Sentient Animals?

The trouble with the word 'sentience' is that it means different things to different people. For some, it just means being able to experience pain. In spite of our negative perception of it, pain is useful to many animal species, as it provides a mechanism for potentially avoiding damaging (or even fatal) sets of circumstances. For other people, sentience means having a capacity for 'thinking' and self-awareness. Philosophers do like to get into debates about animal sentience. One of the latest is Jonathan Birch (London School of Economics) who seems to want to apply the concept to much of the diverse Animal Kingdom (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/16/animals-feel-humans-evidence-sentient). Birch's starting point is quite traditional. He seems happy to approve the fact that all vertebrates (animals with backbones), receive some protections against 'inhumane' treatments under UK law. Some of these protections are, however, strictly limited, such as those associated with commercial fishing practises. Birch also notes, however, that some invertebrates (animals without backbones) are now also thought to be worthy of protections. Once it was only Octopus vulgaris but now all Cephalopods (octopii and squids) are regarded as potentially sentient. I would certainly regard a large octopus as being more 'sentient' than a lamprey- an ectoparasitic vertebrate. It's when Birch gets into potential sentience in other invertebrates, I get into difficulties. Ethologists, like myself, were always warned of the dangers of anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is ascribing human motivations to animals purely on the basis of it looking like something we see in humans. This can be especially problematic for people who are unfamiliar with the Biology of a particular organism. For example, Birch makes much of the 'altruistic' behaviour of Brazilian worker ants who, from outside, wall up to hide the entrance to their colony at the end of each day. He notes that, by doing so they keep their 'sisters' safe, even though they don't live to see the dawn themselves. These workers are, however, more than 'sisters'. They are non-reproducing clones (genetically identical versions) of the other workers and the queen (who does lay eggs). Their behaviour (which is probably age-related) is a mechanism for keeping the colony (which could be regarded as a superorganism) intact. It's not a sacrifice determined by sentience. Some of the cells of our skin, flake off everyday. They are not sacrificing themselves! I certainly agree with Birch that humans should attempt to treat all animals in a civilised and humane way (more for the benefit of humans rather than the animals). It is clear that Birch worries about whether we should offer protections to possibly sentient insects, we might choose to eat. Clearly, however, humans appear to be the only species of animal that sometimes agonises about sentience in other species. Would he fail to remove a tick or leech that was taking his blood? Would he refuse vegan food, because some insect species had been disadvantaged by growing it? Does he welcome wild rats, mice and cockroaches into his house? Would he let an eagle eat his dog? I think it can all become a little philosophically intense, if you attempt to eliminate all animal 'cruelty', by passing laws. I'm also not sure whether 'sentience' (real or imagined) should be our only consideration.