Animal Intelligence, do they deserve better from us?

[Inevitable Droid]

There is a reluctance from many humans to recognise animal intelligence, birds it turns out aren't so bird brained as we believed.
Personally I don't mind animals being given person-hood status.

In Australia are there laws against cruelty to non-human animals?  In the USA (or at least in New Jersey) there are.  Break the law and you're looking at a possible fine of up to $1000 and/or a prison term of up to six months, plus you're looking at up to 30 days community service.  Plus there are other miscellaneous fines that could be tacked on.  Here is a link regarding New Jersey cruelty to animals statutes: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cruelty/nj_cruel.htm

So in New Jersey, non-human animals don't have the same legal status as Homo sapiens but they do have some legal status.  I can't just do anything I want to them, without consequence to myself if caught.  Some would argue that this is a reasonable compromise.  I think it's better than nothing but not as good as it could be.

Bear in mind that I think it's perfectly appropriate to shoot and kill a human being who enters my dwelling uninvited.  I deem it appropriate to do the same to non-human animals, and so I have no problem with exterminating vermin.  That said, my normal habit upon noticing something like a spider in my bedroom is to leave it alone.  Spiders in New Jersey don't attack humans.  They run from humans.  So I'm in no danger from the spider and in fact the spider will eat other insects that wander into my bedroom.  Plus I just like spiders.  But if you told me you kill them on sight in your own dwelling, I would have no problem with that.  Invaders risk death at the hand of the invaded.  So it has always been for millions of years.  So be it now.

As for hunting deer and such, I'm OK with it, because deer populations need to be thinned in some manner, which means something has to kill them, and in many places we've gotten rid of the wolves that used to do so.  It's unnatural for herbivores to exist free of predation.  The result will always be a skyrocketing herbivore population, unbalancing the local ecology, and leading to starvation of even the herbivores themselves.  But that said, I see no reason why hunters can't eat what they kill, or sell the meat to someone who will, and I wish they would do one or the other, as that is the justice I see all around me, in jungle and forest, fresh water and salt.  That is how the game is played.  The hungry get to kill and eat what they can, if they can.  There are all manner of creatures that would eat me if they could, and I don't begrudge them the right to try, though I will fight them tooth and nail if they do.

As for the moron who goes around killing small animals for fun, or capturing and torturing them for fun, my inclination would be to let said moron experience the other end of that transaction.  Unfortunately the law doesn't support me here.  I would welcome the law changing in this regard.  If you aren't going to eat the animal and it hasn't invaded your property or assaulted your body, leave it the hell alone.  Killing for fun, and capturing and torturing for fun, are almost unheard of in the animal kingdom.  Let it be unheard of amongst humans.  If nothing out there has plans to kill me for fun, or capture and torture me for fun, then let me have no plans to do such to it.  In all things, let reciprocity be the rule.  This is common sense justice.      

In none of the foregoing did I base my position on the relative sapience of the animal in question.  This was intentional.  Relative sapience doesn't drive my logic.  Reciprocity does.

[The Magic Pudding]

In Australia are there laws against cruelty to non-human animals?

Yes, so far as domestic animals I expect laws are similar.  Animals raised for food particularly pigs and chickens don't get treated well.
Native animals are protected, including snakes and crocodiles.

It is illegal to catch and keep, buy, sell, possess or harm great white sharks (or any other
threatened species in NSW) without a specific permit, licence or other appropriate approval,
and significant penalties apply. For vulnerable species these penalties can include fines of up to
$55,000 and up to 1 year in prison.

As for hunting deer and such, I'm OK with it, because deer populations need to be thinned in some manner, which means something has to kill them, and in many places we've gotten rid of the wolves that used to do so.  It's unnatural for herbivores to exist free of predation.

A lot of effort goes into culling feral animals including dogs, cats, pigs, goats, camels, cane toads, carp, horses, foxes and rabbits.  It is regrettable these animals have to be killed, but they don't belong and do a lot of harm.

In none of the foregoing did I base my position on the relative sapience of the animal in question.  This was intentional.  Relative sapience doesn't drive my logic.  Reciprocity does.

I don't have a problem with reciprocity as you've described it, but I wouldn't leave things at that.
I believe a good person should cause as little suffering to other beings as reasonably possible.
A high degree of sapience implies an ability to suffer greatly.
Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

But the intelligence of other animals isn't always obvious, their intelligence being different, it is often overlooked.
This was part of the theme of the linked program in the OP.

[KDbeads]

I'll add my 2 cents worth here as, so far anyway, I think I 'own' the most critters on the board at the moment.
When it comes to theists vs non theists on the treatment of animals, I've seen extremes to both sides.  Overall I'm leaning toward there being no difference, this is based on my experiences so far as a rescue person, though when it comes to abuse, the critters belonging to theists tend to have to endure it longer before someone like me finds out and steps in.
When it comes to how we as humans treat animals... personally I think we can do better.  I have no problem with killing and eating an animal regularly consumed.  Case in point, Junior probably won't see tomorrow evening.  Even though I hatched him, fed him, kept him safe from predators by locking him in a coop/run, etc.  I know I did right by a chicken.  And I know I'll have a terrific stewed rooster.  Chickens are a domesticated meat source, one I eat almost every day.  That being said I have a hen in my kitchen (she's the reason for Junior's stew pot sentencing) that I'm nursing back to health.  She has one hell of a personality, has figured out how to get me to open her crate so she can chase the cats and is generally pampered even though she only lays 1 egg a week.  All of my chickens are well kept though I do use them for eggs and dinner.
When it comes to dogs, mine have free run of the house and yard when I'm home.  But they have to remain in one room when I'm not here, why?  I have a 90 pounder that has frequent violent seizures that cause her to get stuck in fencing, run through barbed wire and the like.  I keep her safe.  I keep my other 3 safe from assholes who drive by and shoot dogs in the yard, I keep them safe from escaping and running into traffic.  Why is that horrible?  They aren't slaves, they earn their keep though.  I have a guard dog who has on more than one occasion kept me safe from strange people.  I have a tracker and a therapy dog.
I also live in beef cattle country, I've seen ranchers bring a lame heifer to the vet and spend hundreds of dollars to get her walking again instead of auctioning her off straight away to the meat market.  

But I've seen the worst of the spectrum as well.  All my dogs came from bad situations, I have a cat who's face had been burned by some idiot before he came to me.  I have a blind rooster that had been kicked around by it's owners before it came here.  I've seen starved cattle auctioned to the meat packers...........

Though I don't think all animals need legal personage, I do think there needs to be more protection for them and worse punishment for the abusers.

[Stevil]

Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

This would imply that animals that are less intelligent than pigs deserve worse treatment.

I am assuming you are not meaning that we can go out in the middle of the night and start tipping cows as they sleep for some laughs.
Can you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

[dloubet]

Can you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

One issue not addressed here is that we have deliberately made many of the animals we interact with what they are. We made them, and thus we are responsible for them. To set them all free would be to kick them out of the environment we designed them for, and cause them untold suffering and death in the wild that they're no longer prepared to deal with.  That would just be wrong.

We're stuck with them for now. So let's take this opportunity to be better caretakers of our creations than any supposed gods are of theirs.

[Inevitable Droid]

Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

There are legitimate parallels.  Driving on the road, if a pig is in my path, I'll try not to hit it.  Walking on a sidewalk, if an ant is in my path, I'll try not to step on it.  If I have pigs in my barn, I'll feed them.  If I have ants in a terrarium, I'll feed them.

As always, common sense governs.  Give me a scenario where common sense invalidates the parallel, and I'll immediately agree that the pig needs special treatment, or maybe the ant needs special treatment.

If I had a pet anteater, I would feed it ants.  If I had a pet lion, I would feed it pork.

[Stevil]

One issue not addressed here is that we have deliberately made many of the animals we interact with what they are. We made them, and thus we are responsible for them. To set them all free would be to kick them out of the environment we designed them for, and cause them untold suffering and death in the wild that they're no longer prepared to deal with.  That would just be wrong.

We're stuck with them for now.

So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

[Stevil]

Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

There are legitimate parallels...  
... If I had a pet lion, I would feed it pork.

Very funny, love it!

[Whitney]

So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

[Stevil]

So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

[Whitney]

So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

Wouldn't be the first time...

[LegendarySandwich]

So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

We are part of nature, and we are a species of animals. Nature and animals have changed nature and animals.

In the process of changing, or "harming", as some would put it, the natural world, maybe we are in the process of creating something more magnificent and beautiful. Just a thought.

[The Magic Pudding]

Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

This would imply that animals that are less intelligent than pigs deserve worse treatment.

I am assuming you are not meaning that we can go out in the middle of the night and start tipping cows as they sleep for some laughs.
Can you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

I sometimes paddle past oysters being cultivated in trays, I don't give their welfare much thought because I don't think they are capable of much thought.
Beef cattle grazing seem to have a reasonable life, feed lots may be a different matter.
Dairy cattle have been bred into mutant milk producers, still they make a nice picture grazing on green pasture, the picture of factory farming presented here isn't so pleasing. http://www.peta.org/issues/pages/animal ... oduct.aspx

The golden rule seems to be accepted by most people, but I don't see why it shouldn't be extended to animals.
If a bear eats me I hope it's quick, I don't expect he'll put me in a cage and drain my gall bladder for years.

The caretaker told me every morning at eight o'clock liquid is drawn from their gallbladders. Around seven-forty-five, the bears become agitated and have no appetite to eat and they start screaming and crying desperately for help.  http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=90&db=5&C0=1

I could be wrong, but I don't think ants suffer as much as bears, I regard them as automatons with limited feeling.
It's fairly simple for me, suffering is the currency with which we acquire sustenance and it's expenditure should be minimised.

Lori Marino: Then eventually two things happen; most of them are slaughtered in the most unimaginably cruel manner you can imagine, they're basically hacked to death.

Diana Reiss: So these animals can experience pain and suffering. If you cut them we put a nail on our arm and scraped our arm we would flinch, dolphins will do the same thing. We were watching animals being eviscerated alive and flailing and for many, many minutes, this is a long, lingering death.

I would call this an atrocity, so dolphins can think, I wonder what they think of us?
If we ever do meet ET we may have some explaining to do.

[Heretical Rants]

...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

Many animals do not, but humans are not unique in the desire for freedom. Put a tiger in a cage and it will try to get out.



Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim.

[LegendarySandwich]

...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

Many animals do not. Others have the desire to run about in open spaces, hunt their own food, and own territory.

They can have all of this and more with in a zoo, provided it's high enough quality.