Maybe first we should consider what kind of experience or awareness animals have and which animal we are talking about?
What is the difference between experience, mind and consciousness?
If we are considering ethical issues, perhaps we should consider the ramifications of the fact that he got paid to write that article.
Any animal that goes out in the public without wearing clothes doesn't deserve privacy.
So what do you think?
Should we consider privacy the right of an animal?
Is experience here species?
Do we really measure mind and consciousness by the level of the matter of body?
Can we even put our own human selves consciousness above an animals when we cant even really measure the experience mind or consciousness of another human?
I always wondered about the caste system?
What makes a worm below that of a dog?
What makes a human above that of a worm?
Generally is the level of experience that determines the value we attach to it?
The "realness", the "depth" and the "level" of experience held or induced, say great art versus finger painting, or Beethovens fifth versus white noise.
Reality is in the end made up of experiences not matter.
)The 'dog' experience.
I, of course, am not opposed to the notion that dogs have mind like experience. After all, I think reality is experiential to the core.
I am also not opposed to the notion that the experience of dogs has some value to them but also to us (mans best friend). My dog always gives the impression of being glad to see me, people not always.
I am however suggesting that we do, in fact must, attach different values to different types of experience and that in general human experience seems to be of higher order and complexity.
After all most of us would save our children before our pets or so I would hope.
Begs the question; Do animals feel shame?
I know dogs who wont 'make' if you watch them, is this because they learned by our expressions it is undesirable (trained shame) or is it a form of innate self possession rejection?
Begs the further question is human shame trained?
I think it begs a deeper, more human question: Why do we feel the need to project ourselves onto animals in any way possible; even if we must resort to wild speculation (as is the case of this article). Why should we expect that a polar bear would know that the humans are wielding cameras that can record them when tribal humans who have not been exposed to modern technology would not think such a thing? It's pure, ill-conceived, lazy minded claptrap. I suppose you might be able to eventually tech a gorilla that it is being filmed, but there are too many abstract concepts to convey in order for it to get a real sense of what is happening to it. Take, for instance, the idea that millions of people have boxes in their homes with 'pictures' of the polar bear being sent as data through wires, and then try explaining the social significance of the whole ordeal to give it proper context.
The only reasonable point in the whole article was that we might want to be careful sticking objects into animal's burrows so as not to disturb them. This is not for privacy's sake, but because placing unwieldy foreign objects in the animal's burrow could potentially cause real harm.