> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case. I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light.

Great post. Respectfully, though, I disagree with the excerpt above.

I find that urbanization has led to a disconnect between people and animals. In times past, a person would have regular contact with a host of domesticated animals (cattle, horses, mules, donkeys, sheep, goat, chickens, pigs, etc.) as well as the wild animals that are a part of everyday life in rural settings (rodents, possums, armadillos, foxes, coyotes, snakes, deer, birds, etc.)

Without question, people in the past had a far greater appreciation of the ‘intelligence’ and behavior of animals than modern city-dwellers.

One need look no further than the numerous metaphors that have been passed down from these non-urban times: stubborn as a mule, wise as serpents, cunning like a fox, horse-sense, wise as an owl, etc...

In short, I’d suggest that the more modern (or, perhaps, urbanized is a better word) the LESS appreciation one finds for animal intelligence.

I have family who still live a pretty rural life, close to nature. They care very little about animals compared to my urban friends and family. They view animals as little more than "moving things" or simply food.

You may be mixing apples and oranges...

The degree of ‘compassion’ one has toward an animal is not directly correlated to one’s opinions as to its intelligence.

My uncle raised pigs. A frequent topic of conversation was how smart they are. Without question, they’re smarter than dogs. (I had a pet pig growing up.)

Yet, we ate then.

An even more brutal example: slavery. It was obvious and undeniable that human slaves were intelligent; yet, that didn’t mean that compassion towards them was common.

Fair point. Interesting that human beings can keep those separated.

> One need look no further than the numerous metaphors that have been passed down from these non-urban times: stubborn as a mule, wise as serpents, cunning like a fox, horse-sense, wise as an owl, etc...

Are you sure that comes from nature observation ?

Satire used to criticize the powerful of the world picturing them as animals. So these associations might not come from where you think they do. La Fontaine's fables are a good example of that. He was not the only one to do that.

I have firsthand knowledge of the sayings in regard to mules, horses, and foxes. They are very accurate.

Never thought snakes were that ‘wise’ though. Don’t know about owls.

> I think folks in modern times are less & less prone to thinking animals are ‘dumb’. But 1 or 2 generations ago this was not the case.

The naturalist Jean-Henri Fabre, in the 19th century, made an extensive study of solitary, spider-hunting wasps. Much of what he discovered, with regard to the surprising complexity of their hunting and nesting behavior, became well known in his day - he was one of the first writers I discovered when I started delving into the literature to feed my own burgeoning interest in the aculeates, and one of the reasons his work is so easy to come by is that it was popular, and thus well preserved.

It was very much new to me, though; to whatever extent it had entered common knowledge a century and a half ago, it has since exited again. If anything, I think that in recent generations we have become less likely to recognize complex behavior and intelligence in nonhuman animals, not more so; that may be changing, but if so, I think it must have begun quite recently.

I believe I underestimated animal intelligence, and as an extension of that, animal consciousness. I have no proof that animals are intelligent or sentient or whatever. I do however have no reason to assume otherwise. As a result I’ve stopped eating meat almost entirely, and I suspect I’ll eliminate it entirely eventually. I still eat fish and shellfish.

I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony. It has been a difficult revelation in some ways. Cooking meat has almost been a part of my way of life; it’s something I took pride in and always did to the best of my ability. Now I don’t really have much interest in food at all.

The realization that animals in factory farms have a capacity to suffer, and are undoubtedly subjected to this suffering for the majority of their lives, has made me cut my meat consumption from every meal to occasionally on the weekends. Would love to cut it out completely but have not mustered the willpower to do so.

I think personally owning a pet dog and realizing they aren't biological machines simply responding to stimuli has helped me with that realization.

What if the suffering could somehow be guaranteed not to occur? Since that seems to be your only (main?) reason to give up meat, would you go back to eating it if the suffering didn't happen?

I think the parent comment to yours is more about avoiding meat because of compassion to the intellect/consciousness. Rather than avoiding meat in order to eliminate any suffering that may occur during "production" of it.

I'm curious because I'm pretty good at convincing myself that the meat I buy comes from animals that haven't suffered. And if it can actually be guaranteed (moose killed by hunter) I'm all-in on meat. But if I somehow "woke up" and realized that I didn't want to eat other living things because of compassion (or whatever) to their minds? I'm not sure that I could go back from that.

I think I'm somehow in the same situation, trying to avoid industrial farming in benefit of local, small farming. I can know for sure (for some of them) that the animal was well treated from the beginning of its life to the very end.

I am asking myself if it is better for the animal to live a decent life even if it is to be killed and ate at the end or not to live at all.

My hang up is basically this:

If I want the animal to have a good life, why do I/should I get to (or even want to) decide when and why that life should end? It seems very contradictory to me and necessitates a need for the taking of the thing I’m apparently attaching value to.

Also I know I don’t physically kill these animals on a stop watch, but I vote for their death with my wallet. I don’t see a significant difference. Actually, I think it’s somewhat worse than it I carried it out myself. That’s why I generally try to only eat seafood that I selectively harvest while diving. I can guarantee the final moments were as brief as humanly possible and the rest of its life were as nature intended.

So, I really struggle with this one part where I decide the animal has worth and should therefor have a good existence. However, I’m also deciding it should only have that until I decide I want to deep fry its muscles or something. So it must be that I’m deciding to be a benevolent killer or something, which is certainly better than a ruthless one, but leaves me a uncomfortable nonetheless. I need to justify my own need or desire to continue killing, or at least profiting from the killing.

That’s the part I can’t do so far. Do I actually need to eat them? No, so far I really don’t. My health is still good after quite a while and the initial cravings have subsided. Do I want to eat them? No, not anymore, although I do miss it from a culinary perspective. Does that justify killing them? Well, would it justify killing someone’s dog if I thought dogs were delicious? Or any dog? No, never - the notion is absurd.

Well. I suppose some people eat dogs. This has a significant cultural element to it.

Nonetheless I really can’t bring myself to convince myself that I have any good reason to eat animals. Though admittedly I make an exception for fish and shellfish. I feel strange about that. I mean, when I get in the water those fish are arguably smarter than I am. One thing I justify the action by is that at least in the water they have a natural chance and environmental advantage. It isn’t a relationship of control and systematic murder from birth to death.

In time I suspect I’ll stop eating fish too. I don’t know.

The more I think about it the more it becomes an existential matter to be honest.

I don't see why your reasoning shouldn't also apply to fish and shellfish as it does to other animals?

> would it justify killing someone’s dog if I thought dogs were delicious?

That's a bit silly. Regardless of the ethics of eating meat, there are a whole bunch of other reasons why you wouldn't kill someone's pet. Just like you don't dive into people's fish tanks for your seafood :)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with killing animals for sustenance. Animals die and get eaten without needing any help form humans.

My main objection is to the manner of which animals have to be raised and harvested in the most efficient manner to satisfy the ever increasing demand for meat in the world while still being bottom of the barrel in price. Has there been any evidence this can be sustained without wholesale suffering?

If you can ensure all the meat you purchase comes from the opposite of such conditions then all the more power to you. The meat I do eat I also try to purchase from better farm conditions, but I don't think that's always possible.

Why care about the suffering, but not about the extinguishing of a life? If the moment to moment experience of a thing has value, but the thing's actual existence does not, why should (humane) murder not be legal? I do implore you to wake up -- you are deluding yourself for the sake of the pleasure.

Death is a form of suffering. Whether the creature you kill knows it lives only to die for you, whether it can see and understand some aspect of its cage or not, you took it before its time. It is all the same wrong in the end.

Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs? Sure, fine. But those are not at all sustainable activities at a population level. We have to do things to animals that cause real harm to ever get enough of those products to sell them, even if we treat the animals way better overall. (And it's still better to push for better treatment than to do and feel nothing!)

My own mental backflip: I do still eat meat, because I'm a selfish and horrible person. I accept my complicity in the evil. But I also know my own choices will not meaningfully change demand patterns, so I allow myself the pleasure of the flavours I grew up eating, and try not to dwell on it too much. Even the Buddha was said to eat meat if it was what was served -- but of course, would request not to be served it!

Regardless, I know full veganism is the only actually ethically justifiable choice, and I believe and hope it will one day be the only realistic or acceptable choice for all of us. I will advocate for it (I hope) strongly whenever I can. No being deserves any part of what we do to them for food, and most people have pretty awful reasons to continue to eat meat; often literally at the level of, "animals can't suffer!", or, "humans are a higher being!", which is a mind-blowingly horrific thing to understand people will assert even after being given the evidence. I find the dismissive attitude appalling and try to get friends to at least see it in its real light.

Personally, once I catch wind that the tide toward veganism is beginning to turn, or that we somehow achieved affordable ethically lab-grown cheap muscle+fat tissue meats, I'll gladly turn that page. Or, once the horror again resurges strongly enough to overcome the value of shepherd's pie, thanksgiving ham, or a hamburger.

It's not much of an intellectual position, but it's all I've got. I ask that you at least be honest with yourself: the beings you eat have suffered for your pleasure.

> Death is a form of suffering.

I don't think this blanket statement is true. eg: people often live long past the point that they enjoy being alive.

> Now, eating an animal that died of natural or uncontrollable causes, or using for-real excess milk or eggs?

What's "natural" in your opinion? Do you mean old-age, disease, natural predators or something else? Humans are natural predators. Death from old age/disease is often caused by environmental factors or stress.

Calling any of this "evil" is an interesting choice. Maybe this is all just how the world works and we have yet to accept that as a species. I do think our role in the food chain needs to be sustainably defined and understood.

Thanks for taking the time. It's an interesting argument that many people live past the point that they enjoy life, but I doubt you are really suggesting we would be right to kill those people without their direct consent. Euthanasia, where it is at all accepted as moral, typically requires consent. If you think you can get the consent of an animal to kill it, well... let's cross that bridge when we come to it! Regardless, 'death' in this instance is still not necessarily a pleasure -- it may just be the option with the least suffering, and even if there are exceptions to death as a form of suffering, it doesn't seem far off base. As living beings, we value life.

Next, I agree that "natural" could mean a lot of things. In this case, understanding that we're discussing moral involvement, I'm speaking about whether or not you have moral involvement in causing the death.

Paying for a burger from McDonald's is indirectly asking for the death of the cow. They wouldn't kill it if no one bought burgers, but we all know that people do buy burgers, so the blame is diffuse. We all share. But you, in eating it, still profit by the being's death, and it was ultimately a deed done for your benefit when you chose to pay them. Of course it is more direct if you pay a butcher to slaughter a cow, and far more direct if you wield the knife. Hit a deer with your car by mistake? Maybe that's like manslaughter levels of culpability.

As a sidebar, is a cow killed by a wolf a natural death? It happens 'in nature', and the wolf couldn't live without killing other things, so it is natural for a wolf to kill a cow. But... is the death a natural death? I do not feel it is. I cannot blame the wolf (as it does not know better and does not possess other actual options, like we do), but I do not think the cow exists for the wolf. To paraphrase Kant I think, each being is an end unto itself. The cow's most natural death is one of old age, i.e. what we would legally call 'natural causes'. Suppose that health care could have extended its life, well sure, but there's a limit of practicality.

Last, it would be possible to justify literally any act from the position of "maybe this is just how the world works and we have to accept it" -- so, again, sure. But slavery was 'just how the world worked' for a long time, and I feel I am better off, and I can think of a hell of a lot of other humans who are better off, for us eventually having not just accepted it. There are similarities.

Veganism is really the only choice that's morally consistent, intellectually honest, and doesn't rely on special permission. It is ultimately not really arguable that it is a terrible thing for us to do to breed them, to keep them, to manipulate them, to harvest their products, and to kill them, especially in the ways we do. One must rely on ideas like 'might is right', 'we are inherently special for reasons that must be taken on faith', or 'nothing really matters anyway, everything is relative', which are exactly the arguments that have been used to justify all past atrocities of our doing.

> Thanks for taking the time.

likewise :)

In terms of practicality, a wolf needs to eat too. Without wolves (or predators) we find over-population which leads to food scarcity which leads to suffering (queue yoda reference.)

I think there is a big difference between slavery (a dark human endeavor) and the natural order of the world. Humans didn't invent predators. At best, we conquered them and at worst, we became them while growing to become the second most dominant (and largely unchecked) biomass on the planet.

Given that plants have been shown to have feelings, I'm not sure where our idea that eating plants is morally superior to eating animals comes from. Some plants poison animals in order to fertilize their soil. Some people poison plants in order to have a somewhat pleasant looking front-yard. Many plants have developed obvious defenses against being eaten, much like animals. By eating fruit that has dropped to the ground, you are denying the plant its intent to reproduce.

I think that most humans are more capable of empathizing with other animals than with plants and that's the root of the sense of morality here. The hard truth is that no living thing wants to be eaten to death but every living thing needs to eat. The circle of life is a real thing, the carbon cycle relies on plants recycling decayed organic matter including animals.

> realizing they aren't biological machines simply responding to stimuli

I know what you mean, but on some level you and I are also "biological machines simply responding to stimuli". The difference is more in the complexity of said stimuli and responses in time and space :)

> I struggle to understand how I disregarded animal minds for decades, but I suspect it can be reduced to arrogance, convenience, and gluttony.

I don't think that cephalopods are arrogant when they eat other creatures, although I suppose they may be gluttonous. Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating?

>Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals you refrain from eating?

For some, morality isn't fungible or based on the morality or others (animal or human). If someone is a thief and willing to rob you, does that mean its okay for you to steal from them? It seems reasonable to me to hold a personal code of ethics and standards that isn't dependent (or at all related) to the ethics and standards of others (if any).

That's why I like eating tuna! They're out hunting and killing, and then have one very bad day. Live by the sword ...

I think what you're suggesting is footed on the appeal to nature fallacy. What happens in nature is natural and therefor good.

Also, I'm not sure a cephalopod has evolved the physical and mental capability to vary its diet on command such that it can choose if it will feed on other animals or not.

At some level humans and cephalopods are just animals, and equivalent in that regard, but I'm not sure I accept the equivalence far beyond that or especially when it comes to morality.

> Why hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold the animals"

This cannot be how you approach morality. Animals routinely do horrific things to each other. Would you ever ask someone that question outside of a conversation on whom we kill to eat?

With apologies to Sinclair: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his dinner plate depends on his not understanding it.

Cooking is a source of pleasure and society. My cultural Christian inheritance (and yours?) is quite committed to the separateness of people and animals. Many people deny even the wholeness of the human species. Where is the mystery in your beliefs? It is only an inheritance you now reject.

You can come back to meat later, or not, in your own time. Sort of like when you go far enough left, you get your guns back. There is nothing shameful in a cat.

It's a very hard realization to have. I applaud you. I was vegan for a couple years, until I devleped tooth problems for the first time in my life, which spooked me and I quit. Now I just try to moderate my meat intake, consume the less-in-demand parts like tongue (nobody raises a cow for its tongue), and buy from sources that impose less, albeit clearly still substantial, suffering.

But that said, there's so much great vegetarian food to be eaten!

That reminds me of something, which I suppose goes against what I've been commenting here. The rest of my family still eats meat and rather than throw out bones I will freeze them, let them accumulate, then make a broth and drink it. It seems immoral to waste the bones, sort of like how it seems more moral to only seek out that which might otherwise be wasted. It's a grey area for sure. In that regard though I suppose I do still eat animals? I certainly wouldn't make the broth if my family wasn't eating meat, though.

And you're right, most of the world has amazing vegetarian food. It's daunting to take on learning all of it. Indian and Thai foods especially have been incredibly appealing to me lately. So much flavour and nutrition is possible and these people seem to have figured it out a long time ago.

Most of it is learned behaviour. There is nothing natural about it for children, but conditioning and culture largely makes us who we are as humans.

So I don't see the need to look down on yourself for realizing something new. It wouldn't be new if it was totally familiar. However, the knowledge itself is thousands of years old, and also evolving.

> There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.

Park Ranger at Yosemite National Park (on designing secure garbage cans)

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a...

I was talking to a kitchen hand in New Zealand in an area with Kea. He described the escalating battle to keep kea out the rubbish bins. It started with a rock on the lid which they solved fast, and then various other hinderances to keep them out.

The kea sit and watch and learn over s day or 3 and then they are back in, causing chaos.

The kitchen staff were trying to solve each puzzle with time pressure, a job to do and bad weather. The kea looked to find it funny whole the poor worker was frustrated.

Every time I read about octopi I'm stunned at their intelligence and ability to connect with humans.

If our civilization lasts long enough, someday we'll all be reviled for eating animals, especially octopi and pigs.

Taken further, you might argue that there might be condemnation eventually of the whole concept of pets and work animals too. I'm not sure I "condemn" these ideas, but I don't have a pet because I think animals should be wild. I make my own ethical comprimises, though, don't get me wrong.

Harry Harrison wrote a book I read many years ago called West of Eden, where the dinosaur extinction event didn't occur. An advanced species of lizard used modified lifeforms for their tech. I have it on my list to read again. It does make you think people might be more symbiotic towards the world rather than what we have now.

How come you include pigs but leave out cows?

The parent commenter has probably, like me, heard that pigs are remarkably intelligent. I haven't heard the same of cows.

That may very well be a skewed understanding, but it's likely why they choose that grouping.

Personally, I don’t see cows as very different from dogs.

They’re just as social and emotional as dogs are.

Intelligence wise, dogs are probably a bit smarter. But how much, I don’t know, they don’t seem that radically different.

I suspect you have more experience than I, and I know my imagining is poorly founded!

I think pigs have just received enough good PR recently that they come to mind as another particularly intelligent animal.

Maybe the size also helps? Closer to a dog or a cat, cows are not.

> I think humans for a long time have regarded animal intelligence in an inferior light.

Well, it is objectively inferior. That doesn't mean that it's not intelligence.

Haha, ok in general you’re right. Maybe a poor choice of words. But also, in general, I believe we have vastly underestimated the intelligence of most other animals. Even ones that are demonstrably not that smart.