I'm still not sure what your issue is exactly. Can everybody here try to actually verbalise their issues with the article instead of assuming that everybody else shares their interpretation and view?
With regard to consciousness, humanity is alone and unique on planet earth, and perhaps the entire galaxy. This is so evident that it is pointless to debate.
This article haphazardly and sophomorically suggests that maybe we aren't so self important, and explicitly suggests that humanity should be elbowed out of some "decision making".
The cows and bugs, however, are not capable of making decisions, and cannot be part of the decision making process. It is logically impossible to "elbow" humans out.
I suspect that in reality, humans will elbow other humans out, under the guise of "you (I mean, we) are a lesser species, and we're all in this together, and so this decision that I'm making is really in your (oops, I mean our) best interest." For a deeper understanding of this point, look to "The Abolition of Man" by CS Lewis.
I don't care if insect protein becomes an additional source of sustinence.
I very much care if someone "decides" that some food is "too harmful" to "sustainability" and that it needs to be "regulated" for the benefit of humanity. I doubt that anyone has the capacity to be able to make such a decision, and will (intentionally or not) create an Animal Farm type scenario.
First, let us be agreed that we do not want to see anyone dehumanized.
>> With regard to consciousness, humanity is alone and unique on planet earth, and perhaps the entire galaxy. This is so evident that it is pointless to debate
I disagree, I do not think it is evident at all. I do think it is engrained, and I suspect it is a view point that arose from a theological defense rather than a natural observation.
No comment on the rest of what you have to say, I don't think any of this points in the direction you are suggesting it does, but I can hardly fault you for being on guard against it.
I'll try and end here... I am a healthy human not obsessed with Internet debates, I swear! :'D
I'm glad you see my guard against this slippery slope, but I'm disheartened that what is patently obvious to me is not to others. But in good faith...
What other species has set up such an intricate and varied system of communication? Of laws? Of art, poetry, and music? Of research and insight into the natural world that has propelled us to space? And all of which have been developed across language and culture barriers?
Yes, wolves howl together. Dolphins communicate and socialize. Chimpanzees and dogs display complex emotions. But the order of magnitude of complexity is nowhere even close to humanity's consciousness.
>>Yes, wolves howl together. Dolphins communicate and socialize. Chimpanzees and dogs display complex emotions. But the order of magnitude of complexity is nowhere even close to humanity's consciousness.
You've made my point quite well, the difference is in degree, not kind. I think other forms of life have internal experiences that are similar to yours or mine. I also think the natural observation would be that our internal processes are more complex, vastly so in some cases.
I also think that the reason that we draw the border such that man is one one side and all other life on another is theological in origin. Christian theology would need to defend man's place in the cosmos. I cannot think of any question from nature that would need this answer however.
Does that make sense? We don't typically see a trend or pattern and draw some cutoff point on it without good reason, and I don't see what the good reason would be in this case.
>What other species has set up such an intricate and varied system of communication? Of laws? Of art, poetry, and music? Of research and insight into the natural world that has propelled us to space? And all of which have been developed across language and culture barriers?
I'd posit that such human activities imply sentience and not just consciousness.
Certainly sentient beings need to have consciousness, but the converse isn't equivalent.
Many life forms have consciousness. Dolphins, cats, most humans, chimps, gorillas and numerous others.
What the non-humans don't have (or at least not, in our fumbling investigations, detected) is sentience. That's not the same thing as consciousness.
If the cost associated with all that starts to eat away at the health of the planet, the space adventures you hold in high regard are nothing but short-term entertainment.
Honest question, and I mean this with sincerity: how is it not? I mean it. The level of organization (across all levels!), knowledge transfer between individuals, the ability to modify our environment and use tools upon tools upon tools... Humanity has reusable rockets launching literal thousands of satellites. A globe-wide comm network. Symbolic thought that allows this very conversation to take place.
The rest of the animal kingdom does not. It's not even vaguely close. This does not mean I do not think animals think. This does not mean that they do not have value. This does not mean that they don't feel! When a dolphin uses a sponge to protect it's snout while hunting, and passes than knowledge on to its child- that's really interesting! It shows the very beginnings of cultural transmission. Same with chimps using sticks for ants, or that orangutan that learned how to fry food in a pan after watching its caretakers. But we aren't at the sponge-and-stick level of development, and possibly haven't been for millions of years, even before we were modern humanity. There really is something startlingly unique about the human mind works, and I think we do ourselves a great disservice by not acknowledging up front how unusual it is.
> With regard to consciousness, humanity is alone and unique on planet earth, and perhaps the entire galaxy. This is so evident that it is pointless to debate.
It isn't evident. The human hubris, on the other hand, is self-evident.
