Sentience
New methods, such as electroencephalography (EEG), positron-emission tomography (PET-scanning), magneto-encephalography (MEG), and frequency-modulated magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have led to a substantial revision of our understanding of the meaning and consequences of ‘sentience’.
Sentience goes beyond merely having feelings. A sentient being is one that has some ability to evaluate the actions of others in relation to itself and third parties, it can remember some of its own actions and their consequences, assess risks and benefits. The concept of sentience has parallels with ideas of the soul or psyche that have often been used to propose that humans are fundamentally different from other animals. Current research on the components of sentience shows that humans share cognitive and emotional abilities with many other animals.
The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 recognises animal sentience in law for the first time. The scope of the legislation includes all vertebrates and some invertebrates such as octopuses and lobsters.
The Project
A series of images of animals known to be sentient, that are routinely farmed, used for experiments, or otherwise abused in the UK. The images try to illustrate the intelligence of the animals – in this series, demonstrating their skills as photographers. The images are to be produced as greeting cards and larger prints for sale.
| Goats | Goats in the dairy industry often suffer from overmilking, leading to mastitis, and unwanted kids are frequently culled. Data on goat slaughter in the UK is limited. However, the number is significantly lower than for cattle or sheep, likely in the tens of thousands annually. |
| Male calves | In the dairy industry, male calves are often considered a by-product. While specific UK figures are scarce, in October 2024, 204 thousand steers, heifers, and young bulls were slaughtered. Many will have been raised in confined spaces with restricted movement. |
| Male chicks | In the egg industry, male chicks are culled shortly after hatching. Approximately 29 million male chicks are killed each year in the UK, often by maceration or gassing, as they do not lay eggs and are unsuitable for meat production. |
| Chickens | Every WEEK, we slaughter 22 MILLION chickens in the UK, the vast majority are for humans to eat. A small proportion are chickens that have been used for egg ‘production’ and that no longer meet their targets! |
| Mice | In 2022, over 2 million mice were used in scientific procedures in the UK. Mice in laboratories are often subject to painful experiments, kept in small cages, and generally ‘euthanised’ after testing. Their use is ‘justified’ because of practicality, their genetic and immune system similarities to humans, short lifespan and high rate of reproduction. Advances in technology, such as organ-on-a-chip models and computational simulations, slowly offer alternatives to using animal ‘models’ in research. |
| Pigs | Pigs endure overcrowding, tail docking without anaesthesia, and are often kept in barren, confined spaces. Sows are confined to farrowing crates, unable to move freely. The UK slaughters millions of pigs annually for meat. In October 2024 alone, about 966,000 clean pigs were slaughtered. |
| Salmon | The UK is a major producer of farmed salmon. While exact numbers are not readily available, it’s estimated that tens of millions are harvested annually. Farmed salmon live in crowded pens, suffer from diseases and parasites, and endure stressful slaughter methods such as suffocation or being clubbed. |
| Sheep | Sheep are subjected to painful procedures such as mulesing without pain relief, shearing injuries, and live export journeys under harsh conditions. The UK slaughters millions of sheep each year. In October 2024, approximately 1,088,000 clean sheep were slaughtered. |
Criticisms of this approach – particularly from within the Animal Rights activist community
1. Trivializing the Issue
- Some activists may feel that using humour to highlight the intelligence of sentient animals risks trivializing their suffering. By presenting the issue in a light-hearted way, the severity of the abuse and exploitation might be overshadowed or diluted.
2. Anthropomorphism Concerns
- Critics could argue that portraying animals in human roles, such as scholars, scientists, or photographers, reinforces an anthropocentric perspective. This might unintentionally suggest that animals deserve moral consideration only if they exhibit traits that align with human definitions of intelligence.
3. Potential for Misinterpretation
- The humour might be misinterpreted by some viewers as purely entertaining rather than carrying a serious message. This could lead to the message being overlooked or dismissed, reducing the campaign’s effectiveness.
4. Exclusion of Emotional and Ethical Dimensions
- By focusing on intelligence, the campaign may exclude other important reasons to respect animals, such as their capacity to feel pain, form bonds, and experience joy and suffering. Activists may argue that intelligence shouldn’t be a prerequisite for ethical treatment.
5. Overlooking Broader Systemic Issues
- Some activists might view this approach as too individualized and disconnected from systemic critiques of animal exploitation industries. They might argue that it doesn’t address larger issues like capitalism, environmental degradation, and speciesism, which perpetuate abuse.
6. Appealing to the Wrong Audience
- If the target audience is indifferent or resistant to animal rights, the humour could backfire, making the subject seem less serious or giving the impression that activists are not deeply committed to their cause.
7. Reinforcement of Consumerism
- By presenting polished, professional, and humorous content, some might argue this approach risks mimicking advertising aesthetics, potentially aligning with the very consumerist mindset that perpetuates animal exploitation.
8. Missing an Opportunity for Emotional Connection
- Activists may argue that appeals to empathy and emotional connections, such as showing animals in natural behaviours or highlighting their suffering directly, can be more impactful and transformative for audiences than humour.
The rationale for the project
The goal is not to diminish the gravity of animal suffering but to create an alternative way of engaging people who might otherwise remain indifferent.
1. Engaging a Wider Audience
- Humour can serve as an effective icebreaker, drawing in individuals who might otherwise resist or avoid animal rights discussions. It creates an approachable entry point for a topic that many find uncomfortable or overwhelming.
- By appealing to a broader audience, this approach can reach beyond the “converted” and engage those less familiar with animal rights issues.
2. Reducing Psychological Defensiveness
- A humorous tone can lower emotional barriers and defensiveness, making people more receptive to new ideas. When people feel less attacked or guilty, they are more likely to consider alternative perspectives.
- The subtlety in the messaging avoids the confrontational tone that some may associate with animal rights activism, fostering curiosity rather than resistance.
3. Encouraging Reflection Through Satire
- Humour and satire can be powerful tools for encouraging self-reflection. By depicting animals in intelligent or creative roles, the absurdity of their exploitation is highlighted, prompting viewers to question the moral inconsistencies in their treatment of animals.
4. Showcasing Animals’ Unique Qualities
- By humorously portraying animals in intelligent or unexpected roles, this approach invites viewers to think about animals in ways they might not have before, breaking stereotypes and expanding empathy.
- It emphasizes the idea that animals have intrinsic worth and abilities, shifting the narrative from seeing them solely as commodities.
5. Creating Memorable and Shareable Content
- Humour tends to be more memorable and shareable, especially in the age of social media. Images or campaigns that make people smile or laugh are more likely to be circulated, spreading the message to a larger audience.
- This virality can amplify awareness and bring the issue into mainstream conversations in a non-confrontational way.
6. Opening Doors for Deeper Conversations
- Humour can act as a gateway for deeper, more serious discussions. After engaging with lighthearted content, individuals may be more open to learning about the ethical, environmental, or health issues related to animal exploitation.
7. Demonstrating Compassion in Activism
- A humorous approach reflects the creativity, compassion, and humanity of the activist, countering stereotypes of animal rights activists as overly angry or judgmental. This can help build bridges with skeptics or critics.
8. Highlighting the Absurdity of Exploitation
- By humorously juxtaposing animals’ intelligence with their treatment in society, this approach subtly underscores the moral contradiction in exploiting sentient beings capable of thought and emotion.
9. Cultural Relevance
- In a culture where entertainment dominates attention spans, this approach aligns with current trends, making animal rights advocacy more culturally relevant and relatable.
10. Complementing Other Approaches
- This method can complement more direct and emotionally charged campaigns. Together, they provide a diverse toolkit for reaching different audiences and addressing various dimensions of the issue.
