The New York Declaration 2024 On Animal Consciousness — A Discussion For Both Science And Philosophy

On 19 April, 2024, a diverse group of well known scientists and philosophers came together in New York and signed a declaration.

The declaration was brief, running into four brief paragraphs:

-Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

-First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and birds.

-Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

-Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

The declaration, now known as the ‘New York Declaration of Animal Consciousness’ has to it signatures of neuroscientists like Anil Seth and Christof Koch and philosophers of consciousness like David Chalmers of the ‘Hard problem’ of consciousness fame etc.

This has serious ethical implications for science.

From laboratories to interactions with animals in their natural habitats, this issue can have serious implications. Intense debates among scientists and philosophers have ensued, with significant voices questioning this approach.

To appreciate what is at stake here, we need some background.

The declaration has a predecessor. Twelve years ago on 7 July 2012, a declaration was issued at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals:

The neocortex is an interesting part of the brain. Though found commonly in mammalian species, in humans it is considered the most recently evolved part of the brain and is associated with higher cognitive functions which are considered uniquely human.

The increase in the size of the neocortex in humans has a cost. The expanded neocortex gives a larger head to humans. This makes delivery of the child a difficult process for human species.

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) in his, Dragons of Eden (1977) suggests that an intuitive understanding of this view can be found in the genesis myth of the Bible.

In Genesis 3:16, the Biblical God curses the woman: ‘In pain shalt thou bring forth children.’ The reason for this curse was that humans had developed higher brain functions like the distinction between right and wrong. This also cleaved them from the primordial unity with the rest of existence — the perfect harmony in the Garden of Eden.

Humans became self-conscious, unlike the rest of the animals. This was expressed in the mythological language of the Bible as they clothed themselves and became embarrassed of their nudity. While the reptilian-mammalian divide in the brain that he proposed is now under question, this perspective remains a significant interpretation of the Genesis myth.

In other cultures, including Hindu culture, similar discussions on human uniqueness and the separation of humans from other animals can be seen. For example:

Ahaara-nidra-bhaya-maithuna ca sāmānyam etat pasubhir naraṇaam dharmo hi tesam adhiko visheso dharmeṇa hinaḥ pasubhiḥ samanaḥ

(Eating, sleeping, fear and sex — these habits are common between humans and animals. It is Dharma which is the special quality of humans. Without the Dharma, they are similar to animals).

So apart from the human-uniqueness stand that almost all religions and derived ethical systems have, does Hindu Dharma offer anything different with respect to the problem of animal consciousness and the ethical implications of acknowledging it?

In the famous Saivite temple of Thiruvarur is the stone sculpture of Manu Neethi Chozha who ran his chariot upon his own son because his son accidentally ran a chariot on a calf.

The mother cow had demanded justice by merely pulling the grievance bell meant for the king's subjects.

When courtiers suggested to him that there was prayaschita for the killing of the calf and that the prince need not be killed, the king responded that it was not about seeking absolution from the sin, but about experiencing the same pain as the cow.

Whatever the factual truth or imaginative content of the incident, it is part of the collective memory and civilizational ideal of Hindu society. Hindu Dharma recognised the right of non-human animals to get justice because their pain is as true as the pain of humans.

Again, in the Saivite tradition, one of the great Shiva devotees, a Chola king, Kochengat Cholan is remembered even today for building numerous Shiva temples. In his previous birth, he was said to be a spider which self-consciously spun webs over a Shiva Linga the sacred, aniconic form of Shiva.

The Puranic Manu empathised with the fear and survival needs of a small fish, and by protecting it, protected humanity. Adi Kavi Valmiki became a poet when he felt united with the pain of the krauncha bird which had lost its companion to the arrow of the hunter.

Mahatma Gandhi connected cow protection with this civilisational vision. To him, the cow became a symbol of the entire non-human biological realm. To him, cow protection was ‘one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution’:

These beautiful narratives, which imbue India's value system, prioritise respecting all life rather than emphasising the uniqueness of the human species and any form of superiority. They stem from the non-dualistic Vedantic vision.

Thus, the Kena Upanishad declares that every pulsation of cognition contains in it the light of consciousness and one who knows that alone attains immortal liberation: pratibodha viditaṃ matamamṛtatvaṃ hi vindate (2.4). Vedantic non-duality embraces all life.

Darwin’s discovery of natural selection made the West realise this truth in grades. Darwin did not limit himself to physical forms and functions. A keen observer of nature, Darwin also spoke about emotions in both humans and animals.

To him, many aspects of the human mind also had evolutionary continuity with other animals.

Darwin essentially uncovered a principle of unity in diversity, showing how life diversifies through natural selection and the branching of the phylogenetic tree. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna emphasises that one who experiences this one-in-many and many evolving from one realises Brahman (BG 13:31).

An evolutionary biologist foresaw and envisioned the convergence of Upanishadic wisdom, which recognises the unity in all life, including one's own, and the ethical obligations humans would have in their interactions with other animals much before the New York declaration.

In his animal laboratory walls at the University of Münster, Bernhard Rensch (1900-1990) , had the following Sanskrit words painted prominently:

The New York Declaration 2024 on animal consciousness is a commentary in context to that Mahavakya.

Further reading:

-A 2016 Swarajya article on insect consciousness and self-awareness: here.

-Another 2016 Swarajya article on how the boundaries between plants, non-human animals and humans are shrinking: here.

-2012: Cambridge Declaration on consciousness: here

-2024: New York Declaration on animal consciousness: here