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

Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 704 posts

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#161

Post by Igelau »

thelibrarian wrote: post #94
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Thus, its greek plural is octopodes. And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english, the other proper plural is octopuses. Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection. "A hypercorrection is non-standard use of language that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer wh…

I have a friend who says using the word “octopi” displays ignorance of three languages at once - English, Latin, and (ancient) Greek.

Eric Weinstein says some crazy stuff, but I remember hearing him once say that the best debate strategy for Republicans would be to mention the "noo-kyoo-lar" family, and let them correct you to "nuclear". Then you win because the other side looks like pedants and elitists. This "octopi" is definitely such a word.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#162

Post by chefandy »

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #85
monkeybutton wrote: post #6

Octopi 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...

Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Thus, its greek plural is octopodes. And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english, the other proper plural is octopuses. Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection. "A hypercorrection is non-standard use of language that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer wh…

For that to render _"octopi"_ incorrect, you'll also have to convincingly argue that a centuries-old etymology mishap supersedes its common usage since then— the far more common measure to define correctness in English grammar. Sociolinguists aim to study and describe the effect of society and culture on the formation of grammar. They don't present their findings as rules, and we shouldn't interpret them that way.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#163

Post by Thorrez »

shkkmo wrote: post #114
Natsu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are fetuses not sentient for most of their growth, then?

Human fetuses become sentient sometime between 8-30 weeks (depending on who you ask and how they define sentience).

>depending on who you ask and how they define sentience

Natsu was assuming for the sake of argument that the definition of sentience is the one moeris gave, namely "that one is capable of feeling sensations".

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#164

Post by robbrown451 »

adriand wrote: post #25
chrisweekly wrote: post #11

Crabs 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 doe…

> “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”.

So how about jellyfish (which have no brains), or for that matter plants?

It seems odd to apply boolean terms like "sentient", rather than accepting that whatever it is, it lies on a spectrum.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#165

Post by Igelau »

dudeinjapan wrote: post #111
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Octopi is not the correct plural. Octopus is of greek origin, not latin. Thus, its greek plural is octopodes. And thus, since we don't tend to use greek plurals in english, the other proper plural is octopuses. Octopi is what's known as a hypercorrection. "A hypercorrection is non-standard use of language that results from the over-application of a perceived rule of language-usage prescription. A speaker or writer wh…

I asked an octopus and he said he prefers "octopi".

Obviously the correct answer is to call them by their preferred plural noun.

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#166

Post by newbie789 »

nemo44x wrote: post #156
Mikeb85 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, we know cattle, sheep, chickens and pigs are sentient yet we consume them. Why would we make an exception for octopods and shellfish?

1) Find animals (behaviors) some people eat (do) but most don’t. 2) Make an appeal to some emotion to politically limit their harvest (acceptability). 3) Expand this program to the next least popular animal (behavior), repeat, etc. 4) Congrats, you’ve changed public opinion on what animal to eat (behavior) is moral and ethical. This is the formula of progressivism.

What -ism doesn’t suggest or prescribe change in behavior?

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#167

Post by onemiketwelve »

monkeybutton wrote: post #133
colechristensen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is English, not Latin or Greek. There’s no such thing as “correct” in language as long as you can be understood, especially for silly details like how to make a plural. You’ll find octopi in the dictionary because it is commonly used. Remember all words are made up anyway. If you’re not the editor of a publication making local standards for how you want to use language, it’s better not to correct people when the…

This is what it comes down to in the end. Words are memes, and the best replicating meme wins.

May the dankest words prevail

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#168

Post by lbotos »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #159
bardworx wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: i don’t have a dog in the fight…or a branch on a tree, in this context. Sentient is defined as able to perceive or feel things. The paper linked discusses how trees can “communicate” and “feel” based on release of specific chemicals. An exert from the introduction: “Recent research has revealed that plants can sense their neighbours without direct physical contact; mechanisms for this include detection of…

I feel like Star Trek handled the question much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. Calling trees sentient is just nonsense. And I mean that literally. I try not to dismiss people's work out of hand, b…

> "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

There are many plants that clearly respond to stimuli (Mimosa pudica(shy plant) as well as the Venus flytrap). As well as almost any plant following the light to grow, as well as plants that send out tendrils to anchor.

> "The subjective awareness of experiences by a conscious individual are known as qualia in Western philosophy"

I'll agree with you that we have no knowledge of plants being conscious.

> "sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus further features of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). These further features of consciousness may not be necessary for sentience, which is the capacity to feel sensations and emotions."

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#169

Post by mduncs »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #73
otherotherchris wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shellfish aren't a massive industry so no one with political power cares to obstruct these laws. Cattle and sheep are usually treated well because cortisol reduces weight gain. Pigs not so much...

What metrics are you basing that first statement on?

Not the person you're replying to, but according to this site here [0], crustaceans make up $262M or 0.64% of the agricultural export for the UK. Not small, but certainly smaller than other agriculture sectors.

[0] https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=81&product=und...

Re: Octopuses, crabs and lobsters to be recognised as sentient beings under UK law

#170

Post by syberiyxx »

adriand wrote: post #72
stathibus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how use of the word "speciesism" implies that some place humans above other animals as a result of some kind of fallacy or irrational thinking, and not because we are humans and therefore more valuable to each other. Never mind the fact that we have consciousness and ego and complex nervous systems, whereas lobsters do not.

> not because we are humans and therefore more valuable to each other I value my children more than I value your children, but you will likely disagree with my assessment, even though it isn’t unexpected. And I would have to admit my assessment is not objective. > Never mind the fact that we have consciousness and ego and complex nervous systems, whereas lobsters do not. That’s how speciesism works: we try to find so…

Just as well look at computers as equally worthy of our empathy?

There are two sides to the equation, one is our desire to survive, conquer, etc. The other is our concern for what is alive. Both are part of being human. Neither will win out because both traits are more successful than either by itself.

Post reply on HN