You are using a nonstandard definition of pain. For instance:
Pain is an unpleasant feeling that is conveyed to the brain by sensory neurons. The discomfort signals actual or potential injury to the body. However, pain is more than a sensation, or the physical awareness of pain; it also includes perception, the subjective interpretation of the discomfort. Perception gives information on the pain’s location, intensity, and something about its nature. The various conscious and unconscious responses to both sensation and perception, including the emotional response, add further definition to the overall concept of pain.
When pain receptors in the body are stimulated, for instance when you touch a very hot object with your hand, the pain stimulus is transferred along the peripheral nervous system into the spinal cord and up to the brain. (The peripheral nervous system is made up of all parts of the body’s nervous system situated outside the spinal cord and brain.)
Pain is the interpretation of the input, in a manner similar to “seeing red” being the interpretation of photons with a wavelength of 650 nm striking the cone cells in your eye. But no brain, no pain. (And no “red.”) What level of complexity of a brain in necessary is an unresolved problem, but I’m very comfortable in my belief that a jellyfish is far short of that mark.
Yes, we’re discussing the meaning of the word “pain”. Defining it to be exclusive to mammal-like nervous systems seems like cheating, when the whole discussion is “why do we define it that way?”.
Plants try to avoid being eaten and killed (well, except for certain parts adapted for the purpose, like fruit and seeds). Worms try to avoid being stabbed. There are complex signalling systems that evolved for those organisms to avoid injury and death.
The complex system evolved for the same purpose in vertebrates is called the central nervous system. I see no reason to define pain as only arising from human-like nervous systems but not any of the other systems and responses and behaviors that evolved for the exact same purpose in other organisms.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, I’ll submit to this thread some reading material. I know that reading is old fashioned and many people hate it, but it does help answer questions such as these, rather than simply arguing both sides out of ignorance.
There is a new (relatively) branch of science called Cognitive Ethology. Scientists are working hard to gather hard evidence, piece by tiny piece, that some species of non-human have cognitive abilities and emotions. They’ve documented (using the scientific method, y’all) some surprising findings. This list is a starting point for lay-education:
If you poke a beetle in the foot with a pin, it may reflexively pull its foot away at the moment of stimulus. But, seconds later, it won’t favor that foot or attempt to treat it any differently, it’ll just hobble along on its injured leg unconscious of the fact that it is injured. If you stab it through the stomach with a pin, it won’t avoid eating or otherwise act any different because it does not have the capacity to recognize its injury. It is not in pain (if it were, it would react to it since pain itself is a stimuli). Worms don’t try to avoid be stabbed, they unconsciously react momentarily when stabbed and then continue on, blithely unaware of their previous stabbing. They don’t feel pain, they have a simple nervous reaction much like jerking your knee when tapped with a physician’s hammer.
Higher animals have a continued awareness of their injury and a continual neurological stimulation that goes along with it which is what we call pain. We wound our foot and then take care not to walk on it since doing so aggravates the pain. If eat something foul, you avoid food for a time since you have constant awareness that you are injured via the pain of your cramps. Likewise, you have an indicator of when you are on the mend as the pain recedes.
Lower animals (generally) lack the physiology to experience anything other than the reflex. Both you and the worm will reflexively jerk away from a piece of hot metal but only you will register a moment later that you’re in pain from the damage.
Okay, do single-celled organisms feel pain? If you agree that they don’t, then you agree that there is a level of complexity where organisms feel pain, and a level of complexity where they don’t. I personally put that level of complexity at “having a significantly centralized brain.” If there is no brain, there is no there there, and the organism is just a complex automaton.
(If you expand the definition of “pain” to include plants, IMHO you might as well expand it to rocks, clouds, and sounds. Saying that a hydrangea feels pain makes pretty much the same amount of sense as saying that a b-flat minor feels pain.)
It should be noted also that you (and a worm) will reflexively jerk away from a number of stimuli. If you reach your hand into your pocket and unexpectedly feel something furry or slimy or whatever, your instinctual response is to jerk your hand back before your brain gets around to deciding if you’re in pain or not. Worms just don’t have that second step.
I’m not your target audience because I am religious and believe in a soul and an afterlife and only humans have it.
But even thinking about human life versus other life, the very fact that we can muse about these things, and think about people we have never met and care about them, and care about all humans and what the future holds, and everything else that makes humans human, means they are special.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to hurt an animal, but I don’t believe they suffer and I don’t worry about them going hungry or being deprived the way I would for human. The only reason I would support an animal over a human is that the human’s life may be improved by having an animal around.
Simply put, humans have more to offer humans than pretty much any animals.
“No way, my cat is way greater than any dumb people!” someone protests as they sit on their couch made by humans, in their climate controlled house made by humans, to watch TV made by humans as the cat kneeds their jeans made by humans before going off to eat its cat food made by humans. The cat itself was, of course, part of a long line domesticated by humans.
Curious. Do you mean non-human animals literally do not suffer? As in if an orangutan got his hand bit off by a crocodile, he would not suffer any pain or fear?
Or an abandoned dog with no food or water or shelter doesn’t suffer fear and hunger?
The idea that animals don’t suffer is so totally foreign to me.
Your first sentence is circular reasoning: it is because it is.
Your second sentence is factually incorrect: Occam’s Razor says no such thing. The two hypotheses are equally simple, and neither benefits from Occam’s parsimony.
The fact that it does not have a brain – or even a central cluster of nerves – pretty much proves it isn’t “feeling pain” in the way that mammals feel pain. It doesn’t have the physical structure necessary to have any complex subjective experience.
Really, though, this thread is about carnivorous beasties, not invertebrates. Part of the point is that popular culture tends to depict predators as like unto Ripley’s off-world friends, constantly seeking food to kill viciously, and not much else. These caricatures seem to be a tremendous disservice (hell, perhaps even to those off-world monsters).
However, to play along with the hijack,
I’m making the distinction between “feeling pain” and “suffering”. I assume animals with the physical makeup to do so feel pain. I don’t believe they suffer like humans do, having the consciousness to know it could be better or having a higher sense of whether the pain is fair, or is someone guilty of causing the pain, etc., or hearkening back to better times when there wasn’t pain or a future where maybe the pain will be less.
Again, this doesn’t mean I think it’s a neutral or good thing to cause any beings pain.
While some scientists claim certain animals “lack the structures” to experience something, other scientists keep reporting finding humans who function despite having greatly-reduced brain structure. Here’s only one case; I’ve been reading about these for decades.
Lobsters are another example: the repeated assertion that they lack the structures to feel pain has been challenged by actual research.
In general, every assumption we’ve made about our own unique place at the center of the universe has been relentlessly shown to be wrong. While it may turn out to be true that animals are much less aware of reality than we are, it’s dead certain that a great deal of human prejudice and emotionalism encourages us to feel that way, and we would be wise to suspect our judgment on this issue is not impartial.
Animal science – objective animal science, anyway – is still in its infancy. Scientists had white mice in their labs for decades without being aware they sing in sonic ranges we don’t hear. Our ignorance is profound and heavily shaded buy our fears, prejudices, guilt, and overweening self-importance. We would do well to approach quickly-tossed-off, sweeping dismissals of “anthropomorphism” with caution.
Sure (and that article backs up much of what I said as well) – there’s some graduated ability to experience pain as you go up the development ladder. Earthworms aren’t anywhere up that ladder though.
Darren Garrison made much the same point.
The story about the human is interesting in of itself but not really relevant to the point I was making since his brain, while smaller than usual, presumably had the same basic construction and his overall nervous system beyond that was normal.
And because we just don’t know how cognizant they are, it behooves us to assume they are far closer to us rather than beneath us. Just because I can’t speak dog, doesn’t mean dogs can’t speak dog.
You’d have to be willfully ignorant to see a happy, sad, angry, scared or excited dog/horse/cat… and tell yourself that they don’t think and have feelings.
But this is something like saying that even though Bill Gates has 86 billion dollars, Michael Bloomberg has only 40 billion dollars and he gets along just fine. That may be so, but that doesn’t say anything about the 3rd world peasant that is struggling to survive on a dollar a day.
An average human has around 21 billion neurons in their neocortex. Even the guy in your cite is going to have something within the same order of magnitude. That says nothing about what is sensed by something that has for example 302 neurons in their entire body in the case of C. elegans, or animals with a nerve net. I’ll acknowledge that anyone who believes that non-human vertebrates do not feel pain is probably an idiot–and that anyone who believes that sponges or trichoplax do feel pain is probably an idiot. But at what point between those two extremes “pain” becomes a meaningful concept (and if “pain” can exist when there isn’t the slightest trace of consciousness) is very much undetermined.
As for people that believe that dogs “think like humans”, that would necessarily mean that there was either 1.) some immensely improbable confluence of coincidences that led to a parallel evolution of those thought processes in creatures living in very different niches or 2.) the last common ancestor of humans and dogs (which lived around 96 million years ago and would have been at the base of Boreoeutheria) thought like humans and dogs, too, and so did all other descendant species in that clade. Both propositions require some pretty extreme credulity to swallow.
