Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 250 posts

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#141

Post by developer2 »

nier wrote: post #83
the_rosentotter wrote: post #20

A similar interesting octopus story not mentioned in the article: A particular light in a German aquarium kept short-circuiting and no one could figure out why. Using camera surveillance it was finally discovered that every night, the octopus would climb to the edge of his tank and shoot a jet of water on the light, shorting it. It was speculated that the light had been bothering the octopus' nocturnal routine. http:…

Their answer was to hang the light higher. No explanation for keeping the nightly illumination.

That article is depressing. They nonchalantly attribute the behaviour to boredom and belittling the creature like a child: "Otto is constantly craving for attention and always comes up with new stunts so we have realised we will have to keep more careful eye on him".

Let's not attribute any aspect of his behaviour to the crippling reality of captivity. Oh, no.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#142

Post by threatofrain »

sarreph wrote: post #7

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

To me, morality is based upon a goal and the causal means by which we may have relation to that goal. For many, the goal is approximately similar, i.e., for humanity to prosper. I also think that morality becomes productive when consensus is achieved, even if it's approximate consensus.

I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respect to ecological reasons. If the argument is about sustainability, then I think a lot of people can get into that discussion. But if the argument stems from the idea that we should simply feel bad for killing smart cows and pigs, then I don't understand.

I would also say that under my definition of morality, goals are more important than means. Therefore, just as I would think it bad to let a human starve or be eaten in a forest, by extension, if we were to regard "smart animal" prosperity as the goal, then we would also think it morally negligent to simply throw up our hands and say "the wild took its course with that one!".

So what is your moral premise?

(killing smart animals like cows or pigs) => (mediating factors) => (? moral outcome you're attempting to build consensus on ?)

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#143

Post by indlebe »

brahmwg wrote: post #124
Falling3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans? Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases applying.

What about meat grown in a lab, so no being had to die for it. ...what about human meat grown in a lab...?

as someone who considers themselves an animal-rights moderate, I am 100% OK with lab meat. No sentient beings suffering = no problem!

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#144

Post by Zeeem »

threatofrain wrote: post #142
sarreph wrote: post #7

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

To me, morality is based upon a goal and the causal means by which we may have relation to that goal. For many, the goal is approximately similar, i.e., for humanity to prosper. I also think that morality becomes productive when consensus is achieved, even if it's approximate consensus. I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respec…

How about these premises: 1. Happiness/pleasure ought to be increased. 2. Suffering ought to be decreased. 3. The type of being experiencing these is immaterial. Why stop at humans?

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#145

Post by bitL »

sarreph wrote: post #7

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

Unfortunately nature sucks. One of the main philosophical questions of the past was why humans' internal moral code goes against what happens in the nature?

We need to eat to survive. Animals/plants/bacteria etc. need to eat as well. Why is killing/damaging plants more acceptable than killing/damaging animals? Why do we want to kill viruses that are eating our bodies? How many insects did you kill on the way to work today and didn't even notice? Simply no good answers :-( Hence cyberspace vs meatspace etc.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#146

Post by Houshalter »

hodwik wrote: post #74

Just because something has complex self-preservation behaviors does not mean that thing is displaying consciousness. Complex behaviors are witnessed in insects and microscopic organisms, yet they have nothing like a brain. What's more, we're computer scientists. If anyone should be aware that something can seem intelligent without sentience it should be us. Who here hasn't explored chat bots or game AI mechanics? Yet…

There's no evidence yet that humans are sentient either. It's all wild speculation. Many complex behaviors observed in humans have been reproduced with very simple algorithms.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#147

Post by Mz »

sarreph wrote: post #7

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

I am totally okay with you being not happy with eating things live. But I will suggest that you be careful with basing it on intelligence. That framing opens up weird things like "Maybe it is okay to eat mentally retarded humans."

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#148

Post by proksoup »

blakeyrat wrote: post #100
pera wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in the West most people don't even want to think about it.

Compared to whom? China? Where they kill endangered pangolins so they can grind-up their scales and sprinkle it on their dicks because some moron centuries ago said it was an aphrodisiac? Get real.

He said most people, just looking at McDonald's popularity alone, maybe an indication of how interested most people are in understanding the sources of their food.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#149

Post by zematis »

ekianjo wrote: post #140
sarreph wrote: post #7

It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence

Actually, most of the animals we eat are intelligent and certainly share similar traits of self-consciousness as humans. Mammals certainly, but even fishes. EDIT: And I know this does not justify anything, but "intelligent" animals in the wilderness also eat each others all the time. If we were to find out that they "get" that the other species they eat are also intelligent and have feelings, then why wouldn't it be…

> ... I know this does not justify anything

> ... wouldn't it be acceptable for humans to do the same?

Edit: Re-reading your comment, I think this isn't a charitable interpretation. I'll assume that you don't think cruelty in nature justifies human cruelty unless the animals are knowingly cruel.

I still don't agree with you however. I don't think it's acceptable to wrong someone/an animal just because they knowingly wronged someone else/a different animal.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#150

Post by Tempest1981 »

koolba wrote: post #67
Falling3 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living.

> Agreed with everything up until your last sentiment. I assume it was hyperbole, but it's still a ridiculous notion that without this specific food item (that currently requires harming other sentient, intelligent individuals), that life would not be worth living. I didn't say it wouldn't be worth living. I said that, given the choice, I'd rather live in a world with ham, bacon, and baby back ribs.

What if you could get the same delicious flavors artificially?
Post reply on HN