vegans!

[musketjr]

Veganism is strange tbh. There's an inherent contradiction in it because we've created many species for domestic purposes that wouldn't survive in the wild/without human assistance, so if the vegans really got what they wanted then they'd essentially be killing millions of millions of innocent animals and ending several species.

this demented logic has also been employed by judges:

http://alaw.org.uk/articles/journalspring05ciwfbr.pdf

the issue, as claimed by the party bringing the action: broiler chickens have been selectively bred to fatten and thus reach slaughter weight as quickly as possible (read my story above - it's constructed well). they indeed fatten so quickly that for broilers used for breeding purposes, the industry restricts their feed, keeping them "chronically hungry" so as to mitigate against health problems caused by their massive bulk so that they can survive long enough to reach sexual maturity.

the high court said

It was not enough for the claimant to argue that the feed restrictions resulted in
breeder broilers being left “chronically hungry”, “very hungry” or that, from time to
time, they exhibited distress. Intensive farming in connection with chickens was not of
itself unlawful, and the need to achieve a balance in connection with the health of
broiler breeders was an attendant aspect of intensive farming systems. The period of
feed restrictions was limited and directed to a particular need, and the fact that
chickens on restricted feeding regimes were able to gain weight and that their
essential bodily functions were not compromised was a significant factor in
counteracting the suggestion that broiler breeders were being kept sufficiently hungry
to compromise their wellbeing.

the court of appeal (the claimant lost and appealed) said

In a seemingly reluctant concurrence, Sedley LJ accepted that “the behavioural
evidence show[ed] that breeders [were] distressed by the low level of feeding to
which they [were] confined for their first 20 weeks, and that this on its face [was]
inimical to their wellbeing”. However, the selection of genotypes was “beyond the
reach of the measures at issue” in the appeal.

meaning whilst the animals were caused to suffer - the standard industry practice necessitated the kind of suffering caused, and was therefore necessary.

this is quite analogous to your logic - the industry has engineered the entire thing, and it then becomes 'necessary' (in order to facilitate industry practice) to employ such a feeding regime.

what you said was "veganism doesn't make sense because commodity animals are only bred to be exploited and killed, so if they weren't being exploited and killed they wouldn't even live at all", which firstly is akin to saying "if I breed X in order to exploit and kill X, it's ok because if i wasn't killing and exploiting X, X wouldn't live in the first place." I leave it to your good judgement to consider how this is problematic.

secondly, your logic implies that their having life is itself such a great benefit that it outweighs the horrific abuses they suffer. this logic leads to a conclusion you will not be comfortable with: if in fact for animals living is a benefit worth moral consideration, you act immorally in depriving them of life for frivolous reasons; so we can reduce the discussion between you and I to the following question: notwithstanding their welfare leading up to slaughter, is it morally justifiable to kill in order to provide you a frivolous benefit like food produce you have zero need for?

[howlingwolfpaw]

well said musket Jr.

[Dolan]

I think we've discussed this before, and it all ended in arguments about the comparability of pain sensation in non-human animals and human animals.

My argument was that humans have something unique in the animal realm, which is the ability called Theory of Mind. It's not a theory, btw, it's a mental/physical ability which starts developing in kids gradually. 1-2 year olds don't have ToM yet, 5 year olds may start showing signs of ToM. Theory of mind involves our unique capacity to empathise with someone else and to read intention in their actions. There is only one species which has some rudimentary recognition of other conspecifics' mental states, chimpanzees. But they fail the false beliefs test, so they don't have a fully-fledged theory of mind ability.

This is something extremely important, because I think the sensation of pain is amplified in the human mind by what makes it capable of having subjective states. So knowing that you are in pain, while you are in pain, amplifies the physical sensation of pain itself. We are paying the price of having brains/minds capable of subjectivity and empathy by having more intense sensations of pain than any other living beings on this planet. You can literally say the sensation of pain has something tragic in humans, because it reminds us of our mortality, which other animals are not capable of feeling.

These were, in short, the arguments which supported the view that the vegetarian worldview and philosophy is grounded in a misguided assumption that our empathising with the pain of other living beings must mirror their actual sensation of pain. When in fact, it is very likely that other animals, since they lack a subjective/reflective mind, have also a less intense sensation of pain, compared to humans.

Even so, obviously, we should make arrangements that animals which are bred for our consumption should be killed painlessly, so that we don't actually feed on a daily massacre of other beings, which although have a less intense sensation of pain than humans, it doesn't mean we have to ignore it.

[forgrin]

Veganism is strange tbh. There's an inherent contradiction in it because we've created many species for domestic purposes that wouldn't survive in the wild/without human assistance, so if the vegans really got what they wanted then they'd essentially be killing millions of millions of innocent animals and ending several species.

this demented logic has also been employed by judges:

http://alaw.org.uk/articles/journalspring05ciwfbr.pdf

the issue, as claimed by the party bringing the action: broiler chickens have been selectively bred to fatten and thus reach slaughter weight as quickly as possible (read my story above - it's constructed well). they indeed fatten so quickly that for broilers used for breeding purposes, the industry restricts their feed, keeping them "chronically hungry" so as to mitigate against health problems caused by their massive bulk so that they can survive long enough to reach sexual maturity.

the high court said

It was not enough for the claimant to argue that the feed restrictions resulted in
breeder broilers being left “chronically hungry”, “very hungry” or that, from time to
time, they exhibited distress. Intensive farming in connection with chickens was not of
itself unlawful, and the need to achieve a balance in connection with the health of
broiler breeders was an attendant aspect of intensive farming systems. The period of
feed restrictions was limited and directed to a particular need, and the fact that
chickens on restricted feeding regimes were able to gain weight and that their
essential bodily functions were not compromised was a significant factor in
counteracting the suggestion that broiler breeders were being kept sufficiently hungry
to compromise their wellbeing.

the court of appeal (the claimant lost and appealed) said

In a seemingly reluctant concurrence, Sedley LJ accepted that “the behavioural
evidence show[ed] that breeders [were] distressed by the low level of feeding to
which they [were] confined for their first 20 weeks, and that this on its face [was]
inimical to their wellbeing”. However, the selection of genotypes was “beyond the
reach of the measures at issue” in the appeal.

meaning whilst the animals were caused to suffer - the standard industry practice necessitated the kind of suffering caused, and was therefore necessary.

this is quite analogous to your logic - the industry has engineered the entire thing, and it then becomes 'necessary' (in order to facilitate industry practice) to employ such a feeding regime.

what you said was "veganism doesn't make sense because commodity animals are only bred to be exploited and killed, so if they weren't being exploited and killed they wouldn't even live at all", which firstly is akin to saying "if I breed X in order to exploit and kill X, it's ok because if i wasn't killing and exploiting X, X wouldn't live in the first place." I leave it to your good judgement to consider how this is problematic.

secondly, your logic implies that their having life is itself such a great benefit that it outweighs the horrific abuses they suffer. this logic leads to a conclusion you will not be comfortable with: if in fact for animals living is a benefit worth moral consideration, you act immorally in depriving them of life for frivolous reasons; so we can reduce the discussion between you and I to the following question: notwithstanding their welfare leading up to slaughter, is it morally justifiable to kill in order to provide you a frivolous benefit like food produce you have zero need for?

Well said indeed, but you completely mistake my comment. I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in the worldview, not making any other comments about the subject or my views on it. My logic simply states that vegans promote their views to further the beneficial treatment of animals, which most would interpret as living without becoming food (or having their products used as such), yet fail to realise the inevitable complications of such a view's success.

As an example, if say vegans succeeded in their work and reduced demand for animal products by 10%, that means that roughly 10% of dairy cattle in the US would probably be killed and left to rot somewhere (or turned into dog food or something). None of that actually accomplishes the goal, other than I suppose reducing further suffering of animals that will no longer be bred for production.

what you said was "veganism doesn't make sense because commodity animals are only bred to be exploited and killed, so if they weren't being exploited and killed they wouldn't even live at all", which firstly is akin to saying "if I breed X in order to exploit and kill X, it's ok because if i wasn't killing and exploiting X, X wouldn't live in the first place." I leave it to your good judgement to consider how this is problematic

That's not what I said. I didn't say that the suffering was justified in any way, only that the implications of reducing demand for animal products aren't often considered for their effects on said animals. That's explained above. I agree the logic employed in the case you cited is quite perverse. What the judge said boils down to "better off alive and suffering than dead," which you also thought I said.

Edit: just re-read yours and saw this too.

is it morally justifiable to kill in order to provide you a frivolous benefit like food produce you have zero need for?

Obviously not, with a typical understanding of morals. However I personally think that the issue comes with holding the life of an individual (of any species, including our own) in too high a regard. Things "live" to eat, shit, and fuck, and hopefully be eaten after the last bit so their species can continue to do the above, including homo sapiens sapiens. They'res really nothing wrong with us acquiring our resources from a source that walks around rather than one that sits in the ground and grows. Philosophy and living in cities isolated from the world makes us forget that.

PS I'm an agricultural science student so I am quite aware of this stuff, animal ethics classes etc.

[musketjr]

I respect you're not being flippant neuron, but that theory sounds irrelevant. I will cite this, for example

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf

the language is beyond me, but the final sentence is the takeaway for the layman:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

[musketjr]

That's not what I said. I didn't say that the suffering was justified in any way, only that the implications of reducing demand for animal products aren't often considered for their effects on said animals. That's explained above. I agree the logic employed in the case you cited is quite perverse. What the judge said boils down to "better off alive and suffering than dead," which you also thought I said.

so it's just numbers?

if right now there are 10 animals being exploited, soon to be killed, the vegan world would abolish the industry in which they live, and for argument's sake, leave them to suffer and die.

whereas the nonvegan world would take these 10 and breed 10 more.

@Aizamk

notification

can hopefully get us up to speed on whether 20 is greater than 10.

people seem to abandon all logic when trying to justify meat

[forgrin]

That's not what I said. I didn't say that the suffering was justified in any way, only that the implications of reducing demand for animal products aren't often considered for their effects on said animals. That's explained above. I agree the logic employed in the case you cited is quite perverse. What the judge said boils down to "better off alive and suffering than dead," which you also thought I said.

so it's just numbers?

if right now there are 10 animals being exploited, soon to be killed, the vegan world would abolish the industry in which they live, and for argument's sake, leave them to suffer and die.

whereas the nonvegan world would take these 10 and breed 10 more.

@Aizamk

notification

can hopefully get us up to speed on whether 20 is greater than 10.

people seem to abandon all logic when trying to justify meat

And people draw infinite straw men in arguments lol. I wasn't saying that a vegan world kills more animals, only that 95% of vegans have never actually considered the initial "10" loss.

Btw read the edit of my previous reply.

[musketjr]

that was your entire argument. you were concerned with the 10 animals suffering. if this is the basis on which you justify meat, you are logically obliged to practice veganism because it causes less suffering than upholding the status quo does. no obfuscating.

Obviously not, with a typical understanding of morals.

in which case you are obliged to advocate veganism. the rest of the paragraph is an irrelevant appeal to nature

[forgrin]

I respect you're not being flippant neuron, but that theory sounds irrelevant. I will cite this, for example

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf

the language is beyond me, but the final sentence is the takeaway for the layman:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

Everything that has consciousness suffers. Reducing suffering is a nice aside but doesn't make much of a difference in the world, the animal will die anyways. If you actually want to change anyone's mind then cite the other reasons (meat quality, environmental concerns, etc).

[forgrin]

that was your entire argument. you were concerned with the 10 animals suffering. if this is the basis on which you justify meat, you are logically obliged to practice veganism because it causes less suffering than upholding the status quo does. no obfuscating.

There is literally nowhere where I said anything like, "if everyone's vegan than alot of animals die, therefore eat meat anyways hurdurr." You're literally inventing things that I've said. I did state the first bit (which is true) but not the second (which is an incorrect conclusion).

[musketjr]

then pray tell, what exactly are you saying here?

Veganism is strange tbh. There's an inherent contradiction in it because we've created many species for domestic purposes that wouldn't survive in the wild/without human assistance, so if the vegans really got what they wanted then they'd essentially be killing millions of millions of innocent animals and ending several species.

[forgrin]

then pray tell, what exactly are you saying here?

Veganism is strange tbh. There's an inherent contradiction in it because we've created many species for domestic purposes that wouldn't survive in the wild/without human assistance, so if the vegans really got what they wanted then they'd essentially be killing millions of millions of innocent animals and ending several species.

I'm simply stating that the hypothetical "10" exists. Pretty damn obvious if you read it. I don't reference the "20" because that's the obvious extension and goal of veganism, it didn't need to be stated.

[WickedCossack]

I love meat but I don't have problems with annoying vegans.

Actually I like the annoying ones because if you're against killing/exploiting animals (or w/e the argument is) then surely you would try and go out and promote your position and stop other people?

Same with religion, if a religious person has a non religious friend and your belief dictates they'd spend an eternity in hell (sounds pretty bad right?) I think you'd be a dick not to try and "save" them. I'd be disappointed if my religious friends didn't at least try a few debates, show me you care about meh !

Not that I think people should apply this stance to any argument but both veganism and religion are debatable in ethics so I think that's fair game.

[musketjr]

so you have no point?

[forgrin]

so you have no point?

Yes. I was making a side comment only. Didn't even mean to play "find the vegan" lol.

[musketjr]

I love meat but I don't have problems with annoying vegans.

Actually I like the annoying ones because if you're against killing/exploiting animals (or w/e the argument is) then surely you would try and go out and promote your position and stop other people?

Same with religion, if a religious person has a non religious friend and your belief dictates they'd spend an eternity in hell (sounds pretty bad right?) I think you'd be a dick not to try and "save" them. I'd be disappointed if my religious friends didn't at least try a few debates, show me you care about meh !

Not that I think people should apply this stance to any argument but both veganism and religion are debatable in ethics so I think that's fair game.

you have to consider how ubiquitous meat is. going out and demonstrating has no bearing on industries supported by inherited culture and legal and political entities eg. subsidies as pointed out before. however, i'm going to tackle it using the law. to be honest I find everyday discussions like this patently absurd because people are simply incapable of being rational regarding meat. meat eaters have an untenable position and have to resort to nonsense, the likes of which you see in this thread (which has been relatively sane - no one has said plants feel pain yet).

although your point was you like people standing up for something they believe in. maybe even these discussions are worthwhile because it puts the topic in people's minds.

[deleted_user0]

I respect you're not being flippant neuron, but that theory sounds irrelevant. I will cite this, for example

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf

the language is beyond me, but the final sentence is the takeaway for the layman:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

suffering, or the ability to suffer is not a neccesary criterion to be given rights.

[deleted_user0]

I love meat but I don't have problems with annoying vegans.

Actually I like the annoying ones because if you're against killing/exploiting animals (or w/e the argument is) then surely you would try and go out and promote your position and stop other people?

Same with religion, if a religious person has a non religious friend and your belief dictates they'd spend an eternity in hell (sounds pretty bad right?) I think you'd be a dick not to try and "save" them. I'd be disappointed if my religious friends didn't at least try a few debates, show me you care about meh !

Not that I think people should apply this stance to any argument but both veganism and religion are debatable in ethics so I think that's fair game.

you have to consider how ubiquitous meat is. going out and demonstrating has no bearing on industries supported by inherited culture and legal and political entities eg. subsidies as pointed out before. however, i'm going to tackle it using the law. to be honest I find everyday discussions like this patently absurd because people are simply incapable of being rational regarding meat. meat eaters have an untenable position and have to resort to nonsense, the likes of which you see in this thread (which has been relatively sane - no one has said plants feel pain yet).

although your point was you like people standing up for something they believe in. maybe even these discussions are worthwhile because it puts the topic in people's minds.

whether plants feel pain, or whether animals feel pain, is not neccesarily relevant. I simply do not recognize your argument as valid, that the ability to suffer is the only criterion we ought to consider in our treatment of things, be it living or otherwise.
I for one, would award robots rights before I would a chicken.

[forgrin]

I respect you're not being flippant neuron, but that theory sounds irrelevant. I will cite this, for example

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf

the language is beyond me, but the final sentence is the takeaway for the layman:

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

suffering, or the ability to suffer is not a neccesary criterion to be given rights.

This. The only reason rights exist are to ensure human society stays cohesive. What are the factory chickens going to do, rise up and overthrow the government? Nahhh.

[WickedCossack]

This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!

[Dolan]

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

I've read their statements very carefully and I know what each means. I've studied neuroscience for a number of years, so I'm familiar with the topics and the terminology used in the field. Same for psychology.

First of all, it's a very general declaration. It doesn't address at all the points I made about the uniqueness of Theory of Mind abilities in humans. And how this ability is linked to our unique kind of self-consciousness and the capacity to feel pain (nociception). They are just saying very general things, such as most living beings share similar brain systems. True, you can find similar brain systems all the way down to the fruit fly. Because evolutionarily, they have been inherited. But that doesn't mean humans and fruitflies are capable of similar cognition or affective states. Still fruit flies and other animals like rats are used to study mood disorders or behavioural disorders, by using gene/brain circuit manipulation to disable/enable certain brain functions and see which are likely to induce disorders. Still neither fruit flies nor rats have the mental abilities or social structure which makes them experience the kind of stress which leads to these disorders in humans. Researchers are using them to study brain systems which are evolutionarily similar, because it's the cheapest way of finding a possible candidate for study in great apes or even humans.
They're just looking for the most rudimentary traces of biological systems that would develop, in higher order animals, functions capable of supporting the kind of diseases and illnesses we can see in humans. It's all about homology, not about real similarity in function.

One of their arguments is actually quite doubtful. They say that the fact that evidence shows there can be affective states without a cortex, and since the subcortical structures are generally shared among a great number of species (especially mammals), then this means, there is a common support for similar experiences of (self)awareness. Sure, those affective states can exist, but in a very basic form, for example if you stimulate certain areas in the hypothalamus of both humans and rats, you can get the same feeling of being thirsty or behaviour of becoming aggressive. But higher cognition is responsible for a number of emotions that are unique to humans, such as envy, jealousy, hope, disgust, shame.

You have to take into account that most researchers are not great philosophers and very often they don't come up with the best interpretations of their findings. If you read their studies, you can tell how most empirical researchers are philosopher wannabes, by how much they try to assign some higher significance to their findings, occasionally dabbling in philosophical issues that they don't know very well. You can also be sure that this declaration is not the result of consensus of the whole community of researchers, it's just a limited number of researchers.

Also, sure, there is one name which is one of the greatest researchers in neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp, but he is known for having a bias towards ascribing too much importance to the limbic system, the brain system which supports primal affective states and which is found under the cortex. So, even if he is a great researcher, he does have his own biases in the field.

So, the relevance of this declaration is debatable. You can find plenty of other researchers who will disagree with their statements or would want to add lots of qualifications to each of them.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

Yeah, not having the same capacity for subjective mental states makes the cow have a less intense experience of pain, since it's not amplified by psychological reactions to being aware of one's pain.

[noissance]

Good meats are more expensive than good veggies. Eating healthy meats would put a dent in the wallet, so people prefer the convenience of fast food. It is pointless to dictate terms to others who simply live their life the way they choose.

[musketjr]

This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!

it's funny because you probably didn't read it but this is the premise I based the story on page 1 on

[WickedCossack]

This of course all works as humans are the dominant species and life tis grand n' dandy until we are discovered by a superior alien race who decides we are very tasty.

Every species for his own!

it's funny because you probably didn't read it but this is the premise I based the story on page 1 on

Clever deduction.

At 2am anything more than one paragraph is too much for me ...

[musketjr]

Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman
animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.

you may be right that humans have certain modes of thought and contemplation which other species do not - in any case, they are sentient (able to perceive, sense and suffer) and conscious, so how does this have a bearing on their suffering? are you saying a cow having its throat cut suffers less than a human would, because it doesn't contemplate mortality?

I've read their statements very carefully and I know what each means. I've studied neuroscience for a number of years, so I'm familiar with the topics and the terminology used in the field. Same for psychology.

First of all, it's a very general declaration. It doesn't address at all the points I made about the uniqueness of Theory of Mind abilities in humans. And how this ability is linked to our unique kind of self-consciousness and the capacity to feel pain (nociception). They are just saying very general things, such as most living beings share similar brain systems. True, you can find similar brain systems all the way down to the fruit fly. Because evolutionarily, they have been inherited. But that doesn't mean humans and fruitflies are capable of similar cognition or affective states. Still fruit flies and other animals like rats are used to study mood disorders or behavioural disorders, by using gene/brain circuit manipulation to disable/enable certain brain functions and see which are likely to induce disorders. Still neither fruit flies nor rats have the mental abilities or social structure which makes them experience the kind of stress which leads to these disorders in humans. Researchers are using them to study brain systems which are evolutionarily similar, because it's the cheapest way of finding a possible candidate for study in great apes or even humans.
They're just looking for the most rudimentary traces of biological systems that would develop, in higher order animals, functions capable of supporting the kind of diseases and illnesses we can see in humans. It's all about homology, not about real similarity in function.

One of their arguments is actually quite doubtful. They say that the fact that evidence shows there can be affective states without a cortex, and since the subcortical structures are generally shared among a great number of species (especially mammals), then this means, there is a common support for similar experiences of (self)awareness. Sure, those affective states can exist, but in a very basic form, for example if you stimulate certain areas in the hypothalamus of both humans and rats, you can get the same feeling of being thirsty or behaviour of becoming aggressive. But higher cognition is responsible for a number of emotions that are unique to humans, such as envy, jealousy, hope, disgust, shame.

You have to take into account that most researchers are not great philosophers and very often they don't come up with the best interpretations of their findings. If you read their studies, you can tell how most empirical researchers are philosopher wannabes, by how much they try to assign some higher significance to their findings, occasionally dabbling in philosophical issues that they don't know very well. You can also be sure that this declaration is not the result of consensus of the whole community of researchers, it's just a limited number of researchers.

Also, sure, there is one name which is one of the greatest researchers in neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp, but he is known for having a bias towards ascribing too much importance to the limbic system, the brain system which supports primal affective states and which is found under the cortex. So, even if he is a great researcher, he does have his own biases in the field.

So, the relevance of this declaration is debatable. You can find plenty of other researchers who will disagree with their statements or would want to add lots of qualifications to each of them.

this again is a quality and thoughtful reply but its effect is to muddy the discussion. instead of asking whether doing X to animals for Y reason is reasonable, this kind of thing asks us whether what they experience is even as it seems. the declaration is general - the point is that it represents a scientific consensus that animals are sentient, putting to rest the old Cartesian view of animals as animated machines or the Christian view of animals as morally irrelevant human utilities.