'Irresponsible' to ignore consciousness across animal world scientists argue
Scientists’ claims that it is “irresponsible” to ignore widespread animal consciousness trigger broad debate over what consciousness means and how we could ever know which creatures possess it. Commenters argue over ethical implications for meat-eating, factory farming, and veganism, with some extending concern to plants and even microbes, while others stress cultural norms, ecological impact, and practical nutrition. Along the way, people highlight how little we understand even human minds—pointing to differences in inner speech, self-awareness, and free will—suggesting that any moral framework built on consciousness rests on uncertain ground.
Variability of Human Inner Experience
- Many comments challenge the article’s assumption of a “dense internal monologue” as universal.
- Several report constant verbal thought streams; others say they mostly think in images, feelings, or abstract concepts, with little or no inner voice.
- People debate what “internal monologue” even means: rehearsed sentences vs. a continuous narrator vs. occasional self-talk.
- Some link inner speech speed to preference for faster audio playback and differences in multitasking ability.
What Is Consciousness?
- Strong disagreement over definitions: consciousness vs. sentience vs. awareness vs. self‑awareness.
- Some argue consciousness is tied to subjective experience and suffering; others to self-observation or “pure awareness” (drawing on Eastern philosophies).
- A few treat consciousness as possibly illusory or not scientifically tractable, contrasting with those who see it as central to ethics.
- Panpsychism and spectrum views are discussed: from “rocks aren’t conscious” to “consciousness might be a graded property of all life or even matter.”
Animal Minds, Ethics, and Farming
- Many argue it’s obvious that mammals and birds are conscious to some degree, citing pets, livestock behavior, play, problem-solving, and dreams.
- Others stress we can’t prove other minds, only infer from behavior and neural structures.
- Big ethical fault line:
- Some say consciousness/sentience makes current factory farming and slaughter morally unacceptable.
- Others accept animal consciousness but justify meat as natural, nutritionally valuable, or ethically acceptable if animals live “good lives” and die quickly.
- Disagreement over where moral thresholds lie: intelligence, self-awareness, capacity to suffer, or reciprocity/social contract.
- Bees, insects, and even microbes are mentioned as possible cases of at least minimal cognition or play-like behavior, though some see this as over-interpretation.
Plants, Suffering, and Scope of Concern
- Several note emerging work on plant behavior and signaling, suggesting some form of “awareness,” raising questions for vegan ethics.
- Responses: veganism framed mainly as reducing suffering, not eliminating harm; if plants are sentient, animal agriculture still causes more total harm.
Diet, Health, and Practical Paths Forward
- Dispute over whether humans are “obligate carnivores.”
- Some cite position papers that well-planned vegetarian/vegan diets are adequate; others emphasize bioavailability issues and need for supplementation.
- Pragmatic proposals: improve welfare standards (humane slaughter, space, transport), and accelerate lab-grown meat to decouple meat-eating from animal suffering.