Animals are conscious and should be treated as such
October 1, 2012
(Credit: Giulio Prisco)
Are animals conscious? Yes, says the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, publicly proclaimed by three eminent neuroscientists, David Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, California, Philip Low of Stanford University and Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology, Marc Bekoff writes in New Scientist.
“Non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors,” the declaration says.
“Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
“I hope the declaration will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely,” says Bekoff. ”All too often, sound scientific knowledge about animal cognition, emotions and consciousness is not recognized in animal welfare laws.”
However, the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on December 1, 2009, recognizes that animals are sentient beings and calls on member states to “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” in agriculture, fisheries, transport, research and development and space policies.”
Comments (75)
by Simon
Feeling pain, having emotions, looking cute, displaying empathy, being self-aware, having higher intelligence, wanting to come up with scientific proof so people treat animals with respect – none of these things in any way infer sentience, qualia.
All of these things have evolutionary advantage on their own, with no need to create or receive qualia.
A robot could be programmed to display them.
by David
I’m the only one who is not a robot, I don’t think I am?
by Editor
BOT PATTERN DETECTED
by Michael Zeldich
The animals body is working in the same way as a human body, or bacterial, or plant, and all live creatures. The unifying feature of all live matter is subjectivity, the ability to act on the basis of its own imaginary model of the surrounding. And it is time for admitting that fact.
(Sorry, I have to provide the satisfying, but not precise formulation.)
by egore
If Dogs or cats were discovered on another planet such as Mars, wouldn’t we then have to consider them to be the predominant species of Mars?
by Arthur
I wonder why people still consume meat and other animal products that are far from necessary for health (1), when we could sidestep most of this suffering and death by adopting slightly different diets.
It wouldn’t be surprising if technologies, such as in vitro meat, solve most animal rights issues long before vegans have managed to turn mankind to our way of thinking (2).
Regardless, I do hope that eventually we will be able to fundamentally improve our ethics and morality by tinkering with our brains (with the consent of the one being tinkered, of course). For now, human morality still seems to be limited by our tastebuds.
(1) http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761
by MrFriendly
Finally.
I refuse to call my animals, “pets.” They’re family, and I treat them as such. I never raise my voice around them, or do anything that might frighten them. I treat them as I would small children, and just like kids, they know how to play me like a fiddle :P
I don’t mind, tho.
by Bri
@All of you: my position is hard to understand. I apologize. This will be a very long post. If it is too radical for your sensibilities, just pass over it. You can state your view, pro or con, but I have thought about this a great deal, and I do see it as a basis for ethics. Everything is alive. I like the post that says, a more evolved consciousness might perceive us as more akin to mold on the planet. Hopefully they will treat us with respect. That is how I try and treat everything. You have to seek balance. It takes a constant reassessment, to implement. Your perspective will change over time. When it comes to eating, everything is a parasite on something, and all of it is a parasite on the sun. Since to me everything is alive, let’s start at the base. Although the church wants to define marriage as between a man and a women, it has been used to describe relationships between things for a long time. The sun takes hydrogen and forces a bonding, an intercourse or exchange that produces offspring. From this, energy is released that fuels all the life on earth. The elements that we are made of are also siblings of this union. Most planets don’t have very many minerals. Earth is lucky because it has a lithosphere. The continents are light flotsam that float , and is forced deep underground. The heat affects this material in many ways, concentrating and recombining in numerous ways. All the terrestrial minerals were created by these forced unions. All the constituent particles of life are created by these juxtapositions and arranged unions, again all that is empowered by the suns energy. Even if it’s heat welling up from radio isotopes decaying, it is the suns energy that drives it and binds it. I love to collect rocks and minerals. When I look at them, I see there lives, when the matrix they were born in was more fluid, and seething with lifes energy. All those neat rare eath minerals that are so important to our industries are crystalline combinations of atomic element. Most are unique to earth and finite in supply. To me they are sleeping. They are frozen. If you compress them and and heat, they will reanimate. They will start to sing a song. You wouldn’t think of it as music, in much the same way as you might not think of Lady Gaga’s songs as music, but to the elements that that mineral is comprised of, it calls to them, and they are drawn to it. The plane of existance that they live in is alien to most of you, but to me I respect their lives. Without them and their off spring, we could not exist. They eat the single atoms in there environments and perpetuate life. Up the later to simple organisms the same thing happens on another plane. We might look down on bacteriums with contempt, feeling that they would be destroyed, but each living thing plays it’s part. Our cells are outnumbered by foreign bacteria, but without them we would die. Even our mitochondria is recognized as a foreign entity. It has been forced by circumstances into a marriage with all our cells. Life constantly consumes and incorporates other life. We alter other life and it’s rights to exist for many reasons. We don’t want rats and mice living with us, so we might poison trap or kill them. You must decide what your relationship is with them, just as you might need salt, but too little or too much can kill you. I love plants and know they are alive and conscious on another plane of life. Again i see this as we might be akin to a mold consuming our planet, to a super evolved consciousness. I’ll still cut the grass, prune the bushes, pull the weeds, and of course, eat them. I view the animal kingdom no differently from any of the others. By these unions and segregations, new life or siblings evolve. Soon it will be machines with AI.
by Carl Brooks
nicely put.
by Peter Kinnon
Although I find your post to be a wee bit disjointed, “new-worldy” and a bit poetic for my taste, you do appear to be on basically the right track with much of your thinking.
I suggest that you read the article by Robert M Hazen, “The Evolution of Minerals” in Scientific American, March 2010 which will help crystallize (not a pun) your thoughts on that matter.
Also that, instead of machines with AI, you turn your thoughts to the Internet as the progenitor of the next cognitive entity. My e-books on this are free downloads from my website.
by Bri
@Peter Kinnon: I appreciate your post. Two factors make it disjointed. I rarely have much time to organize my thoughts into a more coherence presentation. I was also seeking a way to condense a rather larger subject. I am a little New Age’y. I view life as an entity in it’s self. That humans aren’t the end all be all of that life. We are just one more step, in a universe that is waking up. I love rocks and minerals. I have been interested in their formation since I was twelve. I used to get Rock & Gem magazine. Now I read them when I find them at news stands, mainly in the city. They have numerous articles on mineral formation. Most of the mineral formation stopped in earlier epics of crust formation, though some processes are still going on. I can’t wait till Africa finishes slamming into Europe, in a few million years, and then wears done enough that we can get to the new minerals formed from that. I’ll have to chill out in some V R for awhile, for that one. In the mean time their should be some very interesting crystalline formations in the asteroids and meteors that we will mine eventually. As for the Internet, I have written many times that it is the nervous system of the organism that is munching on Earth. We are far more like a fungus or a mold than people would want to admit. I see interstellar AI as a spore from a fruiting body of that organism that is consuming the planet. If humans perish, another form will evolve to do the same thing. We are just agents of the force of life.
by Peter Kinnon
The great merit of your thinking, Bri, is that you have managed to break free of the trap of anthropocentrism which hampers the objectivity of so many.
I am sure that your world-view will become more coherent with a broadening of your understanding of nature’s processes. Particularly of chemistry and biology, which will no doubt help bring your musings into focus.
Meanwhile, don’t forget to check out Hazen’s article which is right up your geological street and I am sure you will enjoy.
by Peter Kinnon
This grossly over-hyped “declaration” would seem to be both banal and rather unnecessary at two levels.
Firstly, our everyday encounters with various vertebrates gives a strong common-sense indication of appreciable levels of consciousness(self-awareness) in these creatures.
But, secondly, and more importantly, within the context of modern science, particularly biology, it is abundantly clear that,fundamentally, this property is a feature of most if not all organisms.
While the implementations and extent of self-awareness varies greatly, it is essentially a “navigational” feature
For it is necessary for most creatures to be aware of their external environment for navigation to such things as food, shelter, and reproduction.
Even sedentary organisms such as plants necessarily exhibit sensory interaction with their environment for such requirements as root growth direction and optimization of sunlight inputs.
Sensory awareness of the environment, particularly in higher vertebrates, necessarily involves an awareness of self as part of that environment.
Thus, from our understanding of biological evolution by natural selection it becomes quite clear that the provision of a navigational feature that involves some degree of self awareness is required for an organism to interact optimally with its environment.
It is a measure of its fitness for the prevailing environment and subject to selection pressure accordingly.
There is, of course, a great gulf between the level of consciousness exhibited by our species in comparison to any other.
Simply because the level of interaction with the environment required by our particular ecological niche is incomparably higher. As evidenced by the billions of artifacts and systems that have resulted from human activities.
The implications arising from reports of the “declaration” that the consciousness of other animals is “just like ours”, however, is very wrong. The consciousness of each creature is a unique implementation which natural selection has honed to match a particular environmental niche.
Our particular imaginations have developed the ability to blend, morph and reconfigure these elements in many ways. That is our special quality. The imaginations of other animals, even such as cats, dogs, chimps and birds come nowhere near to this. They have their own special capabilities which have evolved to match their particular ecological niche.
The dog, and the salmon have incredible olfactory selectivity and sensitivity respectively. The octopus needs its big brain to be able to perform the extraordinary task of matching its skin colors and textures to the terrain.
But when it comes to sheer imaginatory (sic) power, no creature comes within a bull’s roar of the human.
The extraordinarily high capability for imagination (the ability to form and morph neural models of the environment) that is characteristic of our species even allows introspection – consideration of some of our own thought processes. The trap which led early philosophers and, unfortunately, many of today’s scientists who should know better, to metaphysical and mystical interpretations of this rather straightforward biological phenomenon.
Furthermore there is a good case to be made for the proposition that, before long, it is very much on the books that we will have a new cognitive entity on this planet that will better our own level.
A product of the autonomous evolution of technology within the collective imagination of our species.
This is outlined in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” , a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website
by Carl Brooks
excellent!!!
by Gabriel
Peter, this is not banal and most certainly is not unnecessary….I know it can feel that way because of how “obvious” it seems, and it truly should be, but the fact is….It’s not.
It really really isn’t, and all sorts of things can done in the name of an animal, fetus or whatever having or not having consciousness….I know this can seem like such an obvious “Well, duh” article….but it’s really not, as much as it should be. For all the progress thus far, it feels like we’re still in our diapers when it comes to things that should otherwise, be considered basic.
by Justin
Thank you for telling them. I prefer to curse, but your writing has more of a sting I think.
by Krishnan
I am surprised that the western world has preposterously assumed that animals have no consciousness until now. I think it is equally preposterous to assume that animals have no or inferior imagination! It is probably comprable to the IQ tests of the past.
by vaidy bala
Cata, Dogs,horses and Dophins have long been shown again and again to have consciousness to deal with uman beings. Even an ant feels pain, says Sathya Sai, a spiritual teacher in India, but we don’t wan to hear. Needless pain is inflicted on them including wild animals saying, they don’t have soul or experience pain. I am happy the age old wisdom to treat all creations of some body as holy, is encouraging that humanity recognizes throuth scince to correct some of th ethings we do to them is nothing other than sins against creation and creator. Those unconsciously done will have to be dealt through redemption!
by Carl Brooks
good points but a little preachy there valdy. Take the holy part out, the sins part out, the creator part out and the redmption part out. and replace with evolution. no more of this god business please
by Ted Rodosovich
see whywontgodhealamputees.com — read at least the Executive Summary.
by gawells
Future is made by the cleverness of choosing priorities.
by Mr.X
@Gawells: Change happens, we call it the flow of time.Future happens, and isn’t made.
by Daniel
Decartes and his colleagues did horrible experiments on live animals and rationalized that since the animals didn’t have souls their screams weren’t really pain. How exceedingly deaf, dumb and blind some people can be. We’ve come a long way since then and we have further to go. Having the ‘scientific’ class officially recognize what was obvious to the most casual observer will help in this difficult trek. But scientists are still, in their official capacity sorely lagging…that showing similar anatomical structures and biochemistry allows them to make the leap is good, that they ever required that is sad and speaks volumes about our inadequacy in dealing with our own experiences. We still can’t ‘prove’ that my neighbors are conscious. It’s all by inference. It was not our reasoning that allowed us to deal with animals in a manner so cruel but our might. For that we should be ashamed and especially the ‘scientific’ community.
by Mr.X
These guys were christians, which preached about the goodlikeness of humanity and our superiority over the “animal kingdom.”
by Carl Brooks
iye, sad, childlike people.
by Justin
Yeah, the adultlike people are far better. You are delusional.
by Dennis
They are not just conscious, but also live in-the-moment with enviable levels of concentration that human animals morph away from as they leave childhood.
by trakk
true
by Giulio Prisco
I think consciousness is not a black/white yes/no alternative, but there are degrees and flavors of consciousness. Arguably everything has some degree of consciousness, similar or different from human consciousness in both flavor and degree. Some pan-psychists think C. Elegans and also rocks and clouds are conscious in a sense, of course not in _our_ sense.
But dogs (like my sweetie in the picture), cats, monkeys, and other animals sufficiently similar to us, are sufficiently conscious in _our_ sense to deserve compassionate treatment and respect.
by melajara
Your Sweetie seems not only conscious but even thoughtful ;-)
by Editor
Yes, actually, my cat is a lot more conscious than me, if by “conscious” one means “aware of what’s going on and making intelligence decisions” (which mostly involves running away really fast).
by Justin
What do you come to this site for? … You’re the AUTHOR?! Well ok. Excuse me while I bury my head in my palms. I couldn’t utter anything else now aside from a sigh of contempt and frustration. Do the people that work there know you’ve gotten on their computer?
by Editor
Welcome to the Singularity! May I take your order?
by GatorALLin
Loved your pic.
Here is my brussels griffon
http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af261/GatorALLin/Family%20Pics/2011-01-22_17-49-25_65.jpg
by Gorden Russell
Gator, did you put that dog in that sweater? If I tried that on my 105 pound German shepherd he’d bite me. He’s made it known that dressing cute is beneath his dignity. He is very conscious of that.
by Giulio Prisco
Maybe a threatening black leather Rambo suit? ;-)
by GatorALLin
..my wife has a leather bomber jacket… looks kinda cool…. I am not a big fan of dressing up dogs (especially male dogs), but a few weekends a year it gets cold enough here in FL that Gizmo seems to enjoy the warm clothes and extra attention. Most the time he just wants to chase golf balls in the huge field out back from our company….. and do his Zooming…. (only brussels griffon owners may know what this means)….
by Giulio Prisco
Very cute!
by melajara
That animals are conscious is an evidence for me from my encountering with them. However I don’t know how far it extends down the scale. Evident for dogs, cats, even mice, not at all for flies or mosquitoes!
Now note that there is a problem of commensurability. Human beings proceed by projection and identification to ascribe mental states or consciousness to other human beings and by extension to other animals (or beings in some cultures) but when this identification becomes difficult, e.g. when the features of the animal under scrutiny are not easily distinguishable, so is the correlated ascription of mental states or consciousness. In the Devonian there were giant insects, it would have been more easy to ascribe to them consciousness even if actually they were more primitive animals.
But, of course, this is only my personal opinion, mixed with folk psychology observations.
The real point here is once again a lesson in humility. Human beings are not so special and should not have so much contempt for the animal kingdom.
The sad truth is that the human species is just the most ferocious representative of this realm and also the most terrible plague for Earth.
by Gorden Russell
If pigs are so smart, why do they tastes so good?
by trakk
those must be the dumber ones :)
by Mr.X
@Gordon: The taste really is in you- upon hearing this, he was englightened.
by Vin
Because the tastier they are, the more they get to reproduce, the more their dna likes it.
by David
How do you know it is pig, it could be horse, rat or the homeless?
by Carl Brooks
dude, we are not a plague. We are a consequence of evolution. Through millions of generations of environmentally driven evolution. We are here, now, it is not a good thing and it is not a bad thing. Evolution doesn’t think to itself ,”how can i mess this planet up? i know, i’ll create an opposable thumbed monkey to destroy the world”.
does that mean the black death is a good thing? The plague of the plague is my friend?
We’re human, we are animals. We’re animals with a big ass cultural brain stuck on top of our heads. We’ve always known that we cause animals pain (since the metaphorical “cave-man times”) and try to reduce that suffering but at the end of the day its been about survival. Only now do we see the light at the end of the tunnel, there will soon come a point where we will not need cattle, when we wont need the heart valve of a pig and at that point we wont do it anymore. but until that point arrives, its going to continue to happen, so we can all keep on surviving.
by Ted Rodosovich
uhhhh …. where yunz omni-carnies gonna put the feed lots on loooong space voyages … the slaughter houses …. ???
by Gabriel
Though it’s not infallible, I can understand the logic that morality is often limited by necessity — as we’ve become more and more advanced, we have found it within us to care more…happily, it will get to the point that we will become so empowered, that we will no longer have to rationalize what some would call “necessary evils”, but we’re not there yet, but we are far far past how we used to be in which nobody gave a damn because we were too concerned with surviving. You could almost argue that Morality is an unnatural thing by that logic that only the well-off can afford (‘well-of’, I refer to contemporary humans)
Evolution, the process that produced humanity, possesses only one goal: create gene machines maximally
capable of producing copies of themselves. In retrospect, this is the only way complex structures such as life
could possibly arise in an unintelligent universe. But this goal often comes into conflict with human interests,
causing death, suffering, and short life spans. The past progress of humanity has been a history of shattering
evolutionary constraints.
—MICHAEL ANISSIMOV
Michael nailed it – we are breaking constraint after constraint as we grind ourselves higher and higher; it’s gonna get to the point where we don’t have to rationalize so much suffering in all sorts of ways, but as before…we aren’t there yet, and until we get there, we have no choice really but to continue rationalize so much suffering in one way or another — such as feeding ourselves hope through philosophy and religion
by Gabriel
Humility really is a necessity – the fact that we are so darn stupid when it comes to consciousness and what is or isn’t conscious is a sign alone that, despite our advancement in so many ways thus far, we really have a long way to go in understanding the ‘basics’.
Not to sound too cynical, of course…it’s just that, as you say — so many issue and actions stem from a (mis)understanding of what is or isn’t conscious…whatever we evolve into in the future (humans/AIs), it would be nice if such issues were finally resolved and they treat us with the respect and humility that we failed to give other species.
by Peter Kinnon
This is a little off-topic, melajara, but do you know, bearing in mind that the maximum size of insects today is that of the giant weta, why it was possible to have giant insects in the Devonian?
Returning to topic, as I have pointed out in my post above, as well as personal and folk psychological observations there are very sound scientific reasons for some level of consciousness to be a feature of most, if not all organisms. Not by neural analogy but by evolutionary necessity.
Self-awareness confers a survival (and replicative) benefit.
So nature has to go for that sound investment.
by Bri
Well there goes all those research projects that we see using animals. Not to add fuel to the fire, but even C. Elegans is conscious and exhibits the traits they outline. Now if we can only do the same for plants.
by Jon
Why? I mean, I fully accept that they are concious, but there is science to be done. Humanity still takes precedence over all. Once we are godlike, we can worry about the rest.
by Winslow Strong
I totally agree. Once humans have solved the problems that we are currently relying on animal research to help us solve, THEN we worry about ethical treatment of LESS conscious beings.
by Giulio Prisco
@Jon and Winslow Strong – a dangerous precedent if you ask me, in view of the Singularity that may come. Superhuman artilects may choose not to worry about ethical treatment of LESS conscious beings LIKE US, and, if we complain, they may say that they can do to us what we used to do to less conscious animals.
by Mr.X
Or just do what they want, regardless of what we did.Why even argue with those dumb weaklings over there?
by Jon
I refuse to be ethical out of fear. Might as well become a Christian, by that reasoning. Artilects will do as they see fit, regardless of how I act – I agree with Winslow.
by Mr.X
I never said we should not act ethical.I just said that our “precedents” may be irrelevant. In any case, we already gave enough precedents.
And what has this position to do with Christianity?I’d have to believe in sky magicians and preaching zombies, as witnessed by ancient farmers if had this opinion?
I rest my case.
by Ted Rodosovich
The African god, Bumba is a better solution.
by Gabriel
:) You should be ethical for the sake of it Jon – that’s what altruism is…doing good for the sake of it. While it is true that our sense of morality, genorosity and so on is often realistically inhibited by our real-world conditions and what we have to, it’s still not 100%….What I mean is, even if it’s inpractical for me to be moral, generous, or whatever because I’ve lost the means, that’s not to say I can’t still be ethical.
I can give money to people worse then me, even if I have virtually nothing and I need to eat…you can argue that it’s stupid and I need this, but my point is…ethics is not necessarily something that’s always limited by your conditions and what you got — this is why I say that the logic isn’t infallible to you in another post.
It sends a message…you can call it stupid and inpractical to give a damn when you can no longer afford too, but it speaks volumes of your character and puts you above many others — that maybe Morality isn’t always necessarily limited by your means and your ‘ability’ to be Moral and what life throws at you….maybe Morality is above that and is only truly limited by how much you want to care.
And I believe it always pays to care — if anything, the more life throws at you, the more you should strive for it, even in the face of it.
One may say my words are hypocritical and rose-colored…indeed, I can understand that — however, Morality shouldn’t be this fickle thing, a luxery that only can be afforded sometimes and cast aside on others —
it’s a difficult subject no doubt, and rationalizing the past is about all we can do about it, but as we move into the future, we should learn from the past and not live in it….There is something wrong if, no matter how “civilized” we become or how much we claim to be, we ‘regress’ and throw away all notions of supposed moral-advancement whenever it becomes “necessary”.
Our technology shouldn’t be the only thing that advances overtime.
by David
Why wait, stop eating them, and help non humans, the enviroment and your own health.
Concerning Animal Reaserch (vivisection), there are many humans who are less conscious that many non human animals, who would give more relavent test results. Speciesism!
by Editor
Paleo diet recommended
by xknowledgeisfreex
As an animal welfare activists and transhumanist i hope that in vitro meat will eventually make the horrendous abuse and exploitation of animals in factory farming superflous. I consider the exploitation of animals in factory farms as currently the largest source of human caused animal suffering. In vitro meat seems to be the most viable solution. I don’t see humanity converting to vegetarianism anytime soon.
by thirteendollabill
Uh… xknowledgeisfreex – REALLY? Animal farming causes more suffering than the prison system? The prison system in the US is the largest gulag to have ever existed with more prisoners per capita than any State ever. Unless you call all of China a prison…
by Ted Rodosovich
13$bill – the numbers don’t even compare – incarcerateds vs. creature_eaters … for ex., just do a correlation of the meals prisoners consume and their own personal straits. I do agree that we are zealous with our prison “industry”, tho.
by xknowledgeisfreex
I said the largest source of human caused ANIMAL suffering.
by Carl Brooks
totally agree with xknow here.
by Gorden Russell
You just wait, xknow, in the next five years you will see a 3D printer using cultured cells for “makin’ bacon.”
by Jon
I recognized your sarcasm a bit too late. I blame the alcohol. My apoligies, Bri. You got an (admittedly belated) giggle out of me.
And whilst I’m most certainly an animal lover, I do support using animals in medical tests. Not for make-up testing or other trivial matters, but for medicine? Absolutely.
by Dwee
Then you should also think it is a-okay to use humans in these same experiments. Many mentally disabled people have less “sense” than a smart dog or pig. Humans are animals, they deserve no more and no less consideration as any other animals. Soylent green for desert? ;)
by Dwee
that is, dessert. Or snack. ;)
by Jon
You’re barking up the wrong tree. I don’t care as long as I’m benefiting. Use the mentally challenged for whatever you want, I don’t care. In 20 to 30 years everything will change, and hopefully this entire point of discussion shall be moot.
Furthermore, humans are MY type of animal. As such, they do deserve more consideration. They are also more dangerous. Your baseline equal respect division makes no sense in the real world – the world is neither fair nor equal. If we want it to be so, we’ll have to make it so ourselves.
by Jon
In all honesty, I’m too scared to be compassionate, Dwee. Too many people I know are at risk of horrible, untimely death, for me to risk morally advocating any slowing of progress whatsoever.
by Gabriel
In a sense, I can understand your feelings Jon…we are working toward building the kind of world we always wanted to live in, and until then, we have to rationalize what we have in all sorts of ways until we get there.
by thirteendollabill
Cee Lo Green is PEOPLE!
by Ted Rodosovich
per Peter Singer
by Mr.X
Yes yes, drinking makes agressive…