Animal Consciousness: Why it’s time to rethink our human-centered approach
We should stop approaching animal consciousness as a 'do they/don't they?' question. There may be other forms of consciousness we cannot understand. Nonhuman animals' precise relationship to human consciousness doesn't make them less important.
PATRICIA MacCORMACK: While we may enjoy the company of companion animals or a fleeting encounter with wildlife, many people believe humans have a superior consciousness of the world we live in. Every now and then, though, new study findings about the surprising intelligence of other animals reignite this debate.
Recently, two German philosophers, Professor Leonard Dung and Ph.D. candidate Albert Newen, published a paper questioning whether we are coming at the issue from the right angle, or even asking the right question at all.
In their article, the authors say we should stop approaching animal consciousness as a “do they/don’t they?” question. Rather, they suggest we should measure nonhuman consciousness on a spectrum alongside human consciousness…
There may be other forms of consciousness we cannot understand. Nonhuman animals’ precise relationship to human consciousness doesn’t make them less important… We still do not know what makes the difference between being alive and having consciousness. In humans, the definition of consciousness is vague and speculative…
Neurologists can’t agree on what part of the brain consciousness is generated in—yet we try to measure it in nonhuman animals. Even within the animal rights movement, there is conflict between those who defend animals based on their similarity to humans (moral theorists), and those who claim nonhuman animals have a right to exist regardless of our view of them (abolitionists).
The problem is, both perspectives discuss our treatment of animals from a human perspective. In her book In Neither Man Nor Beast, abolitionist Carol J. Adams calls this the “arrogant eye” of anthropocentrism—the distortion of our understanding of the world into models suited for humans…
Of course, as humans we can only really look at the world from a human perspective. But anthropocentrism presumes there to be only one “objective” perspective — the human one — and that Earth’s other organisms should measure up as close to humans as possible in order to be granted the right to exist. This implies that many nonhuman animals require no ethical consideration at all when it comes to their welfare.
A longstanding paradox is the status of animals used in research. They are similar enough to stand in for humans, yet a lot of people don’t want to think about what this means for their consciousness of pain and suffering. It seems an uncomfortable inconsistency….
We need to stop asking questions about animal consciousness that are based on a hierarchy. Octopi and other cephalopods have nervous systems throughout all their limbs. Their bodies are not a separate thing controlled by a brain or central nervous system.
So, measuring consciousness using a central nervous system like ours may lead us to believe they do not have pain capacity or even sentience. Yet behavioral studies show they express both, just differently to humans… Viewing… other animals as “lesser” versions of ourselves denies the rich and complex diversity of the animal kingdom…
Over time, the public has slowly broadened its criticism of animal testing from great apes to baboons, mice and even water fleas. This shows we have placed animals in a hierarchy which makes experimenting on some acceptable and others less so…
If we are serious about revolutionizing our use of the Earth, it is time to rethink our need to classify all forms of life. We may find this is not about curiosity, but a desire to vindicate our history of dominion over the Earth. How about we exchange hierarchy for care? The future may depend upon it. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: