To be fair, the way humanity has treated animals over thousands of years, you wouldn't think it was obvious. I'm not talking eating meat here - that's natural - but the blind cruelty we've inflicted on animals for years and years and some countries like China still do today.
The idea that it took four billion years of evolution to reach the point where one species spontaneously developed consciousness, is absurd
Any animal that demonstrates an ability to plan ahead, must be conscious to some degree.
BTW I'm a bit puzzled by the "even the octopus" bit ... they've been shown to be highly intelligent for a while now -- in some respects exceeding the brainpower of cats and dogs.
This..
I'd like to think these findings will gradually see humans treat animals better but sadly, I doubt it.
To be fair, the way humanity has treated animals over thousands of years, you wouldn't think it was obvious. I'm not talking eating meat here - that's natural - but the blind cruelty we've inflicted on animals for years and years and some countries like China still do today.
Heh heh, reminds me of an argument I with a colleague. Despite being an atheist believer in evolution, he still pig headedly insisted that humans are are separate 'special' species who are therefore more important than any other animal..
Do you think the life of a person is no more valuable than the life of, say, a cat?
In other words given the hypothetical scene of only being able to save the life of one of them would you choose an unknown person over your own pussy?
I saw a new Discovery reality TV series advertised this morning about giant swamp rats with 6 inch incisors and a mean streak. It's called Rat B*stards.
I saw a new Discovery reality TV series advertised this morning about giant swamp rats with 6 inch incisors and a mean streak. It's called Rat B*stards.
Do you think the life of a person is no more valuable than the life of, say, a cat?
In other words given the hypothetical scene of only being able to save the life of one of them would you choose an unknown person over your own pussy?
But that's not what this is about.
Why does humanity in some countries continue to throw dogs and cats - whilst still alive - into boiling water, before skinning them alive ? Why does humanity in some countries still have bull fighting, a blood sport that draws out the bull's death in the name of fun? If animals are alive - unlike an item of furniture - why do we inflict pointless cruelty on them?
Of course people should save a human before an animal but that's not what this study is trying to get at - I don't think.
IMO cats are stupid, useless animals. Dogs on the other hand are very intelligent as far as animals go. I don't think we'd get far with a guide cat, retriever cat, or rescue cat.
Do you think the life of a person is no more valuable than the life of, say, a cat?
In other words given the hypothetical scene of only being able to save the life of one of them would you choose an unknown person over your own pussy?
Surprisingly enough, many people in this forum claim they would save a cat before a human if they had a choice. There was a thread about it not long ago. Can't believe it myself.
IMO cats are stupid, useless animals. Dogs on the other hand are very intelligent as far as animals go. I don't think we'd get far with a guide cat, retriever cat, or rescue cat.
Cats aren't a social species like dogs, so of course they may not be 'in tune' with their owners as much as dogs. On the other hand, cats have the best of both world's - they have food and shelter from their owners but can still exercise a degree of natural behaviour outdoors.
Interestingly, a wolves brain is bigger than a dog's brain - have we taken a dog's independence away as a result of domestication?
To be honest, this is probably about whatever the discussion takes it to.
For instance, if 'scientists' are saying animals have a consciousness equal to a human's it raises the question of the relative value of the life of an animal over a human's, and consequently how animals should be treated , as you have highlighted.
Prof Alice Roberts said that humans saying "We're special and separate from all other animals because we're so much smarter" is equivalent to a peacock saying "We're special and separate from all other animals because we have such more vibrant and colourful tails" (provided they could actually talk) and I couldn't agree more. Just because we are capable of efficient communication, solving problems, understanding how other members of our own species feel or think and understanding the concept of the future and planning ahead does not mean we are the pinnacle of evolution. We just happen to have been highly successful; which is hardly a surprise considering our species evolved in one of the harshest and most changeable environments on Earth. Those who couldn't plan ahead or solve problems weren't likely to live long. Anyway, as history has shown us time and time again, success never lasts forever.
Well, the fact that we can do all that plus control our environment to an extent that no other animal can is pretty special. Plus our coming up with language, music, literature, ethics, philosophy, medicine and science are kinda unique eh? We've been to more places on the planet than any other animal. We're the only species to have travelled beyond our own planet, for that matter.
What have animals ever achieved? All they do is reproduce and eat each other. Big whoop.;)
Why does humanity in some countries continue to throw dogs and cats - whilst still alive - into boiling water, before skinning them alive ? Why does humanity in some countries still have bull fighting, a blood sport that draws out the bull's death in the name of fun? If animals are alive - unlike an item of furniture - why do we inflict pointless cruelty on them?
Of course people should save a human before an animal but that's not what this study is trying to get at - I don't think.
There's absolutely no reason or excuse for inflicting that kind of suffering. I like to hunt/shoot/fish myself but the priority is to kill cleanly and quickly.
Why not shoot or otherwise quickly kill the animal prior to boiling or skinning? It's sickening.
Well, the fact that we can do all that plus control our environment to an extent that no other animal can is pretty special. Plus our coming up with language, music, literature, ethics, philosophy, medicine and science are kinda unique eh? We've been to more places on the planet than any other animal. We're the only species to have travelled beyond our own planet, for that matter.
What have animals ever achieved? All they do is reproduce and eat each other. Big whoop.;)
Unique, yes but so are peacock's tales and naked mole rat society for example,
Doesn't make us the pinnacle of evolution.
I suppose one could argue that. But animals are here for us to use as we wish, so all the better if we can make such good use of canines.
Not really, we can't abuse them anyway, they're living things.
As a woman, it's remarkable that in the past, women weren't considered inteligent enough to be allowed to vote or run a business and black people could be treated like farm animals - at least in many cultures, if not all. So it's no wonder many people still have ignorant views about animals.
Unique, yes but so are peacock's tales and naked mole rat society for example,
Doesn't make us the pinnacle of evolution.
Well, frankly I don't know know what you mean by the term or whether it's even relevant to anything. Evolution is just something that happens to a species. Peacocks didn't have to consciously do anything to get their tails. Humans had to speak, write, learn, hypothesise, organise, think, experiment, self-sacrifice, take risks (all the things that animals only do in a very superficial way, if at all) to achieve what they have. Evolution takes place over millions of years and humans have only been around for a very short time. Modern medicine has almost certainly arrested our evolution anyway.
I'm simply pointing out that Man's achievements are unparalleled on the planet. No other species has even come close. Worthy of note, I'd have thought.
Well, the fact that we can do all that plus control our environment to an extent that no other animal can is pretty special. Plus our coming up with language, music, literature, ethics, philosophy, medicine and science are kinda unique eh? We've been to more places on the planet than any other animal. We're the only species to have travelled beyond our own planet, for that matter.
What have animals ever achieved? All they do is reproduce and eat each other. Big whoop.;)
To be fair, only a few individuals achieved those things, 99% of humans don't achieve anything remarkable - they don't create anything or discover anything or move humanity forward. You could argue that if our ancesters hadn't started walking on two legs, we might still be swinging from trees today.
And we've yet to control our environment in ways that don't have a negative impact somewhere else.
Not really, we can't abuse them anyway, they're living things.
As a woman, it's remarkable that in the past, women weren't considered inteligent enough to be allowed to vote or run a business and black people could be treated like farm animals - at least in many cultures, if not all. So it's no wonder many people still have ignorant views about animals.
Well I am against needless cruelty to animals.
I'm not sure how having dominion over animals has anything to do with mistreatment of people.
Do you think the life of a person is no more valuable than the life of, say, a cat?
In other words given the hypothetical scene of only being able to save the life of one of them would you choose an unknown person over your own pussy?
As it happens that was part of our argument. He produced a wonderful example of reductio ad absurdium and said 'Well if humans are as valuable as cats, we could just replace you with a cat at work, and that would be fine, right?' (as it happens a cat would be more useful than HIM - he's been away two weeks and the place hasn't run this smoothly in a while ).
Two can play at that game, so I pointed out there are lowlifes who contribute less to society than say, a police dog.
But yes, if were a question of MY cat, vs a random human, yes I'd go for my cat every time. Same as I'd save my friend over a stranger, or a person I knew over a cat I didn't. I have a bond with my cat as I raised her from a kitten. If you'd really choose to bring hurt upon yourself rather than a stranger just because you'r from the same species, then I find that a bit weird.
My real point relates to what Trsvis_Bickle said though - you can't just pick and choose the factor that makes you the 'ultimate species' and then declare yours the winner for that reason. A further extension of that argument is that if you apply that factor to species as a whole (e.g. intelligence), then logically your argument follows through that you should apply it within that species also. So you can't say 'humans are the best species because they are the most intelligent' without logically applying the same criteria within that species saying 'X is the best human because they are the most intelligent'.
Not true (and I have three cats) only animals that pass the mirror recognition test can be said to be truly conscious.
Apes, Elephants, Dolphins and - my favourite - crows are definitely conscious.
Was I conscious at the age of two (when I could not have passed the mirror test) I don't think so. For me cats, dogs etc are like human babies, not fully aware or capable of introspection.
Now crows, they ARE clever f*ckers.
Well, the fact that we can do all that plus control our environment to an extent that no other animal can is pretty special. Plus our coming up with language, music, literature, ethics, philosophy, medicine and science are kinda unique eh? We've been to more places on the planet than any other animal. We're the only species to have travelled beyond our own planet, for that matter.
What have animals ever achieved? All they do is reproduce and eat each other. Big whoop.;)
Worthy of note yes. But to add to the ludicrous set of scenarios in the mix, say aliens were to demand that 10% of life on planet earth be culled. The most logical way to do this to preserve ALL species would be to take an equal cut of every species (maybe bumping it up for those which were a known problem for overcrowding).
But some people are seeing this debate in two different ways - what makes us special, vs why inflict cruelty.
On the cruelty aspect - I'm afraid that such cruelty is another aspect of what makes us so very special as a species. We're also, I might point out, the only species to develop quite so many pointless extensions to the natural environment. All I physically need is to eat, sleep and reproduce, so why the f*** have we created a system where I have to sit in an office all day getting fat?
My real point relates to what Trsvis_Bickle said though - you can't just pick and choose the factor that makes you the 'ultimate species' and then declare yours the winner for that reason. A further extension of that argument is that if you apply that factor to species as a whole (e.g. intelligence), then logically your argument follows through that you should apply it within that species also. So you can't say 'humans are the best species because they are the most intelligent' without logically applying the same criteria within that species saying 'X is the best human because they are the most intelligent'.
Er, why do you have to do that, exactly? Firstly, we're actually talking about species as opposed to individuals. Secondly, human societies could not have achieved all they have without co-operation. You can't point to a single individual and say 'You're the best' when so much is due to collective effort.
As for cherry-picking a factor and calling it supreme, who's doing that? I've pointed to a whole heap of factors, from culture to art to science to exploration to controlling the environment. Man is clearly supreme at all these things. If you're determined to give the prize to whoever evolved into the largest land mammal, for example, well, poor old homo sapiens isn't in the running by definition but that's hardly an achievement - it's an accident of evolution and birth.
Comments
To be fair, the way humanity has treated animals over thousands of years, you wouldn't think it was obvious. I'm not talking eating meat here - that's natural - but the blind cruelty we've inflicted on animals for years and years and some countries like China still do today.
This..
I'd like to think these findings will gradually see humans treat animals better but sadly, I doubt it.
Am I allowed to say b**t*rds?
Do you think the life of a person is no more valuable than the life of, say, a cat?
In other words given the hypothetical scene of only being able to save the life of one of them would you choose an unknown person over your own pussy?
I saw a new Discovery reality TV series advertised this morning about giant swamp rats with 6 inch incisors and a mean streak. It's called Rat B*stards.
haha brilliant!
But that's not what this is about.
Why does humanity in some countries continue to throw dogs and cats - whilst still alive - into boiling water, before skinning them alive ? Why does humanity in some countries still have bull fighting, a blood sport that draws out the bull's death in the name of fun? If animals are alive - unlike an item of furniture - why do we inflict pointless cruelty on them?
Of course people should save a human before an animal but that's not what this study is trying to get at - I don't think.
IMO cats are stupid, useless animals. Dogs on the other hand are very intelligent as far as animals go. I don't think we'd get far with a guide cat, retriever cat, or rescue cat.
Surprisingly enough, many people in this forum claim they would save a cat before a human if they had a choice. There was a thread about it not long ago. Can't believe it myself.
Cats aren't a social species like dogs, so of course they may not be 'in tune' with their owners as much as dogs. On the other hand, cats have the best of both world's - they have food and shelter from their owners but can still exercise a degree of natural behaviour outdoors.
Interestingly, a wolves brain is bigger than a dog's brain - have we taken a dog's independence away as a result of domestication?
To be honest, this is probably about whatever the discussion takes it to.
For instance, if 'scientists' are saying animals have a consciousness equal to a human's it raises the question of the relative value of the life of an animal over a human's, and consequently how animals should be treated , as you have highlighted.
Christ, let's not go there again, ffawkes.:eek: There truly are a few oddballs on here who believe just that.
I suppose one could argue that. But animals are here for us to use as we wish, so all the better if we can make such good use of canines.
Well, the fact that we can do all that plus control our environment to an extent that no other animal can is pretty special. Plus our coming up with language, music, literature, ethics, philosophy, medicine and science are kinda unique eh? We've been to more places on the planet than any other animal. We're the only species to have travelled beyond our own planet, for that matter.
What have animals ever achieved? All they do is reproduce and eat each other. Big whoop.;)
There's absolutely no reason or excuse for inflicting that kind of suffering. I like to hunt/shoot/fish myself but the priority is to kill cleanly and quickly.
Why not shoot or otherwise quickly kill the animal prior to boiling or skinning? It's sickening.
Unique, yes but so are peacock's tales and naked mole rat society for example,
Doesn't make us the pinnacle of evolution.
Not really, we can't abuse them anyway, they're living things.
As a woman, it's remarkable that in the past, women weren't considered inteligent enough to be allowed to vote or run a business and black people could be treated like farm animals - at least in many cultures, if not all. So it's no wonder many people still have ignorant views about animals.
Well, frankly I don't know know what you mean by the term or whether it's even relevant to anything. Evolution is just something that happens to a species. Peacocks didn't have to consciously do anything to get their tails. Humans had to speak, write, learn, hypothesise, organise, think, experiment, self-sacrifice, take risks (all the things that animals only do in a very superficial way, if at all) to achieve what they have. Evolution takes place over millions of years and humans have only been around for a very short time. Modern medicine has almost certainly arrested our evolution anyway.
I'm simply pointing out that Man's achievements are unparalleled on the planet. No other species has even come close. Worthy of note, I'd have thought.
To be fair, only a few individuals achieved those things, 99% of humans don't achieve anything remarkable - they don't create anything or discover anything or move humanity forward. You could argue that if our ancesters hadn't started walking on two legs, we might still be swinging from trees today.
And we've yet to control our environment in ways that don't have a negative impact somewhere else.
Well I am against needless cruelty to animals.
I'm not sure how having dominion over animals has anything to do with mistreatment of people.
As it happens that was part of our argument. He produced a wonderful example of reductio ad absurdium and said 'Well if humans are as valuable as cats, we could just replace you with a cat at work, and that would be fine, right?' (as it happens a cat would be more useful than HIM - he's been away two weeks and the place hasn't run this smoothly in a while
Two can play at that game, so I pointed out there are lowlifes who contribute less to society than say, a police dog.
But yes, if were a question of MY cat, vs a random human, yes I'd go for my cat every time. Same as I'd save my friend over a stranger, or a person I knew over a cat I didn't. I have a bond with my cat as I raised her from a kitten. If you'd really choose to bring hurt upon yourself rather than a stranger just because you'r from the same species, then I find that a bit weird.
My real point relates to what Trsvis_Bickle said though - you can't just pick and choose the factor that makes you the 'ultimate species' and then declare yours the winner for that reason. A further extension of that argument is that if you apply that factor to species as a whole (e.g. intelligence), then logically your argument follows through that you should apply it within that species also. So you can't say 'humans are the best species because they are the most intelligent' without logically applying the same criteria within that species saying 'X is the best human because they are the most intelligent'.
Not true (and I have three cats) only animals that pass the mirror recognition test can be said to be truly conscious.
Apes, Elephants, Dolphins and - my favourite - crows are definitely conscious.
Was I conscious at the age of two (when I could not have passed the mirror test) I don't think so. For me cats, dogs etc are like human babies, not fully aware or capable of introspection.
Now crows, they ARE clever f*ckers.
Worthy of note yes. But to add to the ludicrous set of scenarios in the mix, say aliens were to demand that 10% of life on planet earth be culled. The most logical way to do this to preserve ALL species would be to take an equal cut of every species (maybe bumping it up for those which were a known problem for overcrowding).
But some people are seeing this debate in two different ways - what makes us special, vs why inflict cruelty.
On the cruelty aspect - I'm afraid that such cruelty is another aspect of what makes us so very special as a species. We're also, I might point out, the only species to develop quite so many pointless extensions to the natural environment. All I physically need is to eat, sleep and reproduce, so why the f*** have we created a system where I have to sit in an office all day getting fat?
Er, why do you have to do that, exactly? Firstly, we're actually talking about species as opposed to individuals. Secondly, human societies could not have achieved all they have without co-operation. You can't point to a single individual and say 'You're the best' when so much is due to collective effort.
As for cherry-picking a factor and calling it supreme, who's doing that? I've pointed to a whole heap of factors, from culture to art to science to exploration to controlling the environment. Man is clearly supreme at all these things. If you're determined to give the prize to whoever evolved into the largest land mammal, for example, well, poor old homo sapiens isn't in the running by definition but that's hardly an achievement - it's an accident of evolution and birth.