A Declaration on Animal Consciousness
And why it is important to life on Earth.
Note: A friend of.mine in New York just brought this news to my attention. I think it’s significant enough to pass it along to you. Have a good weekend! Tony P.
Last Friday, several dozen scientists and philosophers released the following “New York Declaration” after a meeting on the science of animal consciousness. It’s brief and carefully worded, likely to avoid criticism of being unscientific:
Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.
First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.
Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).
Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.
The Declaration reflects what many of us have thought about for some time — that other life has ways of experiencing the world that both parallel and differ from the way we do. The diversity of sensory, perceptual, and reasoning skills exhibited by life on Earth must be astounding.
The final point about decisions affecting animals is likely the most significant. One can hope that this declaration, in some small way, may help amplify our society’s moral and intellectual grasp of the living world— and, in doing so, help lower its staggering level of anthropocentrism.
I’ve come to realize that the narcissistic belief that humans alone possess intrinsic value is the ultimate driver of civilization’s mass destruction of life. Primary triggers of that destruction—overconsumption and overpopulation—are fully enabled by this belief.
My one concern about the New York Declaration and similar works is how they’re interpreted in a practical, ethical sense. Animals are one part of a greater community of life that includes many other beings deserving of moral consideration, regardless of “consciousness.”
For more on the New York Declaration, with quotes from its authors and critics, and references to other related works, read this.
This just in via email from a reader: "It's a great declaration. Perhaps it might be appropriate to suggest that the signers and others read What a Plant Knows by Daniel Chamovitz."
Thanks so much for the expansion and links. The dry verbiage of the declaration did so little for me. I understand, they were just meeting the requirements of a formal statement. Your expansion helps to remind us that they are talking about life as we know it: the clever raccoon that plans ahead knowing not only how, but when to raid your camp larder, the anole doing push ups with his red dewlap flashing, or the huge mother bass watching over her fry. Sure, even as a PhD Zoologist you may still be accused of anthropomorphizing, but all those animal reels on social media don't lie. These creatures have their own lives and their own awarenesses. They know what they are doing, why, and who matters to them. For most of the the undomesticated ones, humans are clutter and an annoyance, to be ignored and avoided. We however are the moral ones, and must make wise declarations and hope that we and our fellow humans know how to behave to assure the well-being of these fellow living beings.