So, something that has been happening recently is that people have been teaching animals to talk. The prime example I could hold up is @whataboutbunny on TikTok
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeAuULtq/.
This is an example of a dog whose learning of language is being documented. This is a dog at least as communicative as an ape, and the dog is not even very old. There are also cats and all manner of other critter that has been convinced to start using language.
What implications do you all think this may have on the fact that we eat them?
Speak for yourself - I don't eat dogs or cats.
As humans learn more about other species, we are getting more evidence that many animals are not "dumb" but sentinent beings capable of recognizing themselves and others as separate entities and who communicate.
I have never understood why that wasn't bleeding bloody obvious to everyone.
It's certainly been my assumption since as long as I can remember that humans are only quantitatively different from other animals. There are zero qualitative differences.
Sure, I am smarter than a cat. But dogs are (in general) smarter than cats. And for that matter, I am smarter than most humans.
Whether it's ethical to eat another animal (of any species) has fuck all to do with intelligence. It's about whether or not we recognise them as part of our social group.
A pet dog is very much a part of the family; Therefore eating him is unethical. A cow or pig probably isn't a family member, or a part of our extended social group, so it's OK to have him for dinner.
If a human is sufficiently 'other', it's OK to eat him - at least according to many societies. The modern developed world generally includes all primates as 'us' for these purposes, though some developing nations still have sizable populations that don't resile from eating non-human primates.
Where we draw the line is a matter of "us" vs "not us"; Intelligence, speech and/or language can help to contribute to building a case for an individual, group, or even whole species to be promoted to "us", but it's not of central importance, and as the existence of cannibalism shows, it's certainly not sufficient on its own.
If it gets an individual (or her species) recognition as "one of us", then it's going to render her ethically inedible; If not, not. It's certainly difficult to maintain a claim that any individual is "not us" after having had a conversation with that individual - but history shows that it certainly isn't impossible, even with other members of our own species.