Re: “Fish are not office decorations” The Globe and Mail, Feb 8/19 opinion contributed by Jonathan Balcombe
The writer asserts: “Not only has science essentially put to rest the malevolent myth that fish do not feel pain, we now know that they are sentient beings with meaningful lives.”
What does he mean by “meaningful”? If he means that animals have the capacity to “search for meaning” (to borrow from V Frankl’s title), which I’m very much afraid it does - or if it doesn’t it soon will - then the effect will be that not only are animals raised to the level of humans, but that humans will be reduced to the level of the animal. I fear the consequences of the latter more than the former.
I would like to learn more about the secular concept of “human exceptionalism” and how to address it, as well as become acquainted with the science behind animal consciousness, sentience and capacity for meaning and morality.