That is good information that it has been ratified.

To put it in ethical terms, it may be good to give a very wide berth on where the definition of sentience might be. (ignoring or including that the capability for suffering may not be identical to sentience. but agreed its a good starting point to establish a bounds.)

To put it in intellectual or scientific terms, no numeric value can be correctly assigned to a real world quantity without an associated error. The maximum radius of that error is roughly what I would ascribe to the “wide berth” mentioned above.

The limits of our perception meaning there’s a chance we may be wrong, and in this context i’d rather be wrong for the right reasons - so to speak.

There’s alot of discussion around humans being more valuable because of our elevated perception and sentience. I would put it the other way: with the increased sentience comes a duty of care, that is where our responsibilities to other species comes from imo.

I know I didn’t say anything to disagree with either of you, just continuing the enjoyable discussion.


deleted by creator


sorry late reply, got sucked into work and thing. finally back.

yeah i agree with you here. all i meant re. responsibility was along the lines of, when people ask “is it ok to mistreat animals for <whatever> gain?”.

my response would be, no, not only is it wrong because its plain wrong, but also because we have responsibility.

Create a post

A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions

If your post is

  1. Open ended
  2. Not offensive
  3. Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
  4. not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)

it’s welcome here!

  • 0 users online
  • 13 users / day
  • 33 users / week
  • 89 users / month
  • 426 users / 6 months
  • 3.32K subscribers
  • 1.08K Posts
  • Modlog