I have always felt animals are sentient beings. It really hit home for me too when I watched “My Octopus Teacher”. It is a documentary and can be seen on Netflix.
As we are in the midst of an extremely contentious political campaign, where Homo sapiens are behaving like bullies for the most part, interested in wealth, power and status; I wonder which of our beloved sentient beings have a more orderly community from your view? With climate change all but certain to end us in our greed and disagreements, the animal kingdom may survive. I recall photos of Chernoble where humans were removed and now animals and greenery are beginning to thrive again. That gives me hope for our dear friends in the animal “kingdom.” 🐝🕊️
thanks for this article. I think we have a very long road ahead of us to get a significant number of humans to think about the consequences of their actions, in general - and not just with animals. Most people seem to be very short-sighted and self-interested, regardless of the subject. I admit to being somewhat cynical as I've gotten older. When I have tried to talk to people about animal cognition, I often get responses like "maybe you shouldn't eat plants because plants have feelings too." BTW most of the people who work at my local animal shelter eat meat. Given how tough it is to work in animal welfare and the horrors they often face, these people are some of my favorite people in the entire world, but still. There are two staffers who are vegans, which I was very glad to discover
Another excellent and informative article. A lot to think about. I'd like to suggest one thing we can all do. Think about your language. Stop referring to animals as "its." Reserve that for inanimate objects. If you do not know the gender - pick one. And stop using derogatory expressions - like "he's a fat pig," "kill two birds with one stone, " beat a dead horse," "gone to the dogs" or saying "like a dog," or what I have seen in tabloids "wolf pack" referring to unruly people.
Words result in sentences. Our words have sentenced animals to be underlings since time immemorial. I agree with you Elizabeth, just the simple act of not making less of animals with our words could be a significant step forward in renewing our world. I recall an essay I submitted to the NY Times a while back in which I referred to an animal as a "who". I thought I'd be ridiculed for doing so, but was pleasantly surprised when all I received was comments expressing appreciation. I've tried to continue this practice ever since.
I recall something similar - a letter to the editor where I used "who" referring to animals. It was changed by their editor to "that" and published. I don't recall the publication but I would have preferred that they did not publish it that way. PS - I like the way you say that our words have sentenced animals to be underlings. So true and we can help to change that.
I have always felt animals are sentient beings. It really hit home for me too when I watched “My Octopus Teacher”. It is a documentary and can be seen on Netflix.
Thanks for letting us know. I have seen some remarkable videos regarding octopi intelligence. Enough to cause one to pause...
As we are in the midst of an extremely contentious political campaign, where Homo sapiens are behaving like bullies for the most part, interested in wealth, power and status; I wonder which of our beloved sentient beings have a more orderly community from your view? With climate change all but certain to end us in our greed and disagreements, the animal kingdom may survive. I recall photos of Chernoble where humans were removed and now animals and greenery are beginning to thrive again. That gives me hope for our dear friends in the animal “kingdom.” 🐝🕊️
As a compassionate conservationist, Judith, it is my view that humanity is part of the natural world - but that through "greed and disagreements", as you say, we lost our way. My hope is not that the natural world will survive without us, but that we come to our senses and take our place in it as careful and compassionate stewards. https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/animal-politics-compassionate-conservation?r=14ocm4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
thanks for this article. I think we have a very long road ahead of us to get a significant number of humans to think about the consequences of their actions, in general - and not just with animals. Most people seem to be very short-sighted and self-interested, regardless of the subject. I admit to being somewhat cynical as I've gotten older. When I have tried to talk to people about animal cognition, I often get responses like "maybe you shouldn't eat plants because plants have feelings too." BTW most of the people who work at my local animal shelter eat meat. Given how tough it is to work in animal welfare and the horrors they often face, these people are some of my favorite people in the entire world, but still. There are two staffers who are vegans, which I was very glad to discover
In the final analysis, we're all just walking each other home...
Another excellent and informative article. A lot to think about. I'd like to suggest one thing we can all do. Think about your language. Stop referring to animals as "its." Reserve that for inanimate objects. If you do not know the gender - pick one. And stop using derogatory expressions - like "he's a fat pig," "kill two birds with one stone, " beat a dead horse," "gone to the dogs" or saying "like a dog," or what I have seen in tabloids "wolf pack" referring to unruly people.
Words result in sentences. Our words have sentenced animals to be underlings since time immemorial. I agree with you Elizabeth, just the simple act of not making less of animals with our words could be a significant step forward in renewing our world. I recall an essay I submitted to the NY Times a while back in which I referred to an animal as a "who". I thought I'd be ridiculed for doing so, but was pleasantly surprised when all I received was comments expressing appreciation. I've tried to continue this practice ever since.
I recall something similar - a letter to the editor where I used "who" referring to animals. It was changed by their editor to "that" and published. I don't recall the publication but I would have preferred that they did not publish it that way. PS - I like the way you say that our words have sentenced animals to be underlings. So true and we can help to change that.
That's the beauty of Substack, we don't need to cater to an editor...