinking about it. We have (mostly) decided that fox hunting is callous and incompatible with modern Britain, but say and do nothing about the foxes and other animals killed by cars in far greater number.

It's pretty common to spend vastly more resources on one aspect of a problem than on another very slightly different aspect of the same problem. Compare the resources spent and standards expected for rail safety versus road safety, or environmental impacts of nuclear power versus fossil fuel power. Doesn't mean it's sensible, but it's common.

[Opti]

The situation is very weird here in Spain. The centre-left government has recently passed some very good laws with regard to animal welfare and treatment, with more to come later this year.

Clicky

Yet no moves against bullfighting. Despite polls showing about 50% of the population support a ban and most of the rest aren't fussed one way or another.

[bob sterman]

It's often struck me as strange that in order to do research on fish I've had to apply for ethics approval from an ethic board, euthanise the fish humanely, and justify each and every death, yet the fish I eat most likely spent their last moments in a hold or on a deck somewhere gasping for breath and being butchered in ways that took convenience, not pain, into account.

Similar situation with mice - and people can buy and use glue traps in their homes.

[discovolante]

Nice thread. Again makes me think of Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace which is a bit of a popular exercise in trying to understand the suffering of a creature that's entirely different to us.

As far as mammals are concerned I don't really see any major reason why we can't start from the perspective that they're fundamentally the same as us and work from there (broadly speaking, obviously there are clear differences between pack and solitary animals, Alex predators and herbivores etc). As for what we do about it I'm unsure, but maybe the starting point could be just that: work on changing our (by which I mean our particular culture, not going to try and comment on others) perception of animals as somehow different to us and take it from there; change the cultural starting point. Which is a really broad and vague thing to say I know but as you say it's a really broad issue, so I don't think there's really a 'clean' way to sort it out.

I'm just gonna say although I realise that this could head quite quickly into a fairly tired old discussion, that your starting point *seems* to be that it's ok to kill animals to eat them, and that the question is the method. Again things can get a bit ridiculous about all that but just mentioning it, I'm really not sure if you intended that or not.

All of which makes me sound a bit like PETA, but I don't think it has to.

[Millennie Al]

Even though we've moved away from the scala naturae as a model of evolution, we still seem to believe in a cognitive version, giving more value to those with cognitive abilities closer to our own.

That's a common human bias. This is why racism has so often been associated with claims that other races are not fully human, and why modern realisation that differences between people are quite superficial helps undermine racism.

Again, I recognise the practical need for this - we can't give the same level of consideration to, say, an ant as we give to a cow.

Jainism tries to. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism for how some Jains go to some trouble to avoid injuring insects.

If we do accept all organisms as sentient and worthy of legal protection, how does that change things?

That depends on how seriously people take it. Presumably eating animals would stop, but then most plants coudn't be eaten either. In fact, eating plants is often worse as we eat them alive. Taking it all the way, things like antibiotics and vaccines would have to be banned also.

[IvanV]

Again, I recognise the practical need for this - we can't give the same level of consideration to, say, an ant as we give to a cow.

Jainism tries to. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism for how some Jains go to some trouble to avoid injuring insects.

Jains won't eat root vegetables. They think the risk of hurting small creatures or accidentally eating them is larger with root vegetables. They are also concerned that a root is alive. But I think it is just the kind of restrictive rule that religious authority likes putting on people to demonstrate that they are controlling their lives. They don't eat honey either. The famous behaviour of sweeping the path in front of you to avoid treading on small animals is not what everyday Jains do, only what their equivalent of monks do.

I was at univ with someone who went through an extreme vegetarian phase of not eating root veg or seeds on the grounds that they are alive. But he was just an attention-seeker.

[Fishnut]

I'm just gonna say although I realise that this could head quite quickly into a fairly tired old discussion, that your starting point *seems* to be that it's ok to kill animals to eat them, and that the question is the method. Again things can get a bit ridiculous about all that but just mentioning it, I'm really not sure if you intended that or not.

Thank you for pointing this out. It's an assumption I made without realising it and I love finding my hidden biases. You're right that I did assume it was ok to kill the animals, and was focused on the mode of death rather than whether or not we had a right to cause that death.

...makes me think of Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace which is a bit of a popular exercise in trying to understand the suffering of a creature that's entirely different to us.

I'll have to give that a read!

The situation is very weird here in Spain. The centre-left government has recently passed some very good laws with regard to animal welfare and treatment, with more to come later this year.

Clicky

Yet no moves against bullfighting. Despite polls showing about 50% of the population support a ban and most of the rest aren't fussed one way or another.

That's really interesting. It feels vaguely analogous to the situation we have here in the UK - really strict animal ethics rules for science, (comparatively) good animal welfare standards for livestock, but we allow millions of birds to be raised simply so they can be shot for pleasure. And despite the vast majority being either against or indifferent, it continues unabated. Is there a similar class issue in bullfighting that might explain the Spanish disparity?

[Bird on a Fire]

Millions of birds released and shot (and millions more caged up for meat and eggs before being dispatched).

But fox hunting is banned (though organised crime groups continue to do it with impunity), and dog fighting was banned long before that.

The hierarchy of which animals we protect does seem based more on anthropomorphism than evidence.

I did an "animal welfare in science" course in the States, mandatory for a field job because I'd be handing birds (it was an online clicky job, entirely about lab animals). The official US hierarchy for animal research was detailed for mammals (great apes, then monkeys, dogs, rodents, Tories etc), then just birds, herps, inverts. Whereas crows and parrots etc are super smart.

There's also a hierarchy of activities we'll sanction. Torture as a spectacle is considered worse than torture behind closed doors to make food, even if it's all just superfluous luxury.

[Woodchopper]

The hierarchy of which animals we protect does seem based more on anthropomorphism than evidence.

Yes, I have a suspicion that the political criteria comes down to whether an animal is the main character in bestselling children’s books. Though there will of course be exceptions.

There's also a hierarchy of activities we'll sanction. Torture as a spectacle is considered worse than torture behind closed doors to make food, even if it's all just superfluous luxury.

That distinction is all about the humans and what is considered to be good or bad for them. The fate of the animal isn’t the main concern.