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

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#161

Post by kristopolous »

Falling3 wrote: post #128
kristopolous wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about understanding the costs of the decisions and accepting them. If you say "Well nobody would be ok with industrial slaughterhouses or a number of other things" I say, "yes, that's kinda the point here."

Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons? So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This actio…

This is a philosophical difference. I think adults should be at liberty to shoot themselves in the foot.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#162

Post by dorfsmay »

ann12345 wrote: post #134
Falling3 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork Unfortunately, this is often not the case in my own experience. It certainly does for some people, but that course is by no means universal. And when the well-being of other thinking, feeling individuals is at stake, I'd rather not rely on this kind of approach.

This really worked in my experience. In my family we often used to eat chicken and while eating them the only thing on mind was how it tasted and how it was cooked etc. Then my parents started rearing some chickens in their backyard. That changed everything. There were about 7 or 8 of them. As the chicks grew up, they could identify each of them and know about individual treats. They would call some of them by names…

Small farm operations, including rearing a few animals for food, used to be the norm, and still is in some countries.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#163

Post by 55555 »

nxzero wrote: post #61
Falling3 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sentience - I really don't see any other sensible qualifier for moral consideration.

Sentience is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights. That said, in my opinion, as it relates to optimal ecosystems, sentience at best might be a consideration. Impact, contribution, etc. to an ecosystem would be a more natural measure.

Humans have a pretty horrible impact on, and contribution to, the ecosystem. Can I kill them? /s

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#164

Post by ashitlerferad »

Xcelerate wrote: post #99
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

If I started thinking about it too much, I'd probably become a vegetarian. So I refrain from thinking about the topic, which probably isn't a great idea, because then I remember all of the moral atrocities committed in the 1800s under the name of "not thinking about it too much" or "that's just the way it is".

Think about vegetable rights before you become a vegetarian.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#165

Post by kristopolous »

dorfsmay wrote: post #120
kristopolous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…

This is a cop out... Would you be ok with changing legislation so that it is ok to kill humans as long as it is to eat them. This is what people are discussing here, should we legislate against killilling animals with "high intelligence" and those who share more genes with us than with any other animal, as long as it is for food?

No of course not.

The positions I outlined are my justification for my personal goals of radical sustainability and veganism.

I understand when people aren't like me so long as they are OK with the full duty cycle of their personal decisions

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#166

Post by [deleted] »

peteretep wrote: post #155
Falling3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US…

> how can slaughtering them > for food be considered > ethical Humane slaughter that they don't see coming ... what's the issue? I would be more, rather than less, comforted to find out that one day I'll suddenly die painlessly, instantly and unawares, and am not too bothered if it's because someone plans to eat me

[deleted]

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#167

Post by JadeNB »

kristopolous wrote: post #68
koolba wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (del…

Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat,…

I am not trying to be snarky, and honestly don't know what you mean. Does "In order of importance" mean "from most to least important", or "from least to most important"? (Probably it's just my deficiency; I am so used to seeing 'increasing' or 'decreasing' that I don't know which one is implicitly meant.)

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#168

Post by mitchtbaum »

Falling3 wrote: post #117
sarreph wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-vegetarian (for now), my standpoint is that I/we should try as hard as possible to ensure that the sourcing of food is sustainable, humane and ethical for the animals involved. In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I agree with you that social norms (esp. in your dog/pig example) put irrational values on propensi…

So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US…

> how can slaughtering [animals] for food be considered ethical?

  Life begets life.
  Death is part of life.
  Where necessary, living requires killing.
  Where people cultivate The Golden Rule, life will get better and death will get fewer.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#169

Post by nyolfen »

jeremyt wrote: post #81
nyolfen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's good reason to suspect that a lot of calamari is pig asshole: http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/npr-claims-pig-rec...

Considering the article is only a few paragraphs, and right in the middle of the article it states "dining on pork bung at your favorite Italian restaurant is improbable (most hog bung is exported to Asia)". I don't see how you have any factual support for the statement "a lot". In fact, there isn't even anecdotal evidence listed.

Apologies, the correct link is the This American Life episode linked in the story I linked, but that episode appears to have been pulled offline. Here's a transcript: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/484/t...
Post reply on HN