(Monday, July 2, 7:30pm)
Domestic chickens are members of an order, Aves, which has been the focus of a revolution in our understanding of neuroanatomical, cognitive, and social complexity. Some birds are now known to be on a par with many mammals in their intelligence, emotional sophistication, and social interaction. Yet views of chickens have largely remained unrevised in light of this new evidence. In this paper, I examine the data on cognition, emotions, personality, and sociality in chickens, exploring such areas as self-awareness, cognitive bias, social learning and self-control, and comparing their abilities with other birds and other vertebrates, particularly mammals. My overall conclusion is that chickens are just as complex cognitively, emotionally and socially as most other birds and mammals in many areas, and that there is a need for further noninvasive comparative behavioral research with chickens as well as a re-framing of current views about their intelligence.
Can someone explain to me why is complexity used as a common sense measure for worthiness of welfare? It seems to me beside the point since the sensitivity to pain should suffice. Prof Marino seems unafraid of the conceptual gap between science measures and philosophical concepts, as seen in every clear stated definition in both her presentation. Is that a reasoning error as I see it, or is there a real interest in proving complexity to advocate for rights or welfare?
ReplyDeleteAdvocating for "simple" minded animals is difficult. People don't connect with that as easily. The reason why it was so easy (easy behind a really big understatement here) to use chimpanzees to advocate for their rights is because they are so similar to us in many ways, including cognitive complexity, whatever that means. Cognitive complexity is used to argue that it also means "more" abilities", "more" sentience, I think.
DeleteIf I understand correctly : complexity is important because we are biased, we know it and accept it!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Elisabeth, I feel that the same kind of questions were directed, over and over, to Jonathan Birch:
Delete"Why not include ALL the animals?" as if Birch was going to show up at Justin Trudeau's house tonight and say: "Hi! I'm a philosopher and I have some advice for you." and then Justin changes the law. All is solved, lobsters are freed. Birch knows all too well that he doesn't have the upper hand. His bar is set high enough as it is, it'll will be remarkable if he succeeds even partially.
Simon's answer satisfies me, but I just want to add that in trying to achieve something big, some good elements of strategy usually usually involve sitting down and asking yourself: Can we do this? Are enough people going to support it? No? Yes? What are the consequences if it fails? Will it be even harder after?
And you try to come up with a plan that's as ambitious AS POSSIBLE, while have at least SOME tiny chance of working. Adding any more to the boat will sink it, and this is why people are starting with complex animals, praying for a miraculous “effet boule de neige” after that... -_-;
La conférencière Lori Marino nous a dit que la majorité d’entre nous n’avons pas une très bonne et exacte perception des poulets. Par exemple, si on les voit dans des arbres, on est surpris. On ne les met pas très haut sur la classification des oiseaux ; en fait, on les voit même pas comme des oiseaux [!]. On ne les croit pas intelligent, mais plutôt comme un produit à consommer. Le fait qu’on les voit comme de purs produits de consommations seraient la cause de notre biais cognitif. Ainsi le Someone Project nous permet de mieux connaitre qui sont ces animaux qui “cognisent” et “ressentent” d’une manière qui, pour la plupart d’entre nous, nous échappe. Il s’agit d’un beau projet qui ne pourra qu’aider la cause, autant au niveau des connaissances qu’au niveau éthique.
ReplyDeleteI Thank Kathrin for her suggestion: more chicken as pets would help awareness. Education seems to be a keyword, but it’s rarely backed with effective strategy about it (except for Mr. Plotnik this morning - that was exemplary, inspiring). You will convince no one by moralism. Calling to education with no clear plan in mind is a big trend, in any social issue, but surely ineffective. Having a pet chicken in a class at school would be a very effective method to raise awareness, permanently, in whole generations of children – without a single word spoken or information given. I think that understanding chicken is of little use to this political issue, understanding humans should come as a priority.
ReplyDeleteThe strategy right now is what I call : La pédagogie du mal – evil pedagogy - show what «Not to do», but very little is real pedagogy – showing what to do and how to do it well. A vegan cook trending on Facebook has a more positive effect than all the moral philosophers combined do. Go ahead and use this : https://www.lacuisinedejeanphilippe.com/ !
- Mr. Reber, a few days after this presentation addressed that question in a panel. He also used a cook as an example, one that tasted steak sandwiches! Kathrin also kept coming with interesting ideas about how to raise awareness. I would like to know what's the impact of having a service animal in training in a class on awareness of animal suffering. I would also like to know what are the different strategies and their effectiveness. As an example, it's quite frequent to make a special presentation about veganism to an already convinced audience, yielding very little benefit to this heavy and costly educational work. How can we tailor citizen action so our efforts have the biggest results? Those datas could be precious! Do they exist ?
DeleteAfter listening to Abby McCuaig’s talk, I checked the legislation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and they have rules about the welfare of animals while their transportation. For example, they must have water and food throughout the transportation. They also encourage people to contact them if animal abuse is witness. So, my question is (and it is really an incomprehension): couldn’t we contact the CFIA to stop this cruelty in Ontario? Why isn’t it effective and what can we do to make it be?
ReplyDeleteMy question is on the concept of «referential communication». Lori Marino said that chickens are able to learn by observation. She also said that they have a form of «referential communicaion». I have the intuition that referential communication need an «observation learning»? I am almost sure that if you take a chicken when it is a chick and that it grows without seeing any chicken making the «alarm call», it will naturaly make it when there is a danger. I understand that it refers to something but other sounds that chickens make all refers to someting, no? I think that maybe I confound «referential communication» and «symbolist communication». What is the difference between this two types of communication?
ReplyDeleteI remember in the workshop about pigs, it was brought up that they have a support network in place for the employees of the slaughterhouses in case they decided to reach out. I was wondering if there was a similar system in place for chicken farmers as well, and what you think would be the best way to reach out to them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the talk and your article, I really learned a lot. To say that chickens have amazing (and surprising) habilities is an understatement. I would love to think that if this knowledge was more widespread it would help increase empathy towards them. Unfortunately, I am not sure that this would be enough to reduce consumption. Kunst and Hohle (2016) suggest that the dissociation of the meat from a living animal that people make could be the leading factor in the maintenance of high consumption of animals (including chickens). For example, the way the meat counters are presented in supermarkets don’t suggest in any way that the chicken was once walking, let alone capable of deception and logical reasoning. According to the authors, this dissociation could be reducing empathy and disgust. In your opinion, how could we articulate your findings to create a sufficient emotional response to effectively reduce this dissociation?
ReplyDeleteKunst, J. R., & Hohle, S. M. (2016). Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite, 105, 758-774.
À titre de juriste issue d'une famille comprenant de nombreux agriculteurs exerçant d'une façon plus responsable, je suis très préoccupée de la façon dont ces poulets sont traités: c'est au-dessous de tout... Intéressée à la garde de poules en ville, j'ai suivi deux formations à distance distinctes sur les soins aux poulets (broiler chickens) ou poules pondeuses (laying hens), y incluant le traitement des poulets d'élevages, via les MOOC de la faculté vétérinaire de l'université d'Edinburgh: On y apprenait que selon le droit de l'Union européenne, non seulement y a-t-il des limites quant à la population des cages ou des poulailliers par rapport à la superficie disponible, mais encore les oiseaux doivent-ils disposer de boîtes sombres leur permettant de s'isoler des autres s'ils en ressentent le besoin (nesting boxes, et ce même en cage) mais doivent aussi évoluer sur une surface plane (ex. ce qui exclut les barrreaux nus d'une cage)sans être glissante, recouverte de matière à picorer. Ils doivent aussi disposer d'un bain de sable et de perchoirs répondant à certaines normes. Cette université a une ferme modèle où on pouvait voir en pratique ce que la réglementation pouvait donner lorsque correctement appliquée.Or, nous n'avons pu rien distinguer de tel ou même de comparable dans les installations filmées en Ontario!!! Je ne connais pas le régime réglementaire de cette province, étant formée au Québec, donc je me demande si ce défaut résulte d'une absence de réglementation ou du fait que les éleveurs refusent de s'y soumettre?
ReplyDeletePar ailleurs, les municipalités devraient mieux accepter ou favoriser la garde de poules en ville, tout en faisant respecter des normes propres à éviter les cas d'abandon ou de mauvais traitements. Puisque les poules peuvent produire des oeufs sans être en situation de (post-)gestation, contrairement aux vaches,les oeufs résultant d'une collaboration humaine/animale, dans le contexte où la poule est perçue comme un animal de compagnie pour lequel on a de l'attachement, pourrait nuire à l'élevage industriel et manifester que les consommateurs s'attendent à plus d'éthique et de décence dans la façon dont ces sympathiques animaux sont traités.Ceux qui n'ont pas la possibilité ou l'énergie d'adopter leur(s) propre(s) poule(s) ont aussi la possibilité d'acheter leurs oeufs directement auprès d'un voisin ou d'une fermette de leur localité où ils pourraient constater d'eux-mêmes des conditions de garde et d'élevages éthiques.
Je ne sais pas si plus de poulets domestiques pourrait réellement sensibiliser les gens. Je crois que oui à un certain niveau; mais je crois aussi que la dissonance cognitive est très forte. J'ai des amis qui possède des poules domestiques. Ils mangent du poulet. Ils n'ont pas cessé. Et lorsque je leur demande s'ils réalisent que c'est comme s'ils mangeait leurs poules, ils me disent que c'est différent, parce que celle-ci sont domestiques. C'est vraiment désolant de voir tout l'amour qu'un famille peut porter pour ces êtres animaux élevés dans une cour et voir qu'ils n'ont aucun remord à manger du poulet dans leur assiette. Même s'il ne s'agit pas de la même 'branche' (poules vs. poulets), je trouve le contraste décourageant.
ReplyDeletePlusieurs conférenciers ont parlé des capacités cognitives supérieures de plusieurs espèces d’oiseaux. Pourtant, le poulet n’est pas tant considéré (dans la culture populaire) comme étant un oiseau, mais comme étant un animal de ferme. On décrit souvent l’Humain comme un animal culturel et on parle des bienfaits que la culture peut avoir sur notre cognition. Pourtant, le poulet, qui est le résultat d’une sélection culturelle, ne semble pas avoir bénéficié des avantages de cette culture. Lorsqu’un animal est considéré comme un objet, un aliment dans le cas du poulet, on semble avoir de la difficulté à vouloir lui attribuer des capacités cognitives. Peut-être est-ce un mécanisme de «coping» pour continuer leur exploitation?
ReplyDelete