Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.

Bees play by rolling wooden balls — apparently for fun. The cleaner wrasse fish appears to recognize its own visage in an underwater mirror. Octopuses seem to react to anesthetic drugs and will avoid settings where they likely experienced past pain.

All three of these discoveries came in the last five years — indications that the more scientists test animals, the more they find that many species may have inner lives and be sentient. A surprising range of creatures have shown evidence of conscious thought or experience, including insects, fish and some crustaceans.

That has prompted a group of top researchers on animal cognition to publish a new pronouncement that they hope will transform how scientists and society view — and care — for animals.

Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on Friday morning. It marks a pivotal moment, as a flood of research on animal cognition collides with debates over how various species ought to be treated.

  • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I agree that veganism is/could be a good solution moving forward. I strongly disagree that eating meat can be considered barbaric, as it is completely natural and present in every corner of the animal kingdom. Now, how we treat the animals we get that meat from is absolutely barbaric and should be considered so, but I don’t think meat eating itself should be villainized, at least in a retrospective sense.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it isn’t barbaric. Male lions will regularly kill cubs to make the mother ready for sex - that’s natural but we’d never accept (correctly) a human doing that.

      • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I understand your point but I dont think that the male lion’s proclivity for infanticide is equivalent to human life simply because that is not a typical (i.e. natural) aspect of human society

        • festus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Rape then? Lots of animals rape and humans do so too. It’s ‘natural’ but barbaric.

        • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Most Stone Age human societies routinely practiced infanticide, and estimates of children killed by infanticide in the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras vary from 15 to 50 percent. Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Pre-Islamic Arabia, Aboriginal Australia, Native Americans, and Native Alaskans.

          Wikipedia: Infanticide

          • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well, it is always possible that I am under informed so I guess my argument may not stand, at least not on the grounds I have claimed. Thank you for the link, I will read about this.