No Animal, Ever.

Via Waylon Lewis
on Sep 1, 2012
get elephant's newsletter

PETA’s simplest ad, ever, is perhaps its most on point, yet.

Animals are Sentient, Too.

Join our focus Facebook page: “Animals are People, Too.” Seriously: scientists just last week came out and confirmed what many of us have suspected all along: animals are feeling, sentient, aware, just as are we.

For more: PETA Naked.

For More: PETA sexist.

For More: Gents get Nekked for PETA, too.


About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.


14 Responses to “No Animal, Ever.”

  1. oz_ says:

    Oh. Scientists said it. Well, then, I guess it's holy writ. Case closed.

    The problem with treating scientists like a priesthood is, well, ARE, that 1) it goes to their head, and 2) other scientists may well come out next week with a differing view. That's kind if the point of science.

    Look, science NEVER *proves* anything – by definition, it CANNOT. Science is ALL about hypothesis and hypothesis breaking and – in the best case – a tentative stake in the ground asserting a position backed up by lots of disclaimers. Science is thus inherently *conservative* in a way that religion isn't. Good science is about inching closer to the truth, one painful step at a time, often preceded by two steps backward. Science isn't a religion, capable of delivering ultimate or absolute truths, yet the statement above – 'scientists came out and confirmed' – acts as though that's exactly what it is. You've committed epistemological suicide. Bad move.

    We live in a society where scientists are treated like the ultimate knowers. This is nonsense, and in fact quite dangerous to cede this level of authority to these men and women – who, after all, are human with all that this implies in terms of bias, ignorance and confusion. Not to mention susceptibility to denial and delusion.

    Of course animals are sentient. I don't need a scientist to 'confirm' this for me. And to pretend that this is what 'proves' a thing is to tread into very dangerous territory.

    BTW, a link would have been helpful, so interested parties could have examined the evidence, looked at the methodology of the study, tracked down the funding, and done other such things aside from just go with the confirmation bias and blindly accept the headline.

  2. elephantjournal says:

    My bad: it's one of the top stories of the week, internationally—so it's been reported everywhere. There's literally thousands of links. Here's one:

  3. oz_ says:

    So it's been "reported everywhere" (really? everywhere? or just, in a lot of places that push the agenda that such a statement would support??) – again, does this automatically confer credibility? And looking at the link provided renders this even more absurd – a bunch of scientists signed a declaration?? Remember that group of scientists who signed a declaration stating that global warming wasn't man-caused? That was circulated by the Republicans as 'proof' – see, two can play at this game.

    When did we start ceding our own common sense to scientists?

    Like I said, I don't need a bunch of scientists signing a 'declaration' to convince me one way or the other. It requires a immense amount of denial to even posit that animals don't have "conscious awareness"! Such a statement (and you can find many such among vivisectionists) is ludicrous on its face, to anyone who has spent even a modicum of time among animals.

    But that's not the point – the point is treating scientists as though they are some sort of superior class of beings whose nays and yays constitute proof or lack thereof.

    This is juvenile: 'Well, MY DAD said it was true!'

    Time we grew up and started thinking for ourselves, says I.

  4. Macka1 says:

    The majority of people who eat meat aren't "thinking for themselves," they are doing what they were raised to do and give little to no thought to, ever.

  5. oz_ says:

    Yes, I agree.

    But this does not bear on the issue of portraying scientists as arbiters of absolute truth, nor the issue of portraying science as some sort of quasi-religious entity that can offer 'proof' – properly understood, science offers hypothesis, and then tentative agreement on hypothesis, which remains permanently open to refutation or revision by further evidence.

    Both the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes, for example, were fond of portraying 'scientists' as arbiters of truth (as are we modern Americans) – I'm simply pointing out that this is an exceedingly dangerous road to travel – not least because political pressure (through funding) can always be brought to bear upon scientists to say whatever the powers that be wish them to say (remember the Bushies altered EPA reports to downplay global climate disruption?). That's the danger of turning to presumably dispassionate, objective scientists for validation of one's beliefs. Scientists are, after all, human, and as Upton Sinclair noted:

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    And in this case, there's no need for this anyway – this 'declaration' (which is simply an expression of opinion, after all) isn't going to change meat eaters minds!

    So for veg*ns to run around shouting 'look look – scientists have proven animals are sentient' accomplishes nothing except to help to foster a misapprehension about science and scientists. It's just preaching to the choir. What's the point?

    In my experience, empathic and ethical arguments work better, without exposing us to the tyranny of science and its priesthood.

  6. Tiffany says:

    I’m with oz. Says the science teacher.

  7. Bijou says:

    You sound exactly like me.:-) Science is so overrated sometimes with all it's conflicting evidence that changes daily only in this case as in many cases it's a matter of what we knew all along and waiting for the science to catch up to the truth so we can finally liberate animals to those people who felt they needed proof before becoming compassionate. Please, for the sake of the animals, don't rain on our parade this time.

  8. Epistemology is the question here and methodology second, as in the scientific one, which Oz is right on in questioning but offers no "forwarding address," so to speak. In overstating that science is always replacing one finding with the next Oz misses the complexity of the meaning of Evolution in the 21st century, which is the deeper value of our recognizing sentience in animals.

    "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" (Broadway Books) is a coherent thesis that updates constructively the old debate of whose epistemology shall we trust after all, "science's" or "god's". fyi to seekers see if it works for you, in this book, the "reconciliation" of faith and reason, science with spirituality, empiricism with mysticism. "Merging" is a better term, implying shared presuppositions.

    Do not approach without philosophical context and an open mind. For example, one point it makes is that altered states of consciousness are methodologically verifiable, i.e. "scientific."

    It's left for you to decide and practice meditation, the 21st century sina qua non of so-called higher consciousness and the path to our individual and collective life-affirming sustainable evolution. Vaya bien, amigos

  9. Edward Staskus says:

    All these arguments aside, my comment is that there is a world of difference between harvesting a head of lettuce and killing a pig for the dinner table. I would suggest to everyone who desires a pork loin that they go out to a farm next time, buy a pig, kill it on the spot, cut it up, and serve it. Maybe then you will be able to justify eating animals. Buying them all packaged up at the supermarket is far less than real.

  10. Kathy says:

    So simple, so true. Contrary to what the media wants us to believe, there is no "happy meat". Thanks for posting this!
    What's up with the hissy fitting out about science??? Feeling guilty and trying to change the subject maybe?. ; )

  11. […] creating, the destruction of the very life source of the planet all for the obese consumption of hamburgers. Then there are the oil and water wars of the future haunting our nightmares. In the end, we […]

  12. karlsaliter says:

    We don't need any studies to inform us that animals are sentient. Spending time in the proximity of animals will do the trick nicely. Really.

    Also stating that scientists confirm something is not the same as worshiping their findings as "truth". Sheesh.

  13. […] PETA covert farm filming adventures, and spills what she did. […]