Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ted hughes

UK to recognise animals as sentient

40 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Abramelin

Apparently there are just 2 kinds of people:

1 - Those who taste like pork;

2 - Those who taste like veal.

And so, just forget about all those psychological or astrological or enneagrammatical classifications of people.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Abramelin

To get back on topic:

I have considered corvids and parrots sentient beings for a very long time.

But also ceteceans, apes, monkeys, dogs  and other socalled 'higher mammals'.

 

 

funny-dog-meme-600x828.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theotherguy

Are zooplankton being classified as sentient? Or mosquitos, or nematodes? Would that anglerfish that just washed up in California be considered sentient?Jellyfish barely even have a nervous system. Are they sentient?

I would absolutely eat a lab burger, once they become widely available, and I'm cutting back on meat (but I'm not going to give it up completely yet). I just think it's disingenuous to claim "animals" as sentient, when I suspect they're referring to livestock, pets, and charismatic animals, especially mammals, and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, theotherguy said:

Are zooplankton being classified as sentient? Or mosquitos, or nematodes? Would that anglerfish that just washed up in California be considered sentient?Jellyfish barely even have a nervous system. Are they sentient?

I would absolutely eat a lab burger, once they become widely available, and I'm cutting back on meat (but I'm not going to give it up completely yet). I just think it's disingenuous to claim "animals" as sentient, when I suspect they're referring to livestock, pets, and charismatic animals, especially mammals, and nothing else.

Sentient comes from the Latin sentient-, “feeling,” and it describes things that are alive. A sentient being can feel, perceive and sense things. They have an awareness of surroundings, sensations, thoughts and an ability to show responsiveness. Having senses makes something sentient, or able to smell, communicate, touch, see, or hear. All sentient beings have an awareness of themselves they can feel happiness, sadness, pain and fear.                          NATURE'S HEART

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 5/12/2021 at 9:05 PM, Abramelin said:

Cannibals never had any problems with that. Humans seem to taste just fine.

Except for the kuru problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
5 hours ago, theotherguy said:

Are zooplankton being classified as sentient? Or mosquitos, or nematodes? Would that anglerfish that just washed up in California be considered sentient?Jellyfish barely even have a nervous system. Are they sentient?

I would absolutely eat a lab burger, once they become widely available, and I'm cutting back on meat (but I'm not going to give it up completely yet). I just think it's disingenuous to claim "animals" as sentient, when I suspect they're referring to livestock, pets, and charismatic animals, especially mammals, and nothing else.

I think it's just a case of making a start. People are more able to observe sentiency in larger animals and in particular, pets. It means sentiency is out in the open and being discussed . . . . which is great.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Except for the kuru problem.

That was a transmittable disease. I meant they had no moral problems concerning the consumption of human beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Except for the kuru problem.

That's only from eating brains.  Stick the leg and a bit of breast, maybe a rump steak,  and you'll be fine :tu:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theotherguy
19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Sentient comes from the Latin sentient-, “feeling,” and it describes things that are alive. A sentient being can feel, perceive and sense things. They have an awareness of surroundings, sensations, thoughts and an ability to show responsiveness. Having senses makes something sentient, or able to smell, communicate, touch, see, or hear. All sentient beings have an awareness of themselves they can feel happiness, sadness, pain and fear.                          NATURE'S HEART

So then, would you consider plants sentient? They react to danger, and warn others of their kind, giving us the famous smell of cut grass, as one example. Insectivorous plants, and the sensitive plant and relatives, have something very akin to a nervous system. Beech trees can even take care of other sick and wounded trees through water and nutrient transfer. They can ask for help. Are they not self-aware simply because they have very slow reaction times and communicate through chemicals instead of sound waves and body position? How much different is a malnourished bush from a malnourished person? I submit that if a barnacle is sentient, so is an acacia.

16 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I think it's just a case of making a start. People are more able to observe sentiency in larger animals and in particular, pets. It means sentiency is out in the open and being discussed . . . . which is great.

A start is good. Start with familiar animals, and then expand from there. But then, at what arbitrary point does the expansion stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 5/13/2021 at 5:05 AM, Abramelin said:

Cannibals never had any problems with that. Humans seem to taste just fine.

nothing to do with taste & sustenance.. it's a ritual that entails ingesting a loved one to carry on their existence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, theotherguy said:

So then, would you consider plants sentient? They react to danger, and warn others of their kind, giving us the famous smell of cut grass, as one example. Insectivorous plants, and the sensitive plant and relatives, have something very akin to a nervous system. Beech trees can even take care of other sick and wounded trees through water and nutrient transfer. They can ask for help. Are they not self-aware simply because they have very slow reaction times and communicate through chemicals instead of sound waves and body position? How much different is a malnourished bush from a malnourished person? I submit that if a barnacle is sentient, so is an acacia.

A start is good. Start with familiar animals, and then expand from there. But then, at what arbitrary point does the expansion stop?

Humans invent concepts and define their parameters. Life feeds on life or the death of life, both plants and animals. Humans, as animals, bear no guilt for this behavior save for that which they choose to impose upon themselves. One must be careful not to fall into the trap of exalting squeamishness to status of righteousness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

nothing to do with taste & sustenance.. it's a ritual that entails ingesting a loved one to carry on their existence

I once saw a documentary, some 30 years ago, about cannibalism. An ex-cannibal, a Papuan, was being interviewed about this. It had nothing to do with 'eating a loved one to carry on their existence', that much was clear to me. The Papuan told the interviewer that his tribe had stopped the practise after they converted to christianity. But the interviewer kept poking, and at some point the face of the Papuan started to shine, and he told the interviewer in details how they prepared the meat, and ... that it tasted delicious! Not for a second he mentioned 'loved ones'. But after a few minutes the Papuan seemed to realize his 'enthousiasm' wasn't quite ok anymore, being a christian and all that, and his smile disappeared, and mumbled something like "uhm, eh... we don't do that anymore".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
theotherguy
3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Humans invent concepts and define their parameters. Life feeds on life or the death of life, both plants and animals. Humans, as animals, bear no guilt for this behavior save for that which they choose to impose upon themselves. One must be careful not to fall into the trap of exalting squeamishness to status of righteousness. 

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you're intending with this post. If it makes a difference, I've killed animals for food before, and I intend to keep doing it. I, personally, don't claim any righteousness or guilt from what I eat or how I choose to obtain it.

My main point is, what are the parameters of sentience, why are those parameters chosen, and how are they chosen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, theotherguy said:

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you're intending with this post. If it makes a difference, I've killed animals for food before, and I intend to keep doing it. I, personally, don't claim any righteousness or guilt from what I eat or how I choose to obtain it.

My main point is, what are the parameters of sentience, why are those parameters chosen, and how are they chosen?

Arbitrarily by humans: they create a distinction and judge themselves and others by it. They do not accept man as natural, a part of  Earth's biome as are all other animals. They see humans as exceptional beings, self-appointed lords of creation, with a duty to rise above their base nature.  As a matter-of-fact, I'm of the same mind as you on the topic. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
9 hours ago, theotherguy said:

So then, would you consider plants sentient? They react to danger, and warn others of their kind, giving us the famous smell of cut grass, as one example. Insectivorous plants, and the sensitive plant and relatives, have something very akin to a nervous system. Beech trees can even take care of other sick and wounded trees through water and nutrient transfer. They can ask for help. Are they not self-aware simply because they have very slow reaction times and communicate through chemicals instead of sound waves and body position? How much different is a malnourished bush from a malnourished person? I submit that if a barnacle is sentient, so is an acacia.

A start is good. Start with familiar animals, and then expand from there. But then, at what arbitrary point does the expansion stop?

Humans are soooo slow at altering their behaviour that I don't think you and I need to trouble our pretty heads about what point the expansion stops. We will be long gone by the time that happens! :D

8 hours ago, Dejarma said:

nothing to do with taste & sustenance.. it's a ritual that entails ingesting a loved one to carry on their existence

Perhaps it is different for different tribes. I read that if an admired enemy warrior is killed in battle his body is eaten because those who consume him hope to gain his strength, bravery, cunning etc.

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Humans invent concepts and define their parameters. Life feeds on life or the death of life, both plants and animals. Humans, as animals, bear no guilt for this behavior save for that which they choose to impose upon themselves. One must be careful not to fall into the trap of exalting squeamishness to status of righteousness. 

You can't deny that humans have very different brains to other animals. Rather than 'exalting squeamishness to status of righteousness' I think some people are just super-aware of how things actually are for other life forms and see no reason to interfere with that, just as we resist efforts by other life forms to interfere with our lives. We are different because we have the power to massively interfere with the lives of other life forms . . . . even to the point of extinction; even to our own detriment. We do such awful things just because we can.

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Arbitrarily by humans: they create a distinction and judge themselves and others by it. They do not accept man as natural, a part of  Earth's biome as are all other animals. They see humans as exceptional beings, self-appointed lords of creation, with a duty to rise above their base nature.  As a matter-of-fact, I'm of the same mind as you on the topic. 

The thing is, we are unique in just how far above our 'base nature' we could rise, for the benefit of ALL life forms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.