While we may enjoy the company of companion animals or a fleeting encounter with wildlife, many people believe humans have a superior consciousness of the world we live in.<\/p>\n
Every now and then, though, new study findings about the surprising intelligence of other animals reignite this debate. Recently, two German philosophers, Professor Leonard Dung and PhD candidate Albert Newen,\u00a0published a paper<\/a>\u00a0questioning whether we are coming at the issue from the right angle, or even asking the right question at all.<\/p>\n In their article, the authors say we should stop approaching animal consciousness as a ‘do they\/don\u2019t they?’ question. Rather, they suggest we should measure non-human consciousness on a spectrum alongside human consciousness.<\/p>\n In\u00a0my research<\/a>, I have explored whether we should stop trying to compare other animals with humans to gauge which ones are ‘worthy’ of better treatment. My work doesn\u2019t oppose the study of animal consciousness; it simply asks people to reflect on the reasons we are asking these questions.<\/p>\n There may be other forms of consciousness we cannot understand. Non-human animals’ precise relationship to human consciousness doesn\u2019t make them less important.<\/p>\n We still do not know what makes the difference between being alive and having consciousness. In humans, the definition of consciousness is\u00a0vague and speculative<\/a>. For example, the\u00a0Glasgow coma scale<\/a> measures the expectation that a patient will regain consciousness, rather than defining its presence or absence. Neurologists can\u2019t agree on what part of the brain consciousness is generated in \u2013 yet we try to measure it in non-human animals.<\/p>\n Even within the animal rights movement, there is conflict between those who defend animals based on their similarity to humans (moral theorists), and those who claim\u00a0non-human animals have a right to exist<\/a>\u00a0regardless of our view of them (abolitionists).<\/p>\n The problem is, both perspectives discuss our treatment of animals from a human perspective. In her book\u00a0In Neither Man Nor Beast<\/a>, abolitionist Carol J. Adams calls this the \u201carrogant eye\u201d of anthropocentrism \u2013 the distortion of our understanding of the world into models suited for humans.<\/p>\n Of course, as humans we can only really look at the world from a human perspective. But\u00a0anthropocentrism<\/a> presumes there to be only one ‘objective’ perspective \u2013 the human one \u2013 and that Earth’s other organisms should measure up as close to humans as possible in order to be granted the right to exist. This implies that many non-human animals require no ethical consideration at all when it comes to their welfare.<\/p>\n A longstanding paradox is the status of animals used in research. They are\u00a0similar enough to stand in for humans<\/a>, yet a lot of people don\u2019t want to think about what this means for their consciousness of pain and suffering. It seems an uncomfortable inconsistency.<\/p>\n Equally,\u00a0many scientists working in artificial intelligence (AI)<\/a>,\u00a0stem cell research<\/a> and other fields are trying to reduce the exploitation of non-human animals in medical development \u2013 for example,\u00a0the Dr Hadwen Trust<\/a>, whose research does not involve testing on animals.<\/p>\n It’s important to understand our motives behind measuring animal consciousness. A lot of people seem to want to measure it<\/a> to alleviate their guilt, by ‘othering’ the animals we harm from those we find appealing or similar to ourselves. Studying animal consciousness can help us empathise with non-human animals, but it can also help people avoid grappling with the ethics of animal testing.<\/p>\n I believe we need to stop asking questions about animal consciousness that are based on a hierarchy.<\/p>\n Octopi and other\u00a0cephalopods have nervous systems<\/a>\u00a0throughout all their limbs. Their bodies are not a separate thing controlled by a brain or central nervous system.<\/p>\n My work doesn\u2019t oppose the study of animal consciousness; it simply asks people to reflect on the reasons we are asking these questions.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So measuring consciousness using a central nervous system like ours may lead us to believe they do not have pain capacity or even sentience. Yet behavioural studies show they express both<\/a>, just differently to humans.<\/p>\n Many animals express reproductive behaviour in ways completely alien to humans. For example, the\u00a0female mole has an ovoteste<\/a>\u00a0and, outside of mating season,\u00a0behaves like a male<\/a>. (Mole ovotestes release eggs like typical ovaries but also have testicular tissue to one side that releases large amounts of male sex hormones.) Similarly,\u00a0clown fish change from male<\/a>\u00a0to female, and\u00a0kobudai fish change from female<\/a>\u00a0to male.<\/p>\n These species show how\u00a0rich and diverse the animal kingdom is<\/a>. Viewing them and other animals as\u00a0\u201clesser\u201d versions of ourselves<\/a>\u00a0denies the rich and complex diversity of the animal kingdom.<\/p>\n We are in an age which, to an extent, embraces feminism, anti-racism and anti-ableism. Perhaps it is also time to include ‘speciesism’ in our discussions about ethics \u2013 since valuing some species over others is a form of prejudice.<\/p>\n Over time, the public has slowly broadened its criticism of animal testing from\u00a0great apes<\/a>\u00a0to baboons<\/a>, mice and even\u00a0water fleas<\/a>. This shows we have placed animals in a hierarchy which makes experimenting on some acceptable and others less so. Philosophers have been raising concerns about the ethics of this since\u00a0the sixth century BC<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is also the\u00a0age of the Anthropocene<\/a>, the period during which human activities have affected the environment enough to create a distinct geological change. We live in a\u00a0climate and nature crisis<\/a>\u00a0of our own making.<\/p>\n If we are serious about revolutionising our use of the Earth, it is time to rethink our need to classify all forms of life. We may find this is not about curiosity, but a desire to vindicate our history of dominion over the Earth. How about we exchange hierarchy for care? The future may depend upon it.<\/p>\n This article was originally published in <\/strong><\/em>The Conversation<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n