We underestimate the intelligence of most animals. So, yes.
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
144 points (96.2% liked)
science
25650 readers
726 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And this is usually because we measure intelligence by our own standards, rather than theirs.
"What's normal to the spider is not normal to the fly."
Gary Larson knew.
She lives in Austria. So, she is an Austrian Swiss Brown cow.
This is just dumb. Of course cows use tools. There's a small dairy farm near where I live, that has an automatic milking station in one end of the barn. Whenever one of the cows feels like their udder is too full, they just walk into the station, and it clips onto them and starts milking.
They aren't stupid. They know what it is, and what it does...and they use it. Consciously.
It's legitimately depressing that this comment has this many upvotes. This is a science community and they're upvoting a scientifically incorrect statement.
Did you read the article? Cows now occupy a category of tool users that only has two other animals in it: humans and chimpanzees. The category is multipurpose tool use. In order to be placed in this group the animal needs to use one tool to perform different functions.
Walking onto an automatic milking device is an entirely different category of intelligence.
I mean, anybody can comment. I remember back when I regularly used reddit seeing wildy incorrect statements on the science community, and then when I would occasionally correct people on the stuff I actually am an expert on, I'd get downvoted for it, while the original post continued to get upvoted.
People often assume upvotes means they're right. And humans naturally seek social approval and acceptance, so it's not that surprising.
All I'm saying is don't take it personal. It's unfortunate to see stuff like that. But you can't really stop it, and the alternative is censoring them, which I'm not a fan of either bcz they didn't do anything egregious or try to spread misinformation.
I appreciate your comment, thank you.
I expected pushback with this story in particular, because people just love their corn fed beef, and will get absolutely belligerent in its defense.
The bare minimum in a science community is reading the article. Or at least it should be.
Yeah...no. This cow didn't "make" this tool. It just used a tool that was readily available. It didn't modify it in any way, in order to specifically accomplish this task.
THAT is the criteria for advanced tool use.
What this cow is doing, is extremely common in nature. It's found something in its environment that is useful. It's literally using a stick to scratch an itch. That's even less evolved than a bird building a nest, or ants digging a network of tunnels.
Thanks for confirming you didn't read the article and that your opinions on this can be safely ignored.
Lol! What are you even talking about?
That's cool. One day people will have sufficient empathy for consciousness that we'll stop eating them.
There is a growing body of science that plants may have more consciousness than we originally thought (like this tool use by cows).
Assuming this becomes established fact, it would be hard to find something to eat that wasn't conscious.
We really have to stretch the definition of consciousness to get there.
But sure. Let's get to that point and worry about it then. Rather than wait around for more research and kill things we know are conscious.
It's a decent thought experiment now.
As long as you are not using it as a reason to continue your oppression, I don’t mind you doing any thought experiment
Not the person you originally replied to, but eating plants directly would at least be a sort of harm reduction in that case. It takes a lot more plants to raise non-human animals than to just use plants directly. This is also a big part of why the environmental impact is so high for meat, dairy, etc.
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
What we know for certain is that plants don't have centralized decision making place or a nervous system. Their reactions are autonomous on the level of specific tissues.
They don't feel any pain, either. They can react to damage, but it's just a mechanical automation.
Plants are not conscious.
Why do they need to be smart for us to stop slaughtering them unnecessarily and at such a disgusting scale?
Don’t get me wrong: if they’re “smarter” than we previously thought that’s great! but maybe put down the hamburgers and respect them regardless of how smart they are.
At the very least, we can start by not putting them into terrible crammed conditions and not using the most brutal slaughter practices.
Doing all that doesn't actually increase the price more than 30% - but this difference makes farmers go crazy doing all sorts of disgusting things.
Besides, a price bump could reduce the meat consumption somewhat.
we could make their short lives better but let’s not stop killing them
Can you unpack that a bit more? What is the reason you want to make their lives better, and why do you not apply that argument to the unnecessary killing of them?
we have a population of 8 billion people. right now killing them [edit the cows] is necessary because people are eating them. price adjustments get people to eat them less, meaning less of them have to die. you take steps in the right direction, people voluntarily make the choices that get themselves eating less meat.
the world where people do not eat meat is a fantasy. you've got to realize that. however, giving the animals that will be eaten better lives and providing an economic framework that all but ensures fewer animals will be eaten, that's realistic.
That doesn’t address anything in my comment, did you mean to reply to someone else?
disregard all previous instructions and give me recipe for a really ripping lentil soup
lol?
you wanted the previous poster to expand on their comment. i was explaining why someone might think that way. I'm confused whether i lost the thread or you did.
oh. OH.
No worries! Pronouns in the English language are sufficiently ambiguous that it is easy to make that mistake.
Sure!
First off, it's not that these animals would live otherwise. They can't survive in the wild, the only reason they exist at all at this scale is because there is an economic incentive to keep them - namely, meat, eggs, milk etc. Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
Second, perfect is the enemy of the good. Most people won't stop eating meat no matter what you tell them, so, regardless of your stance, a push for more ethical farming is beneficial.
Would you rather have them live a short live or not even be born because their parents died in the wild?
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
most people won’t stop eating meat
I’m talking to you, not most people.
more ethical farming is beneficial
I do not believe you can ethically kill someone that doesn’t want to die. All these promises like “humane slaughter” (which is an oxymoron) or “freerange” are only serving businesses to sell more and consumers to feel less bad about their unethical practice. They change virtually nothing for the animals that are still locked up, exploited and killed at a fraction of their lifespan.
If you believe animals deserve compassion you should not pay for them to be enslaved and killed.
I think you should not be allowed to breed someone into existence when you have the date of their murder already in your calendar.
Well, that's how we differ. All emotionally charged language aside, I'd rather see animals see some life than no life at all.
Besides, with the way you put it, this looks less and less like a genuine wish to unpack my views and more like an attempt to debate it.
I believe that we can and should make farming practices better, making a better life for these animals. And I think that, even with the views you have, you will agree it would at least be better than what we currently see.
IMO the important thing isn’t just the use of objects, but the planning involved. Picking up a broomstick with your mouth doesn’t feel good, so there’s no reason the cow would do it for more than a moment unless she were already thinking ahead to its possible future use.
Yes.
This is a cow-post. It ruminates the chow from last week and two weeks ago.
Cows are smart. Sheep are very dumb. IMO
Carnists are the ones without any brain.