[deleted]
Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
21–30 of 704 posts
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#22Even as a meat eater I’m pretty shocked that this recognises them as sentient and yet does not ban their slaughter (aside from boiling them alive etc). Maybe I’ve read too much science fiction, but eating sentient beings seems Bad.
We seem to have no problem droning and bombing children when we want to change the subject as politicians. Many of us even campaign, donate and vote for such political leadership. Some of these politicians even get the Nobel Peace Prize.
One of those politicians who was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient even bombed another Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
None of this is even science fiction.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nobel-p...
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#23Octopi I understand, but lobsters? They have less than half the nervous system of an ant [1]. Are individual ants sentient and worthy of legislating over? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of...
Yes. The bar for sentience is quite low. It only means that one is capable of feeling sensations. (For example, Wikipedia gives the definition, "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.")
Why are not all animals recognised as such under that law?
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill already recognises all animals with a backbone (vertebrates) as sentient beings. However, unlike some other invertebrates (animals without a backbone ), decapod crustaceans and cephalopods have complex central nervous systems, one of the key hallmarks of sentience. It’s not that lobsters are being lumped in with octopuses, it’s that they are both being given the same treatment as…
> they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. No, they aren’t treated equal to humans, which are things with backbones.
I think one is conflating superset/subset privilege granting. Humans, a subset of things with backbones, are given the privilege of describing what is considered something capable of feeling and then extended it to all creatures with a backbone. This does not mean they've extended the privilege of labeling to all things with a backbone, only that they've ascribed a certain label to all things with a backbone. Similarly, humans labeling certain non-backboned creatures in this way does not ascribe those creatures the privilege of being considered human.
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#25Crabs and lobsters are basically bugs, whereas an octopus is a creative, playful, intelligent creature with amazing capabilities. It seems strange to group them together.
I assume that Dr Jonathan Birch, Associate Professor at LSE’s Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, and his team of scientists didn’t encounter this insightful perspective when they reviewed “over 300 scientific studies” in order to arrive at their conclusions…
In seriousness though, this comment is a prime example of speciesism. Even if it were true that these crustaceans were “basically bugs” how does it follow that no regard should be given to their suffering? Does being a “bug” justify being boiled alive?
They are only being “grouped together” in that they are being granted the most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”.
The fact this is somehow just dawning on modern society is a sad indictment of our blinkered and callous disregard for other species. A child could tell you that other living creatures experience pain and distress through simple observation or even based upon, dare I say, the innate understanding we all have about our fellow animals.
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The bar for sentience is quite low. It only means that one is capable of feeling sensations. (For example, Wikipedia gives the definition, "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.")
Why are not all animals recognised as such under that law?
Unfortunately a lot of legislators lack sentience themselves...
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#27[deleted]
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill already recognises all animals with a backbone (vertebrates) as sentient beings. However, unlike some other invertebrates (animals without a backbone ), decapod crustaceans and cephalopods have complex central nervous systems, one of the key hallmarks of sentience. It’s not that lobsters are being lumped in with octopuses, it’s that they are both being given the same treatment as…
> they are both being given the same treatment as anything with a backbone. No, they aren’t treated equal to humans, which are things with backbones.
You may be mixing up sentience and sapience.
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#29Octopi I understand, but lobsters? They have less than half the nervous system of an ant [1]. Are individual ants sentient and worthy of legislating over? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of...
By this logic, humans should be given only half the consideration we give to orcas, which according to the resource you posted, have twice the neurons we do.
Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law
#30Octopi I understand, but lobsters? They have less than half the nervous system of an ant [1]. Are individual ants sentient and worthy of legislating over? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of...
The line for sentience is a very low bar to hurdle. Trees may demonstrate sentience [0].
The larger problem is that people are generally thinking of sapience, but sapience tends to be defined in axiomatic terms, so we don't have a clear understanding of what it requires or means.
[0] https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-...