Screaming Egg

In Favor of Animal Consciousness - Donald R. Griffin, Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness (2001)

---

Many animals adapt their behavior to the challenges of their situation. This ability to be versatile is evidence of cognition.

Just as consciousness varies widely between humans, consciousness between species probably varies widely too.

Animals, like humans, are probably aware of only a small fraction of what happens in their brains, but the consciousness that exists is nonetheless important.

This conscious thinking and emotional feeling are core functions of the central nervous system and the best ways for animals to cope with challenges.

The line between perceptual consciousness (consciously thinking about something) and reflective consciousness (introspection) is too blurry to clearly ascribe or deny either to animals.

Animals have subjective feelings and emotions that should be included in cognitive ethology. It should not be limited to nonconscious information processing or non-emotional thoughts.

Why we should give moral consideration to individuals rather than species - Animal Ethics (last accessed July 22, 2023)

---

"A species is an abstract entity that cannot have experiences and therefore cannot be wronged in the way that sentient individuals can."

Ecological interventions that prioritize species entail harm toward sentient individuals.

Human interests in biodiversity (aesthetic, scientific, cultural, etc.) should not take precedence over individual nonhuman animal interests.

Prioritizing ecosystems implies that species that perform certain ecological functions have moral precedence over those that do not; this harms sentient individuals.

Why we should give moral consideration to sentient beings rather than ecosystemes - Animal Ethics (last accessed July 22, 2023)

---

Sentient individuals can have positive and negative experiences, but ecosystems cannot.

Advocates of this ecosystem-centered view consider the stability of the ecosystem valuable in itself.

Preserving this stability harms sentient individuals (i.e., the destruction of "invasive species").

Most who center ecosystems do not consider applying their own solutions to humans; they almost always favor human interests, which reveals their anthropocentrism.

Ecosystems are changing all the time and are not "stable," so there is nothing truly concrete enough to preserve.

It is better to intervene for the sake of sentient beings rather than for conservationist or other anthropocentric motivations.