Its because of the bible and so on that humans came to believe its all theirs to use for whatever reason… Personally i am a advocate for animals and that they should be treated right!
Religion is the biggest lie sold to modern humans. Religion made sense when we didnt understand stuff and wanted an explanation, now we have science. Religion is nothing but a form of entertainment at this point. It does a complete disservice to humanity and churches should be illegal. Pray all you want at home, its crystal clear those institutions are nothing but a grift and a haven for extremism to brew.
Fwiw, I'm saying this as someone who doesn't subscribe to any of the major religions myself, but pretending it would only exists because people were ignorant feels like an oversimplification, as there are plenty of religious people who are fine with science.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why it's easy to feel this way, especially with how much harm has been done in the name of religion (that deserves criticism, no question!), but I think saying it would just be a lie or entertainment flattens it to something that in reality is way more complex. For a lot of people it's not about explaining lightning (or filling gaps in science), but about finding meaning/moral grounding, hope and/or identity. Science tells you how things work but it doesn’t tell you "how" to live or "why" anything should matter in the first place, and most people long for those frameworks, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
That said, I'm with you that institutional religion can be dangerous when it comes to power, money/control or dogma. Blind faith + authority is never a good combination, and churches (but imo, the same goes for basically any institution, religious or not) should definitely be critizied (and held accountable), but still, religion isn’t inherently good or bad. It can be wisted into something harmful and be used for manipulation/radicalization, or give people meaning (we're meaning-seeking creatures, after all) and a sense of community or purpose.
At the end of the day the problem isn’t belief itself, it's what people do with it.
Yes, and if you look at Buddhist meditation techniques its actually helpful and proven by science. Also it’s not a religion but more a life philosophy..
Do you really think we understand anything now? We have no idea what we are doing or what this all is. Also, where do you think science came from? That's right. Originally funded by religious organizations. If you love science (like I do) you should appreciate religion for making science possible.
This is true, however I received a 3 day ban from r/Atheism for saying some people who eat meat refuse to see the problems in the meat industry. The idea of human dominance of animals may have started as religious belief but it is clung to by people who are not religious. Compassion and understanding is too often viewed as weakness.
Yeh indeed, if you look at one of the older religions however, Jainism in specific they have a much more holistic take on things, almost if it was more peaceful back then.. like Harrapan Valley for example..
Yes, ahimsa is a very admirable principle and does set eastern religions apart from the abrahamic ones. I should have made it clearer I meant abrahamic religions.
Yeh you are right… I think its this, the westerners (ancient greeks, Frankists etc) they went with the materialism side which turned to individualism, capitalism and so while the east went with the immaterial, and to turn inward, and be holistic with its environment. But the west perfected manipulation and infected the world. This is just in short off course, i hope i got my point across..
Anthropocentrism allows even the most insecure people to feel like they’re superior to something. That’s an appealing and powerful drug for a lot of people.
Animals eat animals. It's very normal and natural to eat meat when you're a carnivore or omnivore. They shouldn't be raised or butchered in a way that is cruel or increases their suffering, but there's nothing wrong with eating meat or using animal products. Many "vegan" products are just some form of plastic and are just as bad, if not worse than, the animal product industry for the environment, after all.
Is plastic used to preserve animal feed? Is that non-recyclable plastic? Where does it go after? I'm asking about stuff like LDPE, which gets contaminated by organic material.
They might be as smart as us stupid humans…they do have feelings, a sense of self and capacity to learn. We are terrible stewards of the animal kingdom.
Someone on here a while back was actually arguing with me that animals don't think about dying as if it's not ingrained into all living beings to avoid death
My first reaction was, well, of course they’re sentient. But then the article claims:
>There aren't degrees of sentience among different species
Perhaps that’s true if you’re only looking for a pure yes or no answer. But they go on to say even some insects are considered sentient.
I’d argue that how insects experience sentience (moment-to-moment reactions) versus how higher level animals experience sentience (learned experiences, anticipation, moral reasoning) is fundamentally different. In that sense, one could envision many degrees of sentience - rather like the many degrees or layer of intelligence.
Some spiders have been shown to have object permanence and spatial planning, using detours while hunting and anticipating where their prey will be using working memory. Pretty interesting stuff
Yeah. Obviously all living things respond, and feel their environment in some format. That’s sentience. But to say “there’s not degrees” can seem reductionistic for me.
Unless a narrow metric is being used to verify sentience at baseline. Like pain/distress. Because various species have diverse nervous systems, or sensory perception. Birds don’t experience the world like my dog; especially related to vision, and movement. There’s surely an underlying spectrum to sentience across species; at least recognize the complexity amidst our biosphere.
AI overview—Sentience (Subjective Experience): Often described as "what it is like to be" an entity. It involves the ability to feel, such as experiencing pain, joy, hunger, or color. Sentience is generally associated with biological life and subcortical brain regions. Sentience referring to the ability to have subjective experiences (feelings, emotions, sensations).
I was just critiquing your particular examples and insistence that all insects are "lower-level" animals, heh. There are definitely insects who form memories, learn from experience, share knowledge with others, and have even demonstrated abstract thought (coolest example off the top of my head is that bees can learn to use color cues as an abstract way to solve mazes and puzzles, it's so freaking cool!).
Definitely different, but also definitely not just moment-to-moment reactions. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all insects are dumb brainless automatons, or even lower-level. Some absolutely are--but hey, so are some examples of "higher-level" species as well. I'd argue koalas are less intelligent than most bees, and probably more than just bees, despite being mammals.
I seriously recommend you look into some of the recent research before you assume some insects can't be higher-level.
Issue is that saying degrees only locks our minds into the thought that there is only one form of intelligence.
Some animals may be insanely developed in one form of awareness but not in another.
Bats are far more aware of sound and 3D dimensional space than we are. Ants are better at mass cooperation than humans are. Even comparing animals to humans betrays a certain solipsism that is totally unscientific and unreasonable.
We don't know how to classify sentience, sapience, consciousness or anything of the sort scientifically in a way in a mathematical way.
I’m fine with both degrees as well as different types of sentience (or intelligence). I’d much rather use very descriptive (and measurable) terms than vague concepts like sentience or intelligence.
This point is beyond obvious to everyone except the so-called "smart" ones that we as a society have been actively cultivating and elevating for the past few thousand years or so.
It's funny that some argue feelings are what separate us from animals and what defines what sentience is. I'd argue it's the other way around. Feelings are the thoughtless reactionary substrate that we all share and evolved well before homo erectus - compelling us to compete, love, feel satiated, care for one another, exact "justice". It's remarkable how little control we have over these feelings, and how much we rationalize them as if they were always well thought out after the fact. I believe that our higher level capabilities only augment this base (e.g. try to keep cool) and control execution.
4n0m4l7 | a month ago
Its because of the bible and so on that humans came to believe its all theirs to use for whatever reason… Personally i am a advocate for animals and that they should be treated right!
Busterlimes | a month ago
Religion is the biggest lie sold to modern humans. Religion made sense when we didnt understand stuff and wanted an explanation, now we have science. Religion is nothing but a form of entertainment at this point. It does a complete disservice to humanity and churches should be illegal. Pray all you want at home, its crystal clear those institutions are nothing but a grift and a haven for extremism to brew.
nova_8 | a month ago
Fwiw, I'm saying this as someone who doesn't subscribe to any of the major religions myself, but pretending it would only exists because people were ignorant feels like an oversimplification, as there are plenty of religious people who are fine with science.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why it's easy to feel this way, especially with how much harm has been done in the name of religion (that deserves criticism, no question!), but I think saying it would just be a lie or entertainment flattens it to something that in reality is way more complex. For a lot of people it's not about explaining lightning (or filling gaps in science), but about finding meaning/moral grounding, hope and/or identity. Science tells you how things work but it doesn’t tell you "how" to live or "why" anything should matter in the first place, and most people long for those frameworks, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
That said, I'm with you that institutional religion can be dangerous when it comes to power, money/control or dogma. Blind faith + authority is never a good combination, and churches (but imo, the same goes for basically any institution, religious or not) should definitely be critizied (and held accountable), but still, religion isn’t inherently good or bad. It can be wisted into something harmful and be used for manipulation/radicalization, or give people meaning (we're meaning-seeking creatures, after all) and a sense of community or purpose.
At the end of the day the problem isn’t belief itself, it's what people do with it.
Busterlimes | a month ago
My problem isnt with religion, as I stated in my closing sentence, its with the institution of the church.
4n0m4l7 | a month ago
Yes, and if you look at Buddhist meditation techniques its actually helpful and proven by science. Also it’s not a religion but more a life philosophy..
Citizen999999 | a month ago
Do you really think we understand anything now? We have no idea what we are doing or what this all is. Also, where do you think science came from? That's right. Originally funded by religious organizations. If you love science (like I do) you should appreciate religion for making science possible.
Absolutely brain dead read a history book.
minapaw | a month ago
This is true, however I received a 3 day ban from r/Atheism for saying some people who eat meat refuse to see the problems in the meat industry. The idea of human dominance of animals may have started as religious belief but it is clung to by people who are not religious. Compassion and understanding is too often viewed as weakness.
4n0m4l7 | a month ago
Yeh indeed, if you look at one of the older religions however, Jainism in specific they have a much more holistic take on things, almost if it was more peaceful back then.. like Harrapan Valley for example..
minapaw | a month ago
Yes, ahimsa is a very admirable principle and does set eastern religions apart from the abrahamic ones. I should have made it clearer I meant abrahamic religions.
4n0m4l7 | a month ago
Yeh you are right… I think its this, the westerners (ancient greeks, Frankists etc) they went with the materialism side which turned to individualism, capitalism and so while the east went with the immaterial, and to turn inward, and be holistic with its environment. But the west perfected manipulation and infected the world. This is just in short off course, i hope i got my point across..
AJDx14 | a month ago
I <3 Orientalism
Forward-Fisherman709 | a month ago
Anthropocentrism allows even the most insecure people to feel like they’re superior to something. That’s an appealing and powerful drug for a lot of people.
fearthainne | a month ago
Animals eat animals. It's very normal and natural to eat meat when you're a carnivore or omnivore. They shouldn't be raised or butchered in a way that is cruel or increases their suffering, but there's nothing wrong with eating meat or using animal products. Many "vegan" products are just some form of plastic and are just as bad, if not worse than, the animal product industry for the environment, after all.
AcediaZor | a month ago
Is plastic used to preserve animal feed? Is that non-recyclable plastic? Where does it go after? I'm asking about stuff like LDPE, which gets contaminated by organic material.
OilHot3940 | a month ago
How long has it been since you stopped eating meat and other animal products?
costafilh0 | a month ago
I thought the Bible said Adam and Eve were supposed to take care of all the animals, not eat them.
4n0m4l7 | a month ago
Man is above the animals and nature is what abrahamic religions teach and this is not true.
pursuitofhappiness13 | a month ago
Care about the sentient animals? My brother, they don't even care about the sapient humans.
IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE | a month ago
This. We have to remember we’re trying to tell people who would flay a human alive for profit to care about other animal’s agency?
I agree with the sentiment, but it’s a very uphill battle.
darlingtonpeach | a month ago
They might be as smart as us stupid humans…they do have feelings, a sense of self and capacity to learn. We are terrible stewards of the animal kingdom.
xyz19606 | a month ago
"I may not be a smart hu-man, but I know what love is."
darlingtonpeach | a month ago
As do they…
-Kalos | a month ago
Someone on here a while back was actually arguing with me that animals don't think about dying as if it's not ingrained into all living beings to avoid death
Ntroepy | a month ago
My first reaction was, well, of course they’re sentient. But then the article claims:
>There aren't degrees of sentience among different species
Perhaps that’s true if you’re only looking for a pure yes or no answer. But they go on to say even some insects are considered sentient.
I’d argue that how insects experience sentience (moment-to-moment reactions) versus how higher level animals experience sentience (learned experiences, anticipation, moral reasoning) is fundamentally different. In that sense, one could envision many degrees of sentience - rather like the many degrees or layer of intelligence.
Sterling_-_Archer | a month ago
Some spiders have been shown to have object permanence and spatial planning, using detours while hunting and anticipating where their prey will be using working memory. Pretty interesting stuff
AdFuture6874 | a month ago
Yeah. Obviously all living things respond, and feel their environment in some format. That’s sentience. But to say “there’s not degrees” can seem reductionistic for me.
Unless a narrow metric is being used to verify sentience at baseline. Like pain/distress. Because various species have diverse nervous systems, or sensory perception. Birds don’t experience the world like my dog; especially related to vision, and movement. There’s surely an underlying spectrum to sentience across species; at least recognize the complexity amidst our biosphere.
AI overview— Sentience (Subjective Experience): Often described as "what it is like to be" an entity. It involves the ability to feel, such as experiencing pain, joy, hunger, or color. Sentience is generally associated with biological life and subcortical brain regions. Sentience referring to the ability to have subjective experiences (feelings, emotions, sensations).
InfinitelyThirsting | a month ago
Bees have learned experiences, anticipation, generational care, they even play.
I'm not even disagreeing entirely with you, just reminding you that not all insects are simple.
Ntroepy | a month ago
I quite agree! I’d still argue that they experience sentience very differently than higher-level animals.
InfinitelyThirsting | a month ago
I was just critiquing your particular examples and insistence that all insects are "lower-level" animals, heh. There are definitely insects who form memories, learn from experience, share knowledge with others, and have even demonstrated abstract thought (coolest example off the top of my head is that bees can learn to use color cues as an abstract way to solve mazes and puzzles, it's so freaking cool!).
Definitely different, but also definitely not just moment-to-moment reactions. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all insects are dumb brainless automatons, or even lower-level. Some absolutely are--but hey, so are some examples of "higher-level" species as well. I'd argue koalas are less intelligent than most bees, and probably more than just bees, despite being mammals.
I seriously recommend you look into some of the recent research before you assume some insects can't be higher-level.
PlutoCharonMelody | a month ago
Issue is that saying degrees only locks our minds into the thought that there is only one form of intelligence.
Some animals may be insanely developed in one form of awareness but not in another.
Bats are far more aware of sound and 3D dimensional space than we are. Ants are better at mass cooperation than humans are. Even comparing animals to humans betrays a certain solipsism that is totally unscientific and unreasonable.
We don't know how to classify sentience, sapience, consciousness or anything of the sort scientifically in a way in a mathematical way.
Ntroepy | a month ago
I’m fine with both degrees as well as different types of sentience (or intelligence). I’d much rather use very descriptive (and measurable) terms than vague concepts like sentience or intelligence.
BigJSunshine | a month ago
Duh
wellhiyabuddy | a month ago
Nothing says science and not opinion, like bringing up common sense
easyjimi1974 | a month ago
This point is beyond obvious to everyone except the so-called "smart" ones that we as a society have been actively cultivating and elevating for the past few thousand years or so.
-Kalos | a month ago
Yeah no shit
costafilh0 | a month ago
This is not about science or animals, this is about BIG Lettuce trying to take down their biggest competitor, BIG Meat.
Electronic_Exit2519 | a month ago
It's funny that some argue feelings are what separate us from animals and what defines what sentience is. I'd argue it's the other way around. Feelings are the thoughtless reactionary substrate that we all share and evolved well before homo erectus - compelling us to compete, love, feel satiated, care for one another, exact "justice". It's remarkable how little control we have over these feelings, and how much we rationalize them as if they were always well thought out after the fact. I believe that our higher level capabilities only augment this base (e.g. try to keep cool) and control execution.
stuffitystuff | a month ago
A thought-terminating cliche and a separate argument from incredulity fallacy in a single headline. Good work, PT.
Citizen999999 | a month ago
Yeah but they are also delicious