[HN Gopher] Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as se...
___________________________________________________________________
Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings
under UK law
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 345 points
Date : 2023-06-06 18:19 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lse.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lse.ac.uk)
| user6723 wrote:
| Cuttlefish are smart like dogs. Cuttlefish jerkey also tastes
| pretty good.
| protonbob wrote:
| Oi mate you got a loicense for that stock pot?
| asynchronous wrote:
| Underrated joke.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is sort of a low-effort meme that comes up any time
| legislation and the British do. It doesn't appear to have a
| negative score so I judge it: appropriately rated.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| # on a forum an article titled "Octopuses, crabs and lobsters
| to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law" is
| commented on by someone with "Oi mate you got a loicense for
| that stock pot? ". can you explain this comment? is that a
| joke or a reference?
|
| The comment you provided, "Oi mate you got a loicense for
| that stock pot?," appears to be a play on words and a
| reference to a popular stereotype associated with British
| culture. The phrase "Oi mate" is a casual British expression
| often used to get someone's attention or initiate a
| conversation. It is colloquial and informal.
|
| The phrase "you got a loicense for that stock pot?" is a
| humorous twist on the common phrase "you got a license for
| that?" The original phrase is often used humorously or
| ironically to highlight situations where someone is being
| excessively regulated or questioned about mundane activities.
|
| In this context, the commenter is jokingly suggesting that
| the person cooking or using a stock pot (likely to cook the
| aforementioned octopuses, crabs, and lobsters) might need a
| license or permission for such an activity. It's a light-
| hearted way of poking fun at regulations and the idea of
| needing permission for everyday activities.
|
| ---
|
| still don't get it
| UberFly wrote:
| I don't think you were supposed to think about it that
| hard.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Although, calling something under-rated does seem to
| invite people who've passed over it to think a little
| harder about it.
| NavinF wrote:
| Oi mate you got a loicense for that language model?
|
| Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35941667
| nightfly wrote:
| Old British joke https://youtu.be/Px4qJwxP3vI
| corobo wrote:
| It's a reference to a joke about needing a fridge license
| in Britain which comes from an exaggeration of us having a
| TV license
|
| Your GPT is right but it missed a bit. License for that is
| associated with the UK because of the TV license
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| > the idea of needing permission for everyday activities
|
| Excessive regulation
| markdown wrote:
| Indeed. Slippery slope arguments do tickle my funny bone.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Not before time
| yarg wrote:
| Man, cuttlefish will not be happy.
| swyx wrote:
| this is cuttlefish erasure and i wont have it!
| https://swyx.io/cuttlefish
| tristanb wrote:
| I thought crabs have less neurons than a cockroach.
| ben_w wrote:
| Given nobody knows what sentience is anyway, we can't tell how
| important that is.
|
| (This lack of answers also applies to AI, and that is also
| worrying).
| omoikane wrote:
| 2021: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29301159
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| There's some pretty horrifying YouTube videos of people torturing
| and eating live animals which I think we'd be better off banning.
| If you want to see examples just look up "eating live octopus".
| Incredibly disturbing.
| remote_phone wrote:
| I hate to break it to you but most prey are eaten alive. I'm
| not advocating for it in the least, but it's the reality.
|
| I don't know what is worse, living a somewhat free life in the
| Savannah and then one day being cruelly and viciously eaten
| alive by a predator or to live your life on a farm in a small
| pen with no freedom and then blinking out of existence at the
| hands of a sledgehammer to the head.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| One might hope people could be held to a higher standard than
| snakes & spiders...
| zabzonk wrote:
| are you seriously suggesting that human moral standards can
| or should be applied to snakes and spiders?
| bioemerl wrote:
| We do hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we typically
| have actual reason to do so.
|
| Vegan moral arguments almost entirely rely on empathy. "The
| animal suffers therefore it's wrong".
|
| And they miss the mark almost every time because they're
| literally thinking emotionally instead of logically. Human
| suffering has actual consequences and we're basically
| always worse of if we don't reduce it. Where that isn't
| true such as in times of war we happy promote it.
|
| Those arguments are far weaker than you would expect
| because empathy doesn't actually weigh as heavily as you
| would expect on real social level decision making. Instead,
| practicality always wins and animal products are far far
| more valuable than the nearly non-existent harms of animal
| suffering.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Vegan moral arguments almost entirely rely on empathy.
| "The animal suffers therefore it's wrong".
|
| This isn't an appeal to empathy, it's a rational argument
| based on the mental capacity of the animal and our
| existing standards for ethics. An empathetic appeal would
| be to say, "when the octopus suffers, you feel sad,
| therefore because you feel sad you shouldn't cause it
| harm". That's not the vegan moral case. Your feelings
| don't matter. Speciesism is illogical and requires
| empathy or lack thereof. You don't feel bad when you
| cause the octopus harm instead of a human, therefore the
| octopus doesn't matter. Logically, the vegan is on
| perfectly solid ground.
|
| You have it the exact wrong way around. In social
| decisions empathy weighs very highly and logic counts for
| very little, which is why tribalism is such a huge driver
| of human behavior, even when it causes many more living
| beings harm than it helps, as it does during war.
| bioemerl wrote:
| The two possibilities I can see for your alternate take
| is either:
|
| Placing suffering as the absolute centerpiece of morality
| and then basing all your conclusions on that.
|
| Or an argument to "common sense" in that most people will
| tell you causing suffering is bad. Therefore it's bad.
|
| I don't see either of these as being great arguments.
|
| > In fact speciesism is illogical
|
| Why? Most of it is perfectly logical. Pigs aren't humans.
| It's not illogical to treat them differently from humans
| in very substantial ways.
|
| Also basically nobody says "we can kill pigs because I
| don't feel bad when I kill them". It's almost always "I
| do it for the meat".
|
| And if you watch how we treat animals we largely
| differentiate them based on their functional differences.
| Even where you get weird cultural things like India not
| wanting to eat meat - that originated from the need for
| milk, fertilizer, etc.
|
| The only weirdness you'll see is if you challenge people
| on it from an empathetic standpoint. People are socially
| wired to say there "good people who never would made an
| animal suffer" so you're running into social norms more
| than anything there.
| zvmaz wrote:
| There's also the possibility that we extend our moral
| obligations to sentient beings that are not part of our
| species and not subject billions of them to unnecessary
| suffering at our _own hands_.
| BudaDude wrote:
| I wish everyone thought this way. Yes I know there are
| reasons to eat meat. But it is still murder at the end of
| the day.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Delicious, succulent murder.
| jiminymcmoogley wrote:
| But isn't your example demonstrating a tradeoff between
| freedom and quick painless death, whereas an octopus that
| lives its life in captivity only to also be eaten alive has
| to suffer the worst of both worlds?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| You're anthropomorphizing animals.
|
| They don't have an even remotely similar conception of being
| to you.
| knicholes wrote:
| I'm confused. Eating your prey alive is dangerous. Are you
| sure? I thought that "hunters" kill their prey before eating?
| remote_phone wrote:
| You would be mistaken. Most predators incapacitate their
| prey and then eat them alive.
| DethNinja wrote:
| YouTube is horrendous, I keep reporting couple of animal abuse
| videos but platform just keeps them.
|
| Some of these videos especially with small animals like
| hamsters have millions of views, so I guess there is a monetary
| incentive for them to keep such videos.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| whats disturbing about eating a live octopus, it ends up dead
| quite quickly. It's also a think that happens in nature
| xdennis wrote:
| Are you also horrified by videos of kittens eating live mice?
| wk_end wrote:
| Er, I'd say most people would find that pretty unpleasant,
| yeah.
|
| Well, that is: there's two different ways a video like this
| might be horrifying. There's a kind of visceral horror:
| blood, guts, and also a kind of instinctive empathy for the
| suffering that the creature getting killed might be going
| through (great time to point out that octopuses are much more
| intelligent than mice and, depending on how you feel about a
| bunch of tricky philosophical questions, there's probably
| more "there there" to be suffering). Like I said, I think
| most people would be pretty horrified, in this sense, by a
| video like that.
|
| The other kind of horror is a moral horror. And in that
| case...well, a cat is a cat, not a human, I don't expect them
| to act humanely. So in that particular moral sense the "cat
| eats mouse" video isn't horrifying. Whereas: I _do_ have a
| moral expectations that humans should act humanely, which a
| Youtube video featuring people eating a live octopus
| violates, triggering moral horror.
| zvmaz wrote:
| I also have seen a young youtuber eat a living octopus. I was
| horrified.
|
| The animal rights question has been lurking on my mind for many
| years, and I couldn't stand to ignore the problem any longer. I
| am currently reading Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer.
| There's a chapter on the various experiments that scientists
| have been doing on animals, and it's heart-wrenching (see, for
| instance, the documentary Unnecessary Fuss [1]).
|
| Our treatment of animals is a moral problem that cannot be
| ignored.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnecessary_Fuss
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Scientific experimentation is the _least_ bad thing we do to
| animals.
|
| At least at reputable institutes and companies, it's for a
| clear goal, that could not be achieved otherwise, and
| governed by a review board. It's trading animal harm for
| human harm. Furthermore, it's few animals for much good.
|
| Simply killing an animal to eat it seems far less ethical:
| there are other things we can eat, and animal deaths must
| scale linearly with human population.
|
| IMHO, one shouldn't eat meat unless one can look into a live
| animal's eyes and murder it. I eat meat, and I feel bad about
| it -- but we should all be honest about what it means, even
| if it shows up in colorfully-wrapped, no-blood, sanitized-of-
| sentience form.
|
| ... And at the bottom of the ethical gradient is just killing
| an animal without any purpose, for which I hope there's a
| special place in hell.
| Pxtl wrote:
| It's not so much that scientific experimentation isn't
| justifiable, it's just that the sheer scale of suffering
| involved in it is staggering. Scientific experimentation
| requires basically a near-constant holocaust of rodents.
| The animals aren't even raw materials, they're basically
| stationery.
|
| This is an excellent article on the subject, written by
| somebody who worked in a testing lab.
|
| https://www.cracked.com/personal-
| experiences-1676-5-horrifyi...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It is staggering.
|
| But we spend worm lives so that we can spare fly lives.
| And we spend fly lives so that we can spare rodent lives.
| And we spend rodent lives so that we can spare rabbit
| lives. And we spend rabbit lives so that we can spare pig
| lives. And we spend pig lives so that we can spare
| primate lives. And we spend primate lives so that we can
| spare human lives.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Rs_(animal_research
| )
|
| The only thing worse than deliberately infecting or
| genetically engineering animal models... is allowing
| disease to rampage unsolved, when you might have done
| something.
|
| The world we live in is built on a mountain of rodent
| skulls, and while I'm uncomfortable with that, I'm more
| comfortable than if it were built atop a mountain of
| human skulls.
| zvmaz wrote:
| > Scientific experimentation is the least bad thing we do
| to animals.
|
| I did not know (maybe I didn't want to) the ineffable
| amount of suffering we subject animals in vastly useless
| "scientific" experiments (see Singer, Animal Liberation,
| Chapter 2: Tools for research).
| boringuser2 wrote:
| You really should learn to be a little bit more critical
| when you read, thus you won't travel through life in a
| state of continual surprise.
| zvmaz wrote:
| Thanks for the precious advice. I will take note of it.
| The descriptions and the results of the experiments cited
| in Singer's book come from the experimenters themselves.
| Published work, publicly available.
|
| Edit: I have talked about a "documentary" above, but it's
| not really a documentary, but video footage stolen from a
| lab doing experiments on baboons. The lab has been closed
| because of the videos. The fuss is unnecessary with you
| sir [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnecessary_Fuss
| boringuser2 wrote:
| There is also extensive, published, public work by the
| authors of The Bell Curve, extensively arguing a genetic
| demographic basis to intellect.
|
| Surely, you also consume this uncritically.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The existence of horrific science experiments doesn't
| prove that _most_ science experiments are horrific. And
| it 's a very differently regulated landscape now vs even
| 30 years ago.
| beerpls wrote:
| I don't really follow. There are billions/trillions of these
| creatures who are eaten alive every year in the wild. Why is
| it so significant that humans also do this?
|
| Are we trying to make reality fit our wholesome romanced
| version of reality?
|
| Not that I could stomach it myself, but I don't really see
| this as much of a moral issue.
|
| Devour to survive. So it is, so it's always been...
| autoexec wrote:
| > There are billions/trillions of these creatures who are
| eaten alive every year in the wild. Why is it so
| significant that humans also do this?
|
| Most animals eat other animals in such cruel ways because
| they don't have better means available to them and because
| if they didn't use the teeth and claws they have to catch
| prey they'd starve. Humans don't have to be needlessly
| cruel in order to eat an animal. For us, it's a choice.
|
| I'd prefer that every hamburger I eat comes from a cow who
| lived a long happy cow life then died suddenly and without
| pain. There's no section in the meat department at my
| grocery store for "happy cows that died painlessly" though,
| so I'm left with what's available. I can accept that, but
| there's zero reason for me to torture a live cow and
| excuses like "well, a lion would have ripped it apart while
| it was alive" wouldn't justify my actions if I did.
|
| By all means, eat animals! They're delicious! At a minimum
| though, we shouldn't go out of our way to make a living
| thing suffer.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > I can accept that, but there's zero reason for me to
| torture a live cow and excuses like "well, a lion would
| have ripped it apart while it was alive" wouldn't justify
| my actions if I did.
|
| TBH I just see it as false platitudes since there's it's
| very likely the burger I'm eating wasn't some ethically
| raised and slaughtered cow. Sure, _I_ didn 't do it, so
| clearly I'm absolved of all fault there.
| autoexec wrote:
| I know others who feel the way you do, and they're
| vegetarians because of it. I disprove of industrial
| farming practices, but I do take a lot of comfort in the
| fact that I, personally, am not inflicting suffering on a
| live animal. If I had to personally raise and slaughter
| every animal I ate, I doubt I'd do much meat eating.
|
| When I have the option of choosing meat from a cow raised
| and slaughtered ethically I'll take that one every time,
| but usually I have no idea of the provenance of a
| particular hamburger patty and that likely does wonders
| for my peace of mind.
| merlincorey wrote:
| > When I have the option of choosing meat from a cow
| raised and slaughtered ethically I'll take that one every
| time, but usually I have no idea of the provenance of a
| particular hamburger patty and that likely does wonders
| for my peace of mind.
|
| Kobe and Wagyu beef are raised happily and slaughtered
| ethically in order to be the quality that they are, in
| theory.
|
| I believe economics certainly plays a role here.
|
| A pound of Wagyu Chuck costs $160 at a nearby grocery
| store but I can get Prime Chuck from the local big chain
| grocery store for just $12 (a 13x price difference).
| rs999gti wrote:
| > There are billions/trillions of these creatures who are
| eaten alive every year in the wild
|
| Don't forget the thousands/millions of bugs, small
| mammals, birds, and reptiles that are killed as part of
| vegetable and fruit agriculture.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| The Good Place captured this problem very well.
|
| For a long time I've wrestled with a deep-seated but
| welcome, albeit persistent, unease with food.
|
| As a species we have and continue to inflict dramatic
| suffering and harm upon the non-human species on our
| planet. We do this variably to our own enrichment, or
| sometimes entertainment, but a lot of it is also to our
| own long-term detriment.
|
| Even making the "good choice" comes with "bad points". I
| tend not to go to seafood restaurants because I don't
| want to give them money. I accept an invitation to Red
| Lobster because a family member wants to get a bite. I
| order a salad, horrified by my surroundings, and find it
| has shrimp in it.
|
| I love the taste of shrimp, but I no longer eat it
| because I don't know how it was handled. Humanely? Did
| the shrimp this shrimp came from suffer eyestalk
| ablation? I don't know.
|
| So I could pick it off to the side and waste it, or I
| could eat it so it didn't die in vein.
| xdennis wrote:
| > For us, it's a choice.
|
| Yes, it's your choice, and your choice to consider it
| "cruel". Don't force your choices onto others.
| burnished wrote:
| Its a little hypocritical of you to try and force this
| perspective on others - if this is how you feel shouldnt
| you simply keep quiet and make your own decisions, to
| avoid forcing your choices onto others?
| autoexec wrote:
| I think that, apart from psychopaths, very few people
| wouldn't consider torturing an animal to be "cruel".
| There are extreme circumstances which may justify being
| cruel in that way, but making a youtube video isn't one
| of them.
| agalunar wrote:
| This doesn't make sense to me; it sounds like you're
| suggesting I can't make my own moral judgment regarding
| your actions - that if you think what you're doing is
| okay, I have to think it's okay too.
|
| Even if morality is only about answering the question,
| "how should I conduct myself", and not directly about how
| anyone else should conduct themselves, if one of my
| values is alleviating the suffering of others, I will
| need to recognize when other feeling things are being
| hurt. If you're the one causing the hurt, I _suppose_ you
| could say that I 'm not making a "moral judgment" about
| your actions (but rather some other kind of assessment),
| but regardless I will feel a duty to intervene.
| distrill wrote:
| good lord, people are discussing their ethical
| considerations for making their own choices, nobody is
| forcing you to do anything. why is this reaction so
| immediate in literally every discussion about anything
| ever
| diydsp wrote:
| Because we have awareness.
|
| Err some of us.
| endtime wrote:
| Animals do lots of things we consider unethical and
| unacceptable for humans to do.
| zabzonk wrote:
| such as what?
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| Great point. Do you think it is immoral for the animals
| to do these acts? Should we as bystanders have any
| obligation to prevent this from occurring?
| permalac wrote:
| We may need to try and be better than them. I think that
| is the point, at least for me.
|
| I'm no vegetarian, and I like to indulge myself with some
| 'pulpo a la gallega', But one thing is killing an animal
| because we are at the top of the food chain, and another
| thing is killing in the name of sport or culture.
| burnished wrote:
| Its a bit hard to take this perspective seriously - you
| arent exactly living in the conditions that you are talking
| about you know?
|
| 'Man at top of heap says situation basically acceptable'
|
| Don't mistake this for moralizing, I just think your
| position is weak.
| lisasays wrote:
| Because in this case - they're not being devoured so
| someone can survive. But for the sheer gall and thrill of
| it.
|
| Meanwhile, humans have a _huge_ empathy problem in regard
| to animals (and other types of species) - perhaps its most
| categorical failing, and the driver for the most pressing
| crises of our time, in fact.
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| This is an appeal to nature fallacy. Rape, homicide, and
| infanticide happen in nature, is that a justification for
| us to do it?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| People do it regardless. It's not a justification, but
| it's also not a preventative measure to say "this is
| bad".
|
| But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think honoring
| prey is even in the top 100 issues in terms of impacts
| humans have on marine ecosystems. Sorry if I sound
| belittling, but it does sound like this whole thing is
| more of a symbolic gesure than a means to really resolve
| the issues we have caused. That's why I don't take it
| quite as seriously.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > Rape, homicide, and infanticide happen in nature
|
| those can only happen within the same species
| Ekaros wrote:
| Cuckoos? Don't they infanticide other birds?
| [deleted]
| rascul wrote:
| There are videos on YouTube of monkeys forcefully doing
| things to other animals and people which might be
| considered rape.
| srameshc wrote:
| Because there is a difference between being eaten in the
| wild by other animals who survive on those and humans
| expoliting the wild life or marine life.
| dsego wrote:
| What's the difference honestly?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Because we can do better. I don't know about you but I hold
| myself to a higher moral standard than a shark.
| xdennis wrote:
| "Better" is your personal morality.
|
| Whenever people are doing too well they invent hardships
| for themselves. No one who is struggled find food will
| come up with random rules about should and shouldn't be
| eaten.
| netrus wrote:
| Another way of saying "inventing hardships" is "raising
| the bar". People who struggle to find food might do all
| kinds of horrible things in order to survive - for
| example at the expense of other humans competing for the
| same food. When it becomes easier to source food, they
| can raise their moral standards. Do you think that's some
| kind of fallacy? That the standard should be the same, no
| matter how hard it is to source food (or, in the context
| of this discussion, alternative foods)?
| jackmott42 wrote:
| One of the great things we are capable of as humans is NOT
| doing what has always been done just because. People who
| think that is a justification or clever quip could be
| argued to be barbaric and without any creative imagination.
| zvmaz wrote:
| > I don't really follow. There are billions/trillions of
| these creatures who are eaten alive every year in the wild.
| Why is it so significant that humans also do this?
|
| That tells us little on our moral obligations towards them
| and, for that matter, towards our fellow humans. Animals
| also murder other members of their own species, is murder
| hence ok?
| xdennis wrote:
| No one is saying we should do everything animals do.
|
| But when it comes to basic things like eating, the fact
| that non-human omnivores eat animals is a good indicator
| that we should be doing the same.
| nvahalik wrote:
| > Animals also murder
|
| I think you mean kill. Murder involves intent. Animals do
| not have intent. Usually murder involves malice. Animals
| don't have malice.
|
| Killing can be in self-defense or self-preservation. Most
| animals don't simply kill other animals unless provoked
| or they are hungry.
|
| Animals kill. Humans are the only beings capable of
| murder.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Animals do not have intent.
|
| Only if you believe they're automata. Which raises the
| question, are humans not automata as well? If we are,
| then we also don't murder as we also don't have intent.
| But if we have intent, what's the line that separates us
| (other than the obvious "not the same species") from
| other animals that renders them mere unintentional
| automata and us intentional non-automata?
|
| Also, spend a few days with any animal, you'll see they
| have intentions. They're just harder to discern.
|
| > Animals don't have malice.
|
| Likewise some do have malice. It's just harder to discern
| as we lack the ability to communicate with them and they
| lack the ability to articulate to us what their feelings
| are.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| I agree with your analysis, but while I can't speak for
| the original commenter, I think their point was probably
| closer to:
|
| "If we can all have this conversation together, it's
| clearly a choice for us."
|
| I (am not being cute when I say I) truly wish I could
| talk _with_ my cat. I would ask if she murdered that bug
| or was operating on instinct. Did she kill for sport,
| defense, or hunger? Was she just pissed off? I don't know
| and she can't tell me, so I can only assume she's just
| doing what cats do.
|
| Among our own species I don't think that "benefit of the
| doubt" (?) is defacto transferable.
|
| I hope this makes sense. I am enjoying this conversation
| in an odd kind of way. I've been waiting for news like
| this for a long time.
|
| Though the article and UKGOV articles are from 2021?
|
| Edit: today my main job was typos
| fredrikholm wrote:
| You sound as if you've never interacted with an animal of
| any kind; I don't otherwise see how you could draw such a
| demonstrably false conclusion.
| rascul wrote:
| The internet tells me that cats will murder small animals
| such as birds.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I don't understand how you can think this if you've spent
| any significant time around animals
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Are you sure no animals have intent?
| cgh wrote:
| Clearly you have never owned a cat.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| No one owns cats!
|
| Dogs have owners, cats have staff. :-)
| dweymouth wrote:
| Animals devour to survive. Humans (in first world countries
| at least) don't need to do that. We eat meat because we
| like it, not because we need to. And we have the choice to
| do otherwise. In fact, plant based alternatives are
| healthier for us (look up the China study), and for the
| planet (most Amazon deforestation is to grow cattle feed).
| There is no _need_ for most of us to eat any animal
| products at all.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Do non-humans also create YouTube videos showing off their
| bravado (or whatever it is) where they knowingly inflict
| pain and misery on other species?
| zabzonk wrote:
| do non-humans have access to YouTube? if they did, there
| is no telling what they might post there.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Dolphin Youtube would make even Liveleaks blush. also,
| RIP Liveleaks
| evandale wrote:
| Orca TikTok would be a hell of a ride. I'd love to doom
| scroll the the kid orcas wearing their salmon hats and
| the adults making reactions videos to their grandkids
| reviving a dead trend.
|
| Or an orca declaring "I'm Donny Rocksville and this is
| rock the boat!!" before him and all his friends capsize a
| ship off of Spain.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Orca behaviour does seem to indicate they inflict
| pain/misery on other creatures largely for the "fun" of
| it. But we don't really know, and certainly don't know
| whether they're capable of properly understanding that
| their victims are suffering.
| evandale wrote:
| I know we don't know for sure but it there is evidence to
| suggest orcas may have equal or better emotional
| processing than humans.
|
| In Blackfish one of the most interesting attacks was
| against a trainer, Ken Peters, who was also a trained
| diver. The orca seemed to know the limits of the trainer
| and how long she could keep him underwater. When she
| brought him up she gave him time to breathe and compose
| himself before dunking him under again. She could have
| easily killed him if that was her intent but it didn't
| seem to be.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv2_OX4Soeg
| Lorkki wrote:
| Morally, it's pretty significant that we make conscious
| decisions (as a process that we often see as distinct from
| the rest of the animal kingdom) to kill and eat thousands
| of other animals mostly for the sake of taste, rather than
| for the sake of necessity, which is why most other animals
| hunt.
| Alupis wrote:
| If you think those are disturbing, wait until you hear about
| all those "helping animals" Youtube/TikTok channels.
|
| Often, the people making the video placed the animal in very
| dangerous or painful situations/positions, and then "help"
| the animal for the views... and of course all the comments
| are about how great the person is for being kind hearted and
| helping - it's really sick.
| CaptainNegative wrote:
| Not that I envy the ducklings thrown into the sewers for
| those videos, but I'd still rather be that duckling than a
| ferret into whom scientists have been stuffing colloidal
| tungsten to see if its LD50 differs from that in hamsters.
| Alupis wrote:
| Pay attention next time you see these videos show up in
| your feeds - they'll probably change your mind once you
| realize what the game is.
|
| These people glue things onto animals then rip them off,
| mutilate appendages, etc. Those videos of people
| "freeing" animals stuck in bear traps... how do you think
| they got into the trap?
|
| So while lab testing on animals can be inhumane, it's not
| being done just for funsies like these videos are. The
| people making these videos are on an entirely different
| level of cruel.
| dsego wrote:
| Seen any nature shows when one animal eats another one, eg live
| prey? I am interested whether you find such animal behavior
| disturbing as well?
| pm90 wrote:
| Yes. As sentient beings its within our control to ensure that
| we don't engage in it even if its behavior that exists among
| non-sentient living things.
| bequanna wrote:
| Animals likely don't know they are making the other animal
| that they are eating suffer.
|
| Humans absolutely know. There is no excuse for that kind of
| cruelty.
| Fricken wrote:
| A lobster has half as many neurons as a mosquito.
| arcticbull wrote:
| How about an octopus?
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| Does the amount of neurons matter when we're defining an animal
| as sentient? A comment in this thread argues all animals are
| sentient.
| bell-cot wrote:
| I'd certainly argue yes.
|
| Protozoa, aka "one-celled animals"?
|
| Jellyfish which only have a vague "net" of nerves, vs. any
| real central nervous system?
|
| Corals?
| [deleted]
| gigatexal wrote:
| so are they protected from being farmed or eaten?
| [deleted]
| ftxbro wrote:
| > "eyestalk ablation"
|
| i didnt need to read that
| User23 wrote:
| All animals are sentient by definition: Having a
| faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception.
| abeppu wrote:
| This is a really sweeping statement. Some animals like
| jellyfish or corals do not have brains. Even if they are
| sometimes responsive to their environment, is that
| "perception"? Even if you think the answer is "yes", I hope you
| can see that it's not a trivial or obvious conclusion, and an
| unqualified statement about "all animals" may not be warranted.
| mysecretaccount wrote:
| How do you prove that an animal has sensation?
| zvmaz wrote:
| Similarity with our own physical constitution? Similarity of
| behavior when we are in pain and they are in pain? And all
| the other cues that tell us that, indeed, they are sentient
| beings?
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| Ever watched someone work on a chickens feet that have a
| staph infection? Seems like the infection must hurt like
| hell because chickens won't stand on it and limp around.
| Watching someone treat these infections you'd think
| chickens pretty much don't feel pain. I don't think your
| suggestion is as clear-cut as you think it is.
| ericd wrote:
| Not having sensation would be a massive evolutionary
| disadvantage...
| smcin wrote:
| Isn't it going out on a limb to say that...
| [deleted]
| scotty79 wrote:
| What does sensation mean in this context and how is it
| different from perception?
| fluoridation wrote:
| Sensation is perception related to direct contact, so for
| humans for example it would include the senses of touch,
| pain, and taste, among others.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| Capacity to suffer.
| ericmay wrote:
| How do you prove that a human has sensation?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Even in other metrics like the mirror test, plenty of
| children in various cultures fail because they don't know
| what you want them to do, or care
|
| And then we try to get an animal half that age to prove to
| us the same thing, for our own inconsequential hubris
|
| It is pretty ridiculous
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| see if it reacts to touch?
| walterbell wrote:
| TV series _Zoo_ (2015),
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(TV_series)
|
| _> professionals who investigate the mysterious outbreak of
| violent animal attacks upon humans all over the world._
|
| https://www.vox.com/2017/9/27/16360684/zoo-cbs-season-3-revi...
|
| _> Zoo is an entirely ridiculous show. So in the interest of
| maintaining some level of professional dignity, I will be upfront
| and say Zoo probably won't blow your mind so far as thematic
| nuance goes. But let me be clear when I say Zoo will definitely
| blow your mind with a chaotic swarm of kamikaze bats, telepathic
| lions, 70-foot invisible snakes, and so very much more._
|
| Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOfZfNXMP4
| koolba wrote:
| What does this mean in practice? Clearly cows and sheep are
| sentient and we eat plenty of those.
|
| Eating something alive is wrong for it's own reasons. The
| majority of religions consider it a sin too!
| NVHacker wrote:
| It's not about eating, it's about how we are treating them
| while they are alive. There are rules, for instance, about how
| you can transport cows. Sadly, in the UK, the transport network
| (both tube and trains) often (during the hot summer days)
| provide conditions for human transport that are inferior to the
| minimum legal requirements for cows.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Sadly, in the UK, the transport network (both tube and
| trains) often (during the hot summer days) provide conditions
| for human transport that are inferior to the minimum legal
| requirements for cows.
|
| Well, cows can't decide 'this transport is going to be
| uncomfortable or possibly dangerous, but I really want to go
| to the other place, so I'll deal with it'. Would you rather
| have uncomfortable, possibly dangerous transport or no
| transport? Yes, you'd rather have comfortable, unlikely to be
| dangerous transport, but that doesn't seem to be something
| the transportation network is able to offer.
| ginja wrote:
| I think your argument falls short when we consider the
| compulsion that drives most onto these metaphorical cattle
| trucks at rush hour in the first place.
|
| The employment industry in our prevailing economic
| structure demands punctuality, often through crowded,
| uncomfortable and frankly, degrading means of
| transportation. This perceived "choice" is not a luxury but
| an enforced necessity, much like the bovine passenger being
| shipped off to slaughter, with the only distinction being,
| we humans "chose" this.
|
| One could argue that the transportation network isn't able
| to offer comfortable and safe transit, yet it is more a
| matter of priorities than abilities. The ability to provide
| such transport exists, but the political and economic will,
| sadly is not in abundance.
|
| Is it not curious that a society which can show empathy for
| the transportation of its livestock struggles to extend the
| same basic courtesy to its own kind? After all, are we not
| more than just cattle to the abattoir of capitalism?
| [deleted]
| 35997279 wrote:
| Perhaps you should reconsider the eating them, if you do.
| UberFly wrote:
| Not saying we should start eating things alive, but most of the
| animal kingdom practices it. It's weird for current humans, but
| that's about it.
| koolba wrote:
| Do they though? Are there any vertebrate carnivores that eat
| their prey alive? AFAIK, they kill the prey so their lunch
| doesn't run off the plate.
|
| The only exceptions are parasitic wasps and blood suckers
| like mosquitos.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Is that a serious question? Most predators literally eat
| their prey ass-end first and keep them alive as long as
| possible.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Most canines. Not that they intentionally want to eat their
| prey alive, but as they are pack animals, killing their
| prey as soon as possible so there's no risk of being
| injured by the prey fighting back is less of a concern for
| them than for solitary hunters like the leopard.
|
| So for dogs and wolves, starting to eat as soon as possible
| takes precedence over making sure the prey is really dead.
|
| Also, canines are not as strong as felines like the Tiger
| and the Leopard, so, it is not as easy for them to kill big
| prey by crushing the windpipe with their jaws like the cats
| do.
|
| On the other side, they may be weaker than the cats but
| have far more endurance, so, a maimed prey escaping is not
| much of a big deal, as they are able to pursue the escaping
| prey for as long as they need without having to stop to
| rest.
|
| Lions are somewhat of a muddy middle ground. Usually, their
| prey is dead when they start eating, but when the prey is
| really big, like elephants, they start eating it alive as
| it is not as easy to kill such big prey.
|
| Crocodiles on the other hand will either swallow their prey
| at once or eat big chunks. It is not really a choice for
| them.
|
| Of course, we must remember that animals don't really have
| this concept of their prey suffering. They need to eat, and
| that's all that matters to them.
| liquidise wrote:
| I'm unclear as well. TFA states:
|
| > The review also evaluated the potential welfare implications
| of current commercial practices involving these animals. It
| recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the
| sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert
| handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling
| without stunning. It also includes suggestions for best
| practices for transport, stunning and slaughter.
|
| But this reads more like additional recommendations than
| required by law under the new classification.
| dmux wrote:
| >the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-
| expert handlers
|
| This seems pretty extreme and like it would increase the cost
| dramatically.
| jeron wrote:
| I think the idea is to stop eating or cooking them live. I kind
| of disagree with this though, seafood like crabs and lobsters
| taste best when cooked live...
| niccl wrote:
| As I understand from the article, you can cook them live,
| provided they're stunned first.
|
| Still seems barbarous to me but ...
| the_doctah wrote:
| Yeah I wondered what "stunning" meant. Apparently there is
| just some specific tool that knocks the shit out of them
| first.
|
| Hey, I guess if I was going to be boiled alive, I'd rather
| be knocked unconscious first too.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Have there been blind taste test comparing seafood killed
| just before cooking vs cooked alive? That is do we have
| factual comparison of these two methods?
| web3-is-a-scam wrote:
| Perhaps one day an alien species will conquer is for
| sustenance and prefer to consume us live because it tastes
| better.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I think it's more about the conditions that they're kept and
| transported in rather than us not killing and eating them.
|
| > Eating something alive is wrong for it's own reasons.
|
| Whilst I agree in principle, there's a fuzzy line in what we
| consider to be alive. Bacteria certainly seem to be fair game
| with yoghurts being specifically sold as "live".
|
| I don't know if animal welfare laws currently cover eating
| animals whilst they're still alive, though it sounds feasible.
| deanCommie wrote:
| The anger and backlash in some of these comments is confusing to
| me.
|
| I love eating meat, and would love to continue doing so without
| ethical qualms or anxieties.
|
| Unfortunately the more we learn about sentience, sapience, and
| the horrors of animal farming (both from their treatment, and the
| climate impact of raising them), it's impossible to ignore that
| the line between "Human" and "All other animals" is not as thick
| and clear as we'd prefer it to be.
|
| Vegetarians and vegans will roll their eyes, because this is
| table stakes for so many of them, but I personally would love to
| find a way to continue consuming animal protein without worries
| that a sentient species felt pain, harm, or fear that was
| unnecessary. And that the climate impact of this is somehow
| managed or offset, and is _SUSTAINABLE_.
|
| This is both a logistical and a philosophical challenge for
| humanity. I'm well aware of the arguments that billions of people
| depend on animal protein not to starve.
|
| But it's shocking to me to see how angry some folks in the
| comments are about being prompted to stop and consider the
| ethical impact of these choices. Some are acting as if a deep-
| seated religious belief is being challenged.
| politelemon wrote:
| > "The Animal Welfare Sentience Bill provides a crucial assurance
| that animal wellbeing is rightly considered when developing new
| laws. The science is now clear that crustaceans and molluscs can
| feel pain and therefore it is only right they are covered by this
| vital piece of legislation."
|
| What does this mean practically in day-to-day? Will they be
| banned as food items or have to be killed in specific ways only,
| or something else?
| ikesau wrote:
| The bill creates a committee that will write reports on new
| laws that involve animals. Section 2 of the bill lists out how
| this will work.
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/22/enacted#section...
|
| I don't think it's clear that any concrete policy will be set
| as a result of this, but it will hopefully ensure that animal
| wellbeing is considered appropriately in the development of the
| United Kingdom's society.
| moate wrote:
| Likely more regulation around handling and slaughter, like the
| article says.
|
| Most farm animals are also considered sentient, but obviously
| still eaten throughout the country, but unlike with a lobster
| or octopus you currently can't just start hacking at a cow or
| pig with a knife while it is still alive to cut off a part to
| eat.
|
| It's an improvement, but if you're a vegan you'd likely want to
| go much further.
| dangitnotagain wrote:
| Ritual slaughter perhaps?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter
|
| Such is the cycle of civilization.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| More humane slaughter for now. Eventually, eating them will
| doubtless be banned. You can tell from the _sentience_ in the
| name of the law what the intent is.
|
| Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| But not until eating cows, pigs, and chicken gets banned too.
| So it'll be a while.
| matt3210 wrote:
| sentience but can still be eaten? What does sentience mean again?
| zabzonk wrote:
| we should be aiming for a reciprocal treaty with great cthulhu.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| That way leads to madness
| zabzonk wrote:
| already there mate, Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
| abeppu wrote:
| > It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation,
| the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert
| handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling
| without stunning.
|
| I mean, that's all well and good, but if you take the "sentience"
| part seriously, then surely we should also consider in scope:
|
| - bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which can
| casually kill large numbers of individuals
|
| - ocean pollution
|
| - warming oceans that may put whole populations at risk
|
| Like, if the suffering of individuals is acknowledged, then
| surely reducing that suffering is important whether it's in a
| restaurant kitchen or on the sea-floor beneath a fishing boat.
| You don't get to ignore the harms your actions cause just because
| the effects are out of line-of-sight.
| belorn wrote:
| Bottom-trawling should be outlawed, like dynamite fishing. By-
| catch laws don't work, and the ecological harm is like hunting
| deer be putting the forest on fire.
|
| Pollution is already illegal (but poorly enforced) and global
| warming should be illegal but enforcement is evem more tricky.
| burnished wrote:
| Hey, those sound like great things to tackle next!
| AeroNotix wrote:
| Perfect is the enemy of the good.
|
| Let's start somewhere and build on it rather than throwing a
| perfectly actionable plan away just because it doesn't solve
| literally all problems.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Parent is probably advocating for parrallel/independant
| actions. It's not like this specific group of researchers has
| to tackle all the animal issues in the world one by one, and
| has to set priorities on their agenda.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| But some of those problems are millions of times worse than
| others. Solving the trivial ones constitutes some sort of
| theatre.
| standardUser wrote:
| When you solve part of a problem, and it is minuscule in
| scope, you have _still_ solved part of the problem. Why let
| that demotivate you from wanting so solve more of the
| problem?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Nobody is motivated to solve the bigger problem. This
| theatre is masking an unwillingness to face global
| issues. It's a political gambit. "We did something! So
| quit bothering us until next session."
| standardUser wrote:
| I remain motivated. I applaud all of the work that has
| been done so far and I also demand much more. Not only do
| I think this is a useful perspective, I think it's the
| only realistic path forward. To take the alternative
| perspective - that anything other than massive change is
| worthless - is a _far_ more effective way to demotivate
| people and get them to give up and clock out.
| twixfel wrote:
| The problem then is not doing something, it's people not
| caring because they've done something. So I still don't
| understand why you take issue with this.
| ljm wrote:
| This lays down the foundations that can be used to tackle
| the larger problems while gradually tightening the
| restrictions.
|
| Implementing radical change overnight without the mechanism
| to enforce it will guarantee failure.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I think you stand a much better chance to mobilize society
| against a million-times-worse problem they've never
| considered that happens invisibly, far from shore, on the
| seabed, if you first prime them to agree that the small
| problem is real.
|
| It's possible that vested interests will try to twist the
| narrative once it begins to turn against them: "Do your
| part to sort plastics into bins, not the trash! Pay no
| attention to the single-use packaging manufacturers
| generating all that difficult-to-sort, difficult-to-process
| waste." "Freshwater is a resource that needs to be
| conserved! Turn the 1 gpm tap off while brushing your
| teeth. Ignore the 1000 gpm center-pivot industrial farm
| growing alfalfa in the California desert." etc. but that's
| risky.
|
| I think that recognizing that invertebrates on the ocean
| floor can be victims of animal cruelty is step 1 in
| reducing trawling, pollution, and global warming that harms
| those animals.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > just because it doesn't solve literally all problems.
|
| one would be nice. But I'm ignorant on how many untrained
| experts are de-humanaizing (de-crustationizing?) crabs to
| begin with.
| [deleted]
| thebooktocome wrote:
| I just watched a youtube chef mangle and torture a live
| lobster the other day, all while claiming to be informed on
| how to humanely kill them.
| bena wrote:
| I'm reminded of an episode of Masterchef where the cooks
| are given live crabs to prepare a dish with (as part of
| the meal, not as an assistant). Most contestants left the
| crab alone until it was time to boil them. One starts
| ripping the crab apart. Gordon Ramsay had to come up to
| her and explain that the crab was alive and what she was
| doing constituted torture.
| uh_uh wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder how future generations will judge our
| meat industry practices once they figure out artificial
| meat production and also have a more accurate picture of
| consciousness/sentience and hence the suffering we cause.
| It's quite plausible that their judgement will be just as
| harsh, if not hasher, as how present day humans look at
| "savages" of the past.
| krisoft wrote:
| > one would be be nice.
|
| Stops grocery stores from selling live crabs to home cooks.
| That is one.
|
| Stops kitchens from boiling lobsters alive without
| stunning. That is two.
|
| Stops the practice of destroying the eyestalks of female
| shrimp. That is three.
|
| If you belive that they can experience pain any of these is
| terrible.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| The reason why crabs and lobsters are sold alive is that
| their quality deteriorate extremely quickly once they are
| dead (30 minutes and they start smelling funky and
| tasting weird)
|
| I've quite a bit of experience on the subject. I've
| caught and cooked crabs and lobsters since I was a teen.
|
| I generally don't trust the quality of pre-cooked
| crustaceans.
|
| And while I agree that it is best to reduce the overall
| suffering of animals, I don't think that boiling is the
| worst part. They die in less than two seconds.
| yafbum wrote:
| My understanding is that precooked crustacean meat is a
| byproduct of shipping loss (sh*t this crab looks like
| it's not going to make it, let's cook it before it dies).
| So yeah, not the freshest.
| Y_Y wrote:
| What about killing? If their interests are to be valued then
| surely we shouldn't kill them. I'd much rather be declawed than
| killed.
|
| This isn't to say I think killing lobsters is wrong, I just
| think the moral reasoning is fatally inconsistent.
| [deleted]
| boringuser2 wrote:
| If such an absurd ruling were to be taken at face value, these
| creatures would be owed human rights.
| jdboyd wrote:
| Actually, if you took "sentience" seriously, you would also
| need to ban any captivity or killing.
| abeppu wrote:
| This article highlights that their decision is based on an
| ability to "experience pain, distress or harm." In not all
| cases will that distress align with captivity.
|
| Well-cared for dogs seem pretty happy, for example. They're
| in captivity but not suffering, and can live lives with
| social bonds, play, etc. Being separated from their humans
| can make dogs distressed. When one gets sick enough,
| euthanizing it, though sad, is probably the merciful thing to
| do.
|
| If a small fish is in a large, well-maintained aquarium, is
| it in pain or distress because of its captivity? I've seen
| some very well-run aquariums, and if the fish are all
| suffering, it doesn't seem obvious.
|
| I think the point is if you take their ability to suffer
| seriously, you don't take actions which subject it to pain or
| distress. But captivity doesn't strictly necessitate
| suffering.
|
| But yeah, we could stop eating animals, or penning them in
| feedlots.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also this whole thing leads to somewhat interesting moral
| questions from evolutionary perspective. Would we allow
| domesticated species or breeds to go extinct? Pigs might
| survive outside. But what about dairy cows, or various breeds
| of birds?
|
| Should we just release them back to nature and possibly let
| them die out there?
| lesuorac wrote:
| > Should we just release them back to nature and possibly
| let them die out there?
|
| Some of those animals you would need to force to leave.
|
| I had a dog growing up and like you can leave the front
| door open and occasionally she'd go out it but come meal
| time she was going back in that door.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Had happened before with a small viviparous fish species
| used in labs in 60's I thing. After being banned from
| experimentation, the species disappeared from labs
| "overnight". As nobody was breeding the fish anymore, when
| the habitat of the wild populations was destroyed people
| discovered too late that there was not a safety copy and
| the entire species vanished. We could have it still except
| by a stupid law that nobody remembers anymore. The stupid
| politicians that wrote it are dead by now probably or
| wouldn't care less about the consequences of their actions.
|
| This lobbies simply hide or ignore that they don't have
| alternatives to the problems that are creating and will
| soon hit hard.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| A species is not some kind of treasured unique token.
| It's not a thing. It's a process. It only seems like a
| thing because humans like to find patterns and give them
| names.
|
| Outside of practical considerations wrt. biodiversity,
| why should we care? I mean, if you don't think individual
| members of a species are entitled to a good life, or at
| least life free of needless cruelty - then why would you
| care about their _species_? Conversely, if you think the
| species should be saved for reasons other than
| entertainment or practicality, then I think it only makes
| sense if you think _individuals_ of that species deserve
| better conditions.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| I'm not sure there is a moral question with regards to the
| animals.
|
| If we stop breeding pigs and cows we won't have the huge
| amount we do now. The pigs and cows don't care if their
| species go extinct.
|
| Letting them go into the wild would be cruel since they
| aren't prepared to exist out there, but letting them die in
| the wild vs die in a factory farm isn't much worse of a
| fate.
|
| In reality, we should stop breeding them, send existing
| aninals to sanctuarys (which we should fund) and be done
| with it. Within 20 years, all of the existing farm animals
| will die out from natural causes.
|
| The real moral question is: how do we support the farmers?
|
| We should ensure that they get their wages replaced and get
| assistance in moving to a less cruel industry than animal
| farming. There are already groups that help with this, but
| they'd need funds to scale their work.
| contravariant wrote:
| Saying pigs and cows don't care if they go extinct is a
| bit of a weird stance. Sure nonextant cows don't care
| about not existing, but neither do dead cows care about
| being killed, so it's a bit of a weird criterium.
|
| Do current cows care about being alive? I'd say yes, but
| then never being born or being killed should seem about
| equally bad from their perspective. If anything not
| existing is worse.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > In reality, we should stop breeding them, send existing
| aninals to sanctuarys (which we should fund) and be done
| with it. Within 20 years, all of the existing farm
| animals will die out from natural causes.
|
| I've never heard (or thought of) this proposal before.
|
| It makes sense from a harm-minimizing perspective, but in
| practice, even as a vegetarian who thinks the world would
| be better off if people didn't eat meat, I'd be okay with
| the current crop of animals being eaten as the end to
| factory farming.
| drtgh wrote:
| >Should we just release them back to nature and possibly
| let them die out there?
|
| IMHO, not my field.
|
| Most of the wild animals that live a time in captivity
| needs to learn again with human help where obtain again
| food before to completely return to the wild.
|
| If domesticated species are going to be released, by
| extrapolation I deduce the matter would be to know until
| what point they lost their instincts (due human selection),
| and how could be guided along N generations for to make
| them recover it (this plant smell is poisonous), or learn
| at least were to find the food, for what an habitat would
| be needed first, in companion of a high number of animals
| for to keep a high genetic diversity, with migration paths
| (climate, group mixing and so).
| e_i_pi_2 wrote:
| I'd hope that this can be a foothold for future legal action -
| maybe someone could argue that bottom-trawling is an extreme
| slaughter method and then bad that
|
| Definitely glad to see this being the direction we move though
| Lio wrote:
| I don't know, you can hope but people are cheap bastards.
|
| Gassing of pigs with high concentrations of CO2 is pretty
| cruel.
|
| Cruel enough that CO2 was expected to be replaced with inert
| gasses like nitrogen in the early naughties.
|
| It takes them minutes to die and they do not go easy.
|
| If you want to eat animals that one thing but the least you
| can do is give them a quiet death.
|
| CO2 is cheap though and people like cheap more than they like
| humane. So now CO2 is used for 80% of UK pigs.
|
| If anyone wants to watch there's a video attached:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/02/sufferin.
| ..
| hammock wrote:
| > bottom-trawling, dredging or other fishing practices which
| can casually kill large numbers of individuals
|
| I don't believe these techniques are used for lobsters, crabs
| or octopuses
| snapcaster wrote:
| But they still kill loads of them
| martingoodson wrote:
| This new law is irrelevant to these points. Vertebrate animals
| were already considered sentient in UK law. So sharks,
| dolphins, turtles, fish etc were already covered.
|
| Your outrage comes several years too late.
| abeppu wrote:
| The new recognition of cephalopods and decapods are is
| relevant to these points because they can be and are killed
| by these human-driven factors, and experience pain and
| distress.
|
| The UK's recognition that fish can suffer doesn't seem to
| have forced the elimination of the UK's fishing industry.
| That industry intentionally catches and kills large numbers
| of fish but incidentally kills plenty of other kinds of
| animals, including cephalopods and decapods, through the
| extremely untargeted practices.
|
| My understanding is that bottom-trawling is still a permitted
| in UK waters, and as of a couple years ago, was even still
| allowed in most marine protected areas.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/uk-
| fishi...
| boringuser2 wrote:
| No, that isn't a sufficient definition because it is incapable of
| differentiating between sentience and evolutionarily habituated
| survival instincts that all life forms have.
|
| This is just silly.
| c22 wrote:
| Perhaps all lifeforms have sentience?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| I find this highly doubtful, but it also undeines just how
| challenging this domain is.
| lucidone wrote:
| What's the difference between the two?
| transducers wrote:
| Psychological trauma is the difference. Lingering negative
| impact on wellbeing, things like that.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| It's not my job to answer that question, it's the job of
| hacks/frauds codifying it into a legal ruling.
| throwanem wrote:
| As long as you make a claim which depends on that answer
| for support, it absolutely is your job, and whatever axe
| you mean to grind here doesn't seem so far to be helping do
| that job.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| To reject a proposal as clearly fraudulent, an alternate
| proposal need not be furnished.
| throwanem wrote:
| No, but you do need to substantiate the claim of fraud,
| and thus far you've yet to try. I doubt you will, but
| perhaps you'll surprise me.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| torstenvl wrote:
| @boringuser2, I vouched for your now-dead sibling comment
| of 29 minutes ago, because I think you're on to something
| and I believe your argument should have voice in this
| discussion. However, even though I sympathize with your
| position, and even though I don't think your comment
| should be dead, it's _very_ fighty and condescending.
| Even if you aren 't technically violating any of the
| rules that I can see, the condescension gets _very close_
| to being a personal attack. I think you 'd be more
| successful in voicing your argument if you toned it down
| a little (or a lot).
| throwanem wrote:
| Leaving the unjustifiable condescension aside, the
| argument in the dead comment still founders on precisely
| the lack of any philosophically rigorous definition of
| sentience on which it attempts to support itself.
|
| That's the question I called out earlier as being begged:
| in order to discard a definition of sentience (or of
| anything!) as insufficient, one must be able to show
| where it fails. That would admittedly be an impossibly
| tall order in this case, but my sympathy for the
| difficulty is curtailed by it being one our interlocutor
| has chosen to take upon himself, and attempt to bluster
| his way past anyone else noticing.
|
| Even politely expressed, such an attempt to demand an
| impossible standard of others while excusing oneself from
| the same merits exactly the obloquy it's received.
| [deleted]
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Your impression of how philosophically rigorous
| conclusions are reached is completely unnecessary to
| address; it is simply wrong.
|
| You don't seem to understand that a rationalistic
| approach isn't going to lead you to conclusions that
| approximate accuracy about the world. See: philosophy
| that is over 100 years old as a reference, when people
| realized that this method of inquiry made no sense.
|
| That being said, brushing aside your basic philosophical
| misunderstanding, it still follows that the burden of
| this challenge lies on the people who have outrageously
| claimed that they have uniquely solved it.
|
| I make no such outlandish claims.
| oliveshell wrote:
| Oh no, a slippery slope of compassion! To wit, the long
| title of the bill:
|
| "An Act to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee
| with functions relating to the effect of government policy
| on the welfare of animals as sentient beings."
|
| Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > that all life forms have.
|
| Presumably including us. So are we also not sentient?
| transducers wrote:
| If a dog takes a beating, it will remember that, will be
| affected by it, will _suffer_ for it, long after the physical
| event has passed. Just like us. The question is whether a
| crab would remember getting a beating. That is the difference
| between pseudo-mechanical stimulus-response and learned
| behavior, and a being that is 'sentient'.
| xg15 wrote:
| How does
|
| > _7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation and
| sensitisation_
|
| square with "evolutionarily habituated survival instincts"?
|
| What definition would you use instead?
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Under that definition, a language learning model is sentient.
| xg15 wrote:
| I mean, there is an entire discussion ongoing whether or
| not they might be.
|
| But LLMs (today) don't fulfill criterion #7: After training
| is completed, the model is fixed, so there is no more
| learning going on. #6 would also be hard to map to an LLM.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| That is inaccurate given that the modality for improving
| a model clearly fulfills criterion #7.
|
| The legal draft did not in any way either specify an
| AUTONOMOUS process, nor did it even specify any type of
| localized "learning" in terms of memory aggregation.
|
| A discerning reader might notice that this begins to wade
| into very challenging philosophical questions.
|
| Ding, ding, ding! You figured it out!
| canadianfella wrote:
| [dead]
| deanCommie wrote:
| You can disagree with the findings, but why do you think
| attempting to understand the difference between sentience and
| evolutionarily habituated survival instincts is "silly"?
|
| Isn't it our job as a sentient, evolved species, to ensure we
| do no harm to other sentient species?
|
| And the only way we can begin to consider doing that is if we
| figure out a way to classify them?
| throwanem wrote:
| As silly as begging the question of how sentience is accurately
| defined, such that this definition can be trivially dismissed
| as inaccurate?
| AHOHA wrote:
| So next time I'm eating an octopus, I will ask for its consent?
| ikesau wrote:
| > The review also evaluated the potential welfare implications of
| current commercial practices involving these animals. It
| recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the
| sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert
| handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling
| without stunning. It also includes suggestions for best practices
| for transport, stunning and slaughter.
|
| Good grief. I wish we could skip the incrementalism for once and
| just put an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not.
| johngladtj wrote:
| I wish we could stop telling people what they can do with their
| property, so i guess neither of us are getting what we want.
| ben_w wrote:
| That would be good[0], but doing it all in one step is about as
| plausible as going up a mountain in one step.
|
| [0] while the question "what even is this sentience thing
| anyway?" remains open, animals-as-food is not environmentally
| sustainable for 8e9 humans, so ending that is still good even
| when the ethics has a layer of indirection from suffering
| chillbill wrote:
| Before even getting there, how about putting an end to all
| human slaughter? Call me old fashioned but I like humans.
| American government and presidency (by both parties) have been
| pro war and pro weapon sale for the last 5 or 6 decades by now.
| Timon3 wrote:
| I'll do you one better: let's do both, instead of arbitrarily
| doing one after the other!
| chillbill wrote:
| It's not arbitrary. Human > Other Animals, no sane way to
| discuss anything else really. So start with the more
| important one then move to the other. Don't try to hold two
| watermelons in on hand.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Why is one dependent on the other? Why must we start with
| one, instead of tackling both at the same time? Why not
| use both my hands to hold the two watermelons at the same
| time?
| chillbill wrote:
| It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are
| feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are
| dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their
| enablers. If we can't figure out the first it'll be
| impossible to figure out the second. Similar to how you
| can't neglect your own kids and take care of the
| neighbor's at the same time.
| Timon3 wrote:
| You know what's distateful? Acting like we can only ever
| do one thing, and we must necessarily do that one thing
| to the end before we start another. I'm capable feeling
| sad for both dying children as well as for animal cruelty
| - both at once! Who will it help if I do not feel sad for
| crabs being boiled? How many children do I save?
| masswerk wrote:
| Anecdotally, there's a certain armed conflict in Europe,
| where peace movements of any kind are in the absolute
| minority - on either side. (Oh, progress, I guess...) It's
| not just the US.
| chillbill wrote:
| Exactly. People generally have not yet moved passed fucking
| genghis khan way of thinking yet, and some people want to
| seriously discuss options for a more "humane" way to kill
| and eat some animal, all to satisfy their own ill-defined
| feeling of doing "better".
| Timon3 wrote:
| It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the
| "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How
| do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in
| to "bring peace"? If Russia wins _literally anything_ ,
| even a single square meter, why would they not start the
| next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop
| "calling for peace" yourself?
| masswerk wrote:
| And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the
| bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in
| Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time,
| while we're maximizing casualties.)
| Timon3 wrote:
| The only way to sort this out is for the aggressor to
| stop invading the other country - to actually restore
| peace. Seems pretty simple, no?
| masswerk wrote:
| Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few
| 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This
| could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty
| simple.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my
| previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the
| armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing
| again in a couple of years, since the war would have
| netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia
| retreating from invaded territory)?
| localplume wrote:
| [dead]
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| And pro abortion.
| luckydata wrote:
| I don't as I don't believe in vegan diets as being equivalent
| to carnivorous diets. I think meat should be significantly more
| expensive especially in the US for environmental reasons but I
| don't think humans can be healthy without animal proteins.
| camel-cdr wrote:
| What do you think makes animal protein different from plant
| protein?
| the_doctah wrote:
| Well, taste, first and foremost. But also probably
| concentration and quality.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Here's what ChatGPT says Amino Acid
| Profile: Proteins are composed of amino acids, and the
| composition of amino acids can vary between animal and
| plant sources. Animal proteins tend to be "complete
| proteins" because they contain all the essential amino
| acids that the body cannot produce on its own. Plant
| proteins, on the other hand, may be "incomplete proteins"
| as they may lack or have lower levels of certain essential
| amino acids. However, by combining different plant protein
| sources (e.g., legumes with grains or seeds), vegans and
| vegetarians can achieve a complete amino acid profile.
| Digestibility: Animal proteins are generally more easily
| digested and absorbed by the body compared to plant
| proteins. This is primarily because animal proteins have a
| higher biological value, meaning they contain all the
| essential amino acids in the proportions needed by the
| human body. Plant proteins, especially those from whole
| food sources, may be slightly less digestible, but this can
| be improved by cooking, soaking, fermenting, or sprouting
| certain plant foods. Fat Content: Animal
| proteins often come with varying amounts of saturated fats
| and cholesterol, depending on the source. Plant proteins,
| on the other hand, are typically lower in saturated fats
| and devoid of cholesterol. Plant-based protein sources,
| such as legumes, tofu, tempeh, and certain nuts and seeds,
| can be particularly beneficial for individuals seeking
| lower fat and cholesterol intake. Fiber and
| Phytonutrients: Plant proteins are often accompanied by
| dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients
| present in the whole plant foods. These components offer
| additional health benefits and can help support digestive
| health, cardiovascular health, and overall well-being.
| Animal proteins, particularly those from lean sources, tend
| to have less fiber and fewer plant-based nutrients.
| Health Implications: Research suggests that the source of
| protein, whether from animal or plant sources, can have
| varying effects on health outcomes. High intake of animal
| protein, especially from processed or red meats, has been
| associated with increased risks of certain diseases, such
| as cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Plant protein,
| when part of a well-balanced diet, has been linked to lower
| risks of chronic diseases and overall improved health
| outcomes.
| avalys wrote:
| What is the difference between an animal being slaughtered for
| human consumption vs. being eaten alive by another animal in
| the wild?
| incone123 wrote:
| Which other species boils lobsters alive?
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Surely there are nature murders more brutal than lobster
| boiling? Does the lobster even have overheating sensors?
| Seems pretty out of spec for range of lobster environment.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Humans aren't being boiled in their natural environment,
| yet our temperature senses react to it. Why do you
| suspect lobsters to work fundamentally differently? They
| are exposed to different temperatures in their natural
| habitat, just as we are.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Are lobsters around fire much? I would guess that this is
| why humans react to being dangerously overheated.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Are land animals around fire much? Humans have been
| around fire a lot more since a short time ago, but aside
| from that fire is a very rare thing for most animals to
| encounter.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Well, for example, I believe that exposure to dangerous
| levels of nuclear radiation does not induce pain in
| humans. It would seem that mammals, at least, have
| encountered fire enough as an evolutionary pressure to
| develop a specific reaction to it. I'm having trouble
| finding a video of a lobster walking near an open fire,
| it would be instructive to see its reaction. Does anyone
| own a lobster as a pet and is willing to perform an
| experiment for us? You don't need to hurt the lobster.
| Timon3 wrote:
| > It would seem that mammals, at least, have encountered
| fire enough as an evolutionary pressure to develop a
| specific reaction to it.
|
| What specific reaction are you referring to? Fire isn't
| the only natural source of heat. Why is evolutionary
| pressure from fire required for animals to evolve a sense
| of "something is too hot"? Why is it not sufficient for
| animals to evolve this due to e.g. exposure to sunlight,
| with the same mechanism being triggered through fire?
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Subjectively, as a human, it seems like the pain of being
| burned is qualitatively a different type of sensation
| from e.g. being warmed by sunlight.
|
| So the lobster feeling that they should ideally move to
| cooler water makes sense. Evolutionarily it wouldn't
| surprise me if they don't feel like they are in an
| emergency situation in the same way that a human would if
| they are standing in a fire.
| Timon3 wrote:
| I think you misunderstood me, or I just wasn't explicit
| enough. I was talking about humans _being burned_ by
| natural things other than flames. From my (admittedly
| limited) experience, being burned by a flame or by a hot
| surface or a hot liquid isn 't qualitatively different.
| Even sunburn (the aforementioned exposure to sunlight)
| feels similar if bad enough.
| tjnaylor wrote:
| My response is an attempt to summarize lobster-pain-
| experience info I just gleaned in this thread from a much
| more thought-provoking and lengthy article already linked
| to in another comment called "Consider the Lobster" by
| David Foster Wallace.
|
| http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
|
| Lobsters definitely feel pain at least as a stimulus
| responding to extreme heat.
|
| Lobsters have nociceptors, special pain-receptors that
| are "sensitive to potentially damaging extremes of
| temperature, to mechanical forces, and to chemical
| substanceswhich are released when body tissues are
| damaged."
|
| Humans have similar receptors. Consider if you touch an
| extremely hot stove and remove your hand before you even
| realized what happened. That (temperature) pain stimulus
| is sent to your spinal cord (not your cortex) and then
| responds by moving your hand before you are consciously
| aware (through the cortex) of what is going on.
|
| Lobsters do not have anything like the cortex which is
| involved in pain interpreation for humans (and also pain
| supression like in extremely traumatic events where a
| person doesn't feel any pain immediately after losing a
| limb).
|
| The lack of a pain suppression mechanism is a little
| scary to think about in the context of being boiled
| alive, but this could potentially be because lobsters'
| experience of pain is so radically different from our own
| that they may not even have use of a pain supressor.
|
| There are interesting anecdotes about people who received
| frontal lobotomies experiencing pain as a neutral
| experience that is neither bad or good. As in they feel
| pain from, but it is not perceived or interpreted as
| "bad" by them.
|
| Also in general, lobsters are unusually sensitive to
| temperature among invertebrates, responding to
| temperature changes in lab studies as small as 1deg, and
| their seasonal migratory patterns also seem to highly
| motivated by finding their preferred temperatures.
|
| If you drop a lobster in a container of room temperature
| sea-water, the lobster just kind of sits at the bottom
| looking for the darkest most isolated space if there is
| one (normal behaviour) vs boiling sea-water you will
| notice lobsters trying to use their claws to not be fully
| submerged, push off the lid, etc... in the 35-45 seconds
| it takes for boiling water to kill them.
|
| p.s. I hope this response is useful, I wrote it partially
| to let the mentioned article I just read sink in for
| myself.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Many animals will feed on dying preys that stay alive
| suffering for hours. Literally being eaten alive. I don't
| think boiling a lobster is even remotely comparable.
| GuardianCaveman wrote:
| Being eaten alive by a tiger vs being boiled alive. Which
| would you prefer ? Like natural deaths are so humane
| compared to humans killing animals .
| tjnaylor wrote:
| If I can jump in a cage with a wild tiger, or a giant pot
| of boiling water, hands down I'll die by tiger.
|
| Nature has a lot of horrible deaths, don't get me wrong.
|
| But boiling sensory wise (at least for humans) is similar
| to immolation (being burned alive) and it unfortunately
| takes longer to actually kill the person than burning
| them alive.
|
| Tigers naturally kill prey quickly to avoid injury, often
| going for the neck.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Not a species, per se...but consider what happens in a
| volcanic eruption.
| incone123 wrote:
| Don't see how that's relevant?
| bell-cot wrote:
| Lobsters get boiled alive, no? (+/- where Mother Earth is
| splashing her molten rock, and where the lobsters happen
| to be.)
| ben_w wrote:
| We only bear moral responsibility for that which is in our
| power to affect.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| What's the difference between murdering someone and them
| being eaten by a lion? One of those things humans are a
| critical agent in.
| theropost wrote:
| Animals are pretty brutal as well. My neighbor has free range
| chickens. The other morning, I woke up and looked out in my
| backyard, and there were 7 dead chickens strewn about my
| property. They were all over the place, it was a mess.
|
| So, I checked my cam for the next couple nights, and found a
| fox strolling across the property with a chicken in its
| mouth. I figured they'd eat one, but nope... 7. And he's been
| back for more since.
| lsaferite wrote:
| I had a fox wipe out my small backyard flock in a single
| night. They are brutal.
| waffleiron wrote:
| What's the difference between humans murdering humans and
| animals killing humans.
|
| We hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard in other
| cases, and maybe we should here too?
| mecsred wrote:
| Do we hold ourselves to a higher standard? An animal that
| kills a human is executed. A human that kills a human goes
| to prison.
| waffleiron wrote:
| A higher punishment doesn't not mean higher ethical
| standard.
| globular-toast wrote:
| If you consider yourself equal to other animals, then you
| should treat them with the same respect you would have them
| treat you.
|
| If you consider yourself better than other animals then stop
| comparing your behaviour to theirs and be better.
| standardUser wrote:
| We purposefully choose to torture animals that we breed and
| keep in captivity and that would otherwise not be alive if
| not for our intervention. And we could easily choose to limit
| their suffering at minimal expense to ourselves! But we
| choose not to, for reasons I simply cannot comprehend.
|
| Animals in the wild obviously do not have any such choice.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Without weighing in too much on this (I'm ok with meat
| personally, assuming a human execution and a happy life for
| the animal)...
|
| ... the difference is we can choose not to.
| nehal3m wrote:
| I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
| you meant 'a humane execution'. Requiring a human execution
| before eating meat is a little extreme.
| arcticbull wrote:
| hahaha, man, I need a new keyboard. Yes. Humane. I'm not
| demanding a human sacrifice. I'm just going to leave the
| typo up for posterity, hopefully more folks get a kick
| out of it.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well you've certainly disappointed some enthusiastic
| Aztecs now.
| wahahah wrote:
| "Humane"; unless you are talking about some kind of 1:1
| sacrifice system
| chrisin2d wrote:
| Humans have moral agency whereas animals have little or none.
| Animals must listen to their instincts, whereas humans get a
| choice.
|
| That choice is more important to some people, less important
| to others.
|
| This depends on which animals people consider to be moral
| subjects and therefore worthy of moral consideration, rights,
| and protections.
|
| Some people (vegans) consider all animals as moral subjects.
| Some people (pescatarians) may consider most animals as moral
| subjects, but not certain ones like fish.
|
| Most people consider some animals like dogs, cats, and
| horses, as moral subjects, and not others like cows,
| chickens, and pigs.
|
| These definitions are unconsciously arrived at by
| sociocultural factors, but some people consciously arrive at
| them.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| The difference is in the scale of the slaughter and the
| actual slaughtering being dissociated from the eating for
| many of these animals, such that a disproportionate minority
| takes on the task of killing for a majority of meat
| consumption. This has recorded known harmful effects on the
| people doing the killing as well as the community in which
| the killing is done, in a way other large industrial
| processes do not.
|
| As an aside: this is a gotcha question and doesn't
| fundamentally address the position that animal slaughter is
| cruel. It relies on an obviously false rhetoric that
| something performed by non-sapient creatures in an
| environment where the only way to survive for some creatures
| is largely through the personal killing of other creatures is
| morally equivalent to an environment where sapient creatures
| who have wide dietary availability make the choice to consume
| the flesh of another creature that has been usually killed
| for them.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I don't understand. You're saying the problem with eating
| animal meat is not that an animal has to die, but in who
| does the killing? So it'd be better if each person had to
| kill their own food, even though it would almost surely
| result in a lot more waste, and thus a lot more killing?
|
| >As an aside: this is a gotcha question and doesn't
| fundamentally address the position that animal slaughter is
| cruel.
|
| I don't think so. If you think killing animals is cruel in
| itself, then you have only two logically consistent
| options: you either a) change your lifestyle to ensure you
| don't kill any animals whatsoever, or b) accept that some
| cruelty is inevitable and set some standard of acceptable
| cruelty for yourself. Anything else is a symptom of
| cognitive dissonance.
| cruano wrote:
| > it'd be better if each person had to kill their own
| food, even though it would almost surely result in a lot
| more waste, and thus a lot more killing?
|
| That's only true assuming people would keep up their meat
| consumption levels, which I seriously doubt.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| > If you think killing animals is cruel in itself, then
| you have only two logically consistent options: you
| either a) change your lifestyle to ensure you don't kill
| any animals whatsoever, or b) accept that some cruelty is
| inevitable and set some standard of acceptable cruelty
| for yourself.
|
| Neither of these are addressed by equivocating this to
| wild animals predating.
|
| > I don't understand. You're saying the problem with
| eating animal meat is not that an animal has to die, but
| in who does the killing? So it'd be better if each person
| had to kill their own food, even though it would almost
| surely result in a lot more waste, and thus a lot more
| killing?
|
| I don't know if it's better if each person had to kill
| their own food. I'm not making a prescription on what
| people should do. I am only pointing out that there are
| real consequences to the current way we consume meat in a
| way that damages people and communities in a way that
| could be described as cruelty.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >Neither of these are addressed by equivocating this to
| wild animals predating.
|
| Yes, because the question is about how "cruelty" is
| defined. You can either say killing in the wild is cruel
| or not cruel. If it's not cruel, then how is industrial
| slaughter cruel? If it is cruel, then one can pose the
| question of whether it's possible to slaughter
| industrially humanely.
|
| >I am only pointing out that there are real consequences
| to the current way we consume meat in a way that damages
| people and communities in a way that could be described
| as cruelty.
|
| Umm... Sure, but I think avalys was asking about cruelty
| to the prey, not to the predator.
| acover wrote:
| Do you not want to kill insects either?
|
| How do you grow crops without killing insects?
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| These are still gotcha questions that don't fundamentally
| address the concerns of the original poster. Either
| address my points in good faith or just say you disagree
| with the position and provide your own reasoning; these
| questions feel clever but they're intellectually shallow.
| acover wrote:
| They are genuine questions. You want to stop all animal
| slaughter and insects are animals so we need to stop
| killing insects but I have no idea if that's achievable.
|
| It would be really interesting if you could.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Humans don't have to do it. Just like widespread rape in the
| animal kingdom and in human history doesn't give me moral
| justification to do it today.
|
| Though even before getting that far, humans are participants
| in one of your scenarios and not the other. What other animal
| behaviors justify your human behaviors? Can any of them? Does
| another intelligence have moral justification in farming
| humans on the same basis?
|
| There are some absurd reductios here that you'd have to sign
| off on.
| valval wrote:
| We kinda do though. We need many of the nutrients present
| only in various animal-based products to remain healthy.
| AndyKluger wrote:
| Which nutrients that we need to eat are _only_ found in
| animal products?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Whichever nutrient is required for smug satisfaction of
| beating nature at its own game and being so far beyond
| the food chain that it might as well not be a thing.
| WorkLobster wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how I and a good number of the
| people I know cannot remain healthy? I have to say, I
| feel pretty fine.
| ben_w wrote:
| "Animal products" yes (with the caveat we're getting good
| at genetic engineering and also vat-growing meat cells);
| "flesh" no; "poke their eyes out and boil them alive"
| absolutely not.
| hkt wrote:
| This is kind of an old discussion. I'm perfectly happy
| eating meat but equally recognise that vegan diets are
| perfectly feasible for almost everyone. If not vegan,
| then vegetarian (preferably with a premium on animal
| products to reflect their impact etc).
|
| A nice example of this is omega 3 and similar: it is
| actually synthesised in kelp and works its way through
| the food chain to us with fish as an intermediary. It
| doesn't have to be that way, it just is right now. B
| vitamins are a similar story.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| > Good grief. I wish we could skip the incrementalism for once
| and just put an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not.
|
| At some point - we have to eat something that is alive. Even
| plants react to being damaged in intentional and measurable
| ways (including trying to repair themselves, signaling
| neighbors of the damage, and passing nutrients to each other in
| response). I think it's impossible to ditch incrementalism,
| because _EVERYTHING_ we eat is already somewhere on that
| sliding scale of "something alive that is trying to stay that
| way".
|
| I am in favor of reducing the harm I am able to, while still
| acknowledging that simply existing requires that I consume
| resources (And those resources have to be a living thing,
| because humans are consumers... not producers). Those resources
| could have gone to keep another living thing alive, but I am
| using them. At some point, I expect to die, and it will be
| something else's turn.
|
| ---
|
| Also - It would be really, really cool if we could get the
| whole "KloraDerm" thing going from "Old Man's War" by John
| Scalzi.
|
| I would _LOVE_ to be able to do photosynthesis.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > At some point - we have to eat something that is alive.
|
| Not necessarily as we could wait for living things to die
| naturally and then consume them (maybe becoming fungus-like
| in the process). For livestock, that could possibly create a
| loophole of farms having conditions that cause a premature
| death.
|
| With plants, there's the option of following fruitarianism
| and just eating plant material that falls off such as fruit.
| (Fruit is unusual when it comes to being consumed as it
| arguably "wants" to be eaten so that the parent plant can
| better distribute its seeds). There's problems with following
| such a fruit heavy diet though and I don't think it's a good
| idea by itself.
|
| Alternatively, we could go the Soylent Green route?
| horsawlarway wrote:
| > With plants, there's the option of following
| fruitarianism and just eating plant material that falls off
| such as fruit. (Fruit is unusual when it comes to being
| consumed as it arguably "wants" to be eaten so that the
| parent plant can better distribute its seeds). There's
| problems with following such a fruit heavy diet though and
| I don't think it's a good idea by itself.
|
| I guess this is why it's so complicated (and you can't get
| off the scale). From the perspective of the fruiting plant
| - I agree with you, it doesn't mind if you eat some fruit.
| From the perspective of each seed, they'd probably rather
| you didn't.
|
| And interestingly - if we're willing to go multi-body
| (since we're admitting that eating fruit is bad for some
| seeds, but possible advantageous to the species as a whole)
| I think you'd have to make the same argument for herd
| animals: It might be bad for a single deer to be eaten, but
| it's pretty good for the herd if someone happens to remove
| the weakest single member every now and then.
|
| Anyways... I'm rambling at this point. Not sure why you're
| getting downvoted but long story short: I hope people
| acknowledge and respect the things they eat (plants,
| animals, or other), I'd love to see us move back a step
| from the automated and industrial production methods we're
| using right now (Both animals and plants - monoculture
| crops are a real ecosystem killer) and work to make food
| something that is local and folks can connect with.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > From the perspective of each seed, they'd probably
| rather you didn't.
|
| I recall that some seeds are designed to pass through the
| mammalian digestive system and thus get deposited with
| some fresh manure in which to grow. Maybe they enjoy the
| experience.
|
| > you'd have to make the same argument for herd animals:
| It might be bad for a single deer to be eaten, but it's
| pretty good for the herd if someone happens to remove the
| weakest single member every now and then.
|
| That's a good argument for free ranging or wild animals,
| but it's more complicated with farmed animals. If we
| breed animals just to eat them and select for the traits
| we desire, then it could be considered bad for that
| species although it certainly increases their numbers.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| I don't particularly disagree with you.
|
| I just think attempting to apply a moral imperative to
| how species happen to have adapted to their niche is
| hard.
|
| Rabbits work around their prey status by rote production
| - which means if nothing eats them, eventually they go
| through a large starvation event once they hit the
| carrying capacity of their habitat.
|
| Chickens are arguably one of the most successful species
| on the planet right now.
|
| ---
|
| I am in favor of free ranging animals, I agree that
| breeding animals moves them more into a niche that
| requires humans to exist - but I'm not convinced that's
| bad for them as a species (at least not as long as humans
| exist, and as a human that's my current preference with
| some admitted bias).
|
| I think globally - monoculture crops are often also a
| huge risk, and find that they are destroying other
| animals indirectly (decimating the population of insects,
| small mammals, and birds in the area).
|
| So I think the problem is hard, and that responsible
| stewardship likely means less industrialization in
| agriculture across the board (both plant and animal) and
| more local production of food. Intentional hunting
| grounds reserved for wild populations like turkey and
| deer (at least in my area) are very much a part of that,
| so I'm also with you on wild animals when it makes sense.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > Chickens are arguably one of the most successful
| species on the planet right now.
|
| The dinosaurs didn't die out, they just got a lot
| smaller.
| fluoridation wrote:
| The plant matter of a fruit is still alive, though. At some
| point you're drawing an arbitrary line that separates the
| living things that are okay to eat from those that are not.
| chr-s wrote:
| It's not whether they're alive but if they can suffer.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| That depends on the definition of "alive". Fruits don't
| respire which a lot of definitions include. And yes, it's
| going to be an arbitrary line.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Perhaps not the fruit as a whole, but the individual
| cells certainly do.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Going to the cellular complicates matters. That'd
| probably mean that you'd have to wait for fruit and veg
| to go mouldy before eating it and then do we consider
| fungus to be alive?
| fluoridation wrote:
| Like I said, arbitrary lines. The only way to sidestep it
| completely would be if you could directly synthesize
| sugars, lipids, and proteins. Then you could sustain
| people killing-free.
| 35997279 wrote:
| There's a really good case for sentience, though. This isn't
| a problem of infinite regression: no one is asking for you to
| become a Jain.
| pvaldes wrote:
| one law at a time
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Sure - I won't argue that I emotionally understand and
| relate much more strongly to the pain and suffering of
| animals that are biologically similar to me.
|
| I also agree that minimizing that pain is a reasonable
| goal, and worth taking steps to do at most every point we
| can afford to (and realistically - we are fairly rich as a
| species, we could be doing better).
|
| I don't particularly agree that forgoing meat consumption
| entirely is the right call - although reducing it likely is
| (especially if you live in the US).
|
| I also don't think that just because you happen to be
| eating a plant, you're off the hook - I think monoculture
| production and certain farming practices (see: palm oil)
| are causing suffering on similar scales.
|
| In my opinion - we should be trusting large conglomerates
| less with our foods (whether they're plant or animal) and
| doing more production locally. Acknowledging and respecting
| where the food you eat comes from is a huge step up from
| where many folks are right now.
| 35997279 wrote:
| You're right on all fronts. I'll add that there's a human
| element to both the plant and meat consumption story: in
| both cases, harvesting and slaughtering, the dirty work
| is often done by migrant workers with very little
| enforced legal protections. They work in terrible
| conditions, for low pay.
| groffee wrote:
| [dead]
| Ekaros wrote:
| Could we make sugars or fats straight from CO2 and Water?
| Just wondering could you theoretically make either from some
| process that does not involve plants, bacteria, protist or
| fungi? Enzymes are probably fair game.
| chris_va wrote:
| Sure... CO2 capture => Fischer-Tropsch => wax => fatty acid
| => food. The CO2 capture part is new, and presumably one
| would use solar now, but the rest was attempted during WW2.
|
| E-fuel plants do this for synthetic aviation fuel.
|
| You can also do it slightly more indirectly via acetate:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x.pdf
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Sure - I think there's a possible long game here where
| we're able to technologically engineer our way back to
| producer status.
|
| Bio-engineering is one route (KloraDerm), but I could see
| alternative routes that are essentially just
| chemical/material sciences.
|
| I think it's probably an incredibly complicated supply
| chain we'd have to _really_ work through to make sure you
| can synthesize all the required components without going
| through something living, but we know that producers exist
| - so there 's hope.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Also now that I think about it. Basically anything at all
| can contaminate the process and include living things...
|
| Probably not realistic on industrial scale. And then how
| do you get to the clean starting point...
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| > At some point - we have to eat something that is alive
|
| Alive and sentient aren't the same thing. You can eat non-
| sentient beings that are alive (like plants) and they won't
| suffer.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| > You can eat non-sentient beings that are alive (like
| plants) and they won't suffer.
|
| Define suffer?
| croisillon wrote:
| what are you doing :( don't kill the whataboutism in less
| than 5 minutes
| blaze33 wrote:
| "You're a vegetarian, but don't you realize that plants
| have feelings? He said, Yes, I do, but they don't scream so
| loudly." Alan Watts.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| but have you had snow crab legs? this also seems like it
| could quickly become a freedom of religion debate, if your
| religion tells you to have a BBQ, you have a BBQ
| snapcaster wrote:
| How are you so confident plants aren't suffering? They have
| measureable responses to stress and harm
| Clamchop wrote:
| Stress and harm are loaded words for stimuli here. Parts
| of plants can be triggered by a stimulus to begin
| emitting chemical signals that govern growth, senescence,
| etc elsewhere in the plant. They do this in response to a
| wide range of stimuli, not just "harm". Which stimuli
| feel "bad" to the plant? How would you know?
|
| It's all very stimulus-response for a plant. If things
| responding to inputs means they can feel or think, then I
| suppose single cell organisms and computer programs and
| doorbells count.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Your brain develops using an incredibly similar system of
| chemical signals (hormone distribution).
|
| Also - almost every plant out there is capable of
| repairing damage to itself, which I would take as fairly
| strong evidence that it prefers to not die. That repair
| is a complicated and involved process as well, and often
| includes adaptations that attempt to prevent further
| damage (ex: Lots of plants signal neighbors when eaten,
| and those neighbors chemically adjust to change how they
| taste to the animal eating them).
|
| I'm just saying...
|
| I can vividly picture the alien farting out a cloud of
| pheromones that essentially say "It's all very stimulus-
| response for a human - they just begin emitting auditory
| response to a wide range of stimuli" before he eats them.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Yes, but it's a lot easier to get a complete amino-acid
| profile in your proteins by eating things that were alive
| (e.g. animals), than to get it from even a balanced grain
| diet.
|
| This is especially important in developing children.
|
| It isn't at all evident that forcing kids onto a meat-free
| diet is the best path forward for society as a whole.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| We can't even really define what it is to be a thinking
| mind, let alone determine what it means to suffer. We just
| relate more to (some) animals than plants and imagine
| empathy from their position. Its just another form of
| species-ism to protect the animals but not other life.
| jrflowers wrote:
| > just put an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not.
|
| How would you handle animals that are occupying land that you
| intend to plant crops in?
| proanimalia wrote:
| [dead]
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| Why should animal slaughter be halted? I spend a lot of time
| outdoors and nature is exceedingly cruel. Animals and fish in
| my neck of the woods constantly are suffering with festering,
| infected wounds, missing limbs, gnawed up faces and especially,
| starvation. It just seems odd to direct our human emotions,
| experiences, and feelings towards other species when slaughter
| and death is part and parcel of their very existence. If the
| goal is to reduce animal suffering then we have to go way, way
| past not eating them since they inflict so much suffering on
| each other. Something like large non-profit zoos or preserves
| and eliminating all carnivores from the planet.
| tssva wrote:
| > I wish we could skip the incrementalism for once and just put
| an end to all animal slaughter, extreme or not.
|
| I wish I could stop having to hear people complain about
| slaughtering delicious animals, so it looks like neither of us
| is getting what we want.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| This is a step in the right direction.
|
| On the other hand the proposed large-scale farming of Octopus in
| the Canary Islands is a step in the wrong direction:
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64814781
| alwa wrote:
| I believe this could use a (2021) in its headline.
| makingstuffs wrote:
| Sentience is essentially the ability to use your mind as a CRUD
| database and apply contextual information to each interaction
| with it.
|
| When you apply that reasoning it's hard to argue that any living
| animal is not sentient.
|
| This is a great start to recognising the obvious, that we are
| limiting our definition of sentience by our own inability to
| understand other animals.
| uberdru wrote:
| Seems a lot of people with opinions on this topic have little
| experience crabbing, fishing, and hunting, that is, looking these
| creatures in the eye. I can assure you, all of them are sentient.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Cows and chicken has got to be sentient if they go by that
| definition, but since they cannot give up their steak and chicken
| nuggets, they will conveniently omit them from the list
| ahahahahah wrote:
| Wow, how insightful... Oh no shit, they already consider cows
| and chickens sentient and award them similar protections.
| twic wrote:
| ... and immediately deported to Rwanda due to lack of papers?
| rektide wrote:
| Under UK law & in the world spanning _Accelerando_ (2015).
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| You beat me to it!
|
| Lobsters liberated by Manfred!
|
| ---------------
|
| Donna beams at them enthusiastically. "Fascinating!" she
| enthuses. "Tell me, what are these lobsters you think are
| important?"
|
| "They're Amber's friends," Ang explains. "Years ago, Amber's
| father did a deal with them. They were the first uploads, you
| know? Hybridized spiny lobster neural tissue and a heuristic
| API and some random mess of backward-chaining expert systems.
| They got out of their lab and into the Net and Manfred brokered
| a deal to set them free, in return for their help running a
| Franklin orbital factory. This was way back in the early days
| before they figured out how to do self-assembly properly.
| Anyway, the lobsters insisted - part of their contract - that
| Bob Franklin pay to have the deep-space tracking network beam
| them out into interstellar space. They wanted to emigrate, and
| looking at what's happened to the solar system since then, who
| can blame them?"
| [deleted]
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Given how many idiots think ChatGPT is sentient, I hereby move to
| strike this thread from the record and pretend it never happened
| out of sheer embarrassment.
| tester457 wrote:
| In the future humanity might meet beings much more intelligent
| than us and they might not be kind to us, believing our level
| of sentience to be lowly, similar to how we discount these
| animals.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| This type of "Pascals wager" kind of underlies the fact that
| the whole animal rights compassion thing is actually just a
| laundered fear of death.
| luqtas wrote:
| wanna see a headline like this for insects and we living in a
| happy for all, world :3
| jmcphers wrote:
| If this line of thinking is new to you, I recommend David Foster
| Wallace's excellent (if somewhat long) essay, "Consider the
| Lobster".
|
| http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
| the_doctah wrote:
| The great philosopher Kurt Cobain once said "It's OK to eat
| fish because they don't have any feelings"
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| Wrong URL? Gives 404.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230325034108/http://www.columb...
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| Consider the Lobster is pretty sophomoric from the
| philosopher's point of view. I'm a big DFW fan otherwise, but
| he's out of his depth here.
| davidthewatson wrote:
| You should make the point clearer on the sophomoric
| philosopher's point of view that you refer to. I've read the
| DFW essay in question, and found it amusing though I'm out of
| my depth as a philosopher. With this in mind, I asked bard
| for clarification and it said:
|
| "The consensus among eminent philosophers with respect to
| David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" is that it is a
| thought-provoking and challenging essay that raises important
| questions about the ethics of eating animals. The essay has
| been praised for its intelligence, wit, and originality, and
| it has been cited as an important contribution to the debate
| about animal rights.
|
| Some philosophers have argued that Wallace's essay provides a
| strong case for vegetarianism or veganism. They argue that
| lobsters are sentient creatures who can experience pain and
| suffering, and that it is therefore wrong to kill them for
| food. Others have argued that Wallace's essay does not go far
| enough, and that we should also consider the ethics of eating
| other animals, such as cows, pigs, and chickens.
|
| Still others have argued that Wallace's essay is not
| primarily about animal rights, but is instead about the
| nature of consciousness and the meaning of life. They argue
| that Wallace's essay raises important questions about what it
| means to be a conscious being, and about the relationship
| between humans and other animals.
|
| Whatever one's views on the ethics of eating animals,
| "Consider the Lobster" is a powerful and thought-provoking
| essay that deserves to be read and discussed.
|
| Here are some specific examples of how eminent philosophers
| have responded to "Consider the Lobster":
|
| Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher at the University of Chicago,
| has praised the essay for its "beautiful and moving"
| exploration of the "moral status of nonhuman animals." Peter
| Singer, a philosopher at Princeton University, has called the
| essay a "powerful and important" contribution to the debate
| about animal rights. Cora Diamond, a philosopher at the
| University of Virginia, has argued that the essay "challenges
| us to think more deeply about the nature of consciousness and
| the meaning of life." Overall, the consensus among eminent
| philosophers is that "Consider the Lobster" is a valuable and
| important work that deserves to be read and discussed."
|
| So if the AI thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on
| DFW's lobster points, who is it that you are referring to
| with respect to your phenomenological comment without any
| empirical evidence? I can't say that bard is perfect
| empirically but my speculative intuition is that the quoted
| references are correct without taking time to verify them.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| your post would be more convincing if it didn't entirely
| rely on the output of an AI model, something well known for
| being unable to distinguish correctness from sounding
| correct, and for hallucinating fake information and even
| fake sources
|
| thus, the logical end of the sentence _" So if the AI
| thinks eminent philosopher's have consensus on DFW's
| lobster points..."_ is _" then we can make no conclusions
| solely based on that AI output, because of the
| aforementioned reasons"_
| nervousvarun wrote:
| Also "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
|
| https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/acceler...
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Dave Arnold's essay on killing lobsters is a good practical
| complement to Wallace's theory:
|
| https://cookingissues.com/2012/07/04/how-to-become-a-seafood...
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| Sentient is such an ambiguous term. The dictionary definition
| just means having a basic awareness and ability to sense - even
| roundworms qualify.
|
| Animals like Octopuses are in another category entirely than
| crabs and lobsters, it's honestly weird to group them together.
| zamalek wrote:
| Octopus I can understand (and is why I can't bring myself to eat
| them), but I've never seen crabs and lobsters demonstrating
| octopus-level sentience. What have I missed?
| riffic wrote:
| we can still eat them, right?
| 2023throwawayy wrote:
| I think they (the octopuses, crabs, and lobsters) would rather
| you didn't.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Yes. Just have to handle them in ways that are according to
| their welfare including non-painful way of killing them. Like
| we do with other animals in food production.
| underbluewaters wrote:
| I'd recommend people skim the actual report, it's written for a
| lay audience.
|
| https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/News-Assets/PDFs/2021/Sentience-i...
|
| I was a bit dismissive of the idea that they can define sentience
| in a useful way, but their framework is right there on page 7 and
| it makes a lot of sense:
|
| > 1) possession of nociceptors; > 2) possession of integrative
| brain regions; > 3) connections between nociceptors and
| integrative brain regions; > 4) responses affected by potential
| local anaesthetics or analgesics; > 5) motivational trade-offs
| that show a balancing of threat against opportunity for reward; >
| 6) flexible self-protective behaviours in response to injury and
| threat; > 7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation
| and sensitisation; > 8) behaviour that shows the animal values
| local anaesthetics or analgesics when injured.
|
| I'd be very curious what they'd find if they tested fish and even
| insects. Surely certain predatory fishes would exhibit thought
| provoking behaviour.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Pretty sure a lot of mammals pass that test
| uh_uh wrote:
| I'd be surprised if there is any mammal that doesn't.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The law covers all vertebrates, I believe these three are
| noteworthy for being the only invertebrates covered.
| throwanem wrote:
| Social wasps are known to meet at least five and maybe six of
| those criteria; I don't know offhand of research specifically
| investigating the question of nociception, but their behavior
| certainly offers no suggestion they lack that capacity. Their
| behavior with regard to analgesia isn't something I know
| firsthand to have yet been studied, but as an amateur and an
| autodidact in the field I wouldn't be surprised at all if such
| work exists and I simply haven't run across it.
| jdnier wrote:
| From the forward:
|
| > This is an excellent report which argues that the cephalopod
| molluscs and decapod crustaceans should be included in the UK
| animal welfare law in an explicit way, based on a detailed and
| important scientific and philosophical framework and
| evaluation, coupled with extremely helpful suggestions for
| improving best practice and welfare, and for regulating
| existing practices that currently raise widespread concerns
| about the welfare of these animals.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if the test was "crafted" to carefully avoid classing
| some species as sentient.
|
| For example, what if chickens suddenly went off the food
| market?
|
| (many bird species exhibit really intelligent behavior - would
| they fit the bill?)
| viraptor wrote:
| Chickens (and many other animals) are already classified as
| sentient.
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/animals-to-
| be-...
|
| It doesn't stop us eating them. Just tries to stop being
| pointlessly cruel while they're alive.
| hanniabu wrote:
| What about dolphins and mammals?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Already covered by existing legislation.
| remram wrote:
| What other animals are already recognized as sentient by UK law?
| anyoneamous wrote:
| [flagged]
| moate wrote:
| [flagged]
| fredgrott wrote:
| politicians
| formvoltron wrote:
| lobster has 100,000 neurons. no way are they sentient.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-06 23:01 UTC)