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

241–250 of 704 posts

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

#241

Post by User23 »

omoikane wrote: post #222
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…

See also the alt text for this comic: https://xkcd.com/928/ Spoiler for the bit referenced in the alt text: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/928:_Mimic_Octopu...

Today I learned about the wunderpus.

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

#242

Post by adriand »

phkahler wrote: post #236
adriand wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”. Those crabs can dish out some pain with those pincers. They eat their prey alive too. That's not an argument for or against treating them some way, just that they aren't some poor innocent animals either.

Yes, they are in fact innocent: they are of course “free from legal guilt or fault” but it’s the second definition from Merriam-Webster that really sums it up, “free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil”.

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

#243

Post by richardw »

phkahler wrote: post #236
adriand wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”. Those crabs can dish out some pain with those pincers. They eat their prey alive too. That's not an argument for or against treating them some way, just that they aren't some poor innocent animals either.

They seem innocent to me. They’re very likely not aware of the pain they cause. They don’t weigh up moral dilemmas and discuss them. They also have no ability to choose. They can’t code for a living, can’t play piano and be vegan. They just do what instinct and physical ability does. Evolution chose what they do and they can’t interrogate it.

Experiments could probably be set up to test this but I’m not sure it’s worth it.

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

#244

Post by AlexanderTheGr8 »

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…

In your definition of speciesism, you are doing exactly what you accuse your-defined "speciesists" of. You are manufacturing ("try to find some") a definition of speciesism to paint other-people as the bad guy. Your comparison of their actions with slavery is just to demotivate any response.

In animal kingdom, animals kill each other ruthlessly. African dogs and other animals eat their prey from back-to-front while they are alive. Are all animals speciesists? Are all animals committing an act equivalent to slavery?

Humanity survived on hunting for tens of thousands of years. So the only reason we survived is because we were "speciesists"? If that's the case, then I am okay with being a speciesist.

We have to value our species over other species - if it ever came to choosing 1 human being or a million , we would always choose a human being (given that killing those animals won't destroy the ecosystem, thus harming human beings).

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

#245

Post by User23 »

lanevorockz wrote: post #212
xvilka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even something small as jumping spiders can be quite smart. They certainly deserve some respect. And live boiling is common for crustaceans. Terrible practice, sentient or not.

Boiling is supposed to be painless and it’s meaning behind “boiling a frog alive”.

A steam bath was considered to be one of the most painless forms of suicide for Roman patricians.

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

#246

Post by jaydeflix »

sen wrote: post #140
monkeybutton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fascinating and instead of replying I've been reading about this and looking up words like cacti. For what it's worth, both plural forms for Octopus are in my phone's autocomplete dictionary.

The only real solution here is to make the official plural term be Octopises.

While octopi dates back to at least 1834 per the OED, can I put in a vote for the plural of octopus to be hentai?

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

#247

Post by omginternets »

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…

Are we really saying “speciesism” with a straight face, now?

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

#248

Post by fludlight »

phkahler wrote: post #236
adriand wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 most basic consideration: that they have “the capacity to experience pain, distress or harm”. Those crabs can dish out some pain with those pincers. They eat their prey alive too. That's not an argument for or against treating them some way, just that they aren't some poor innocent animals either.

I'll go further: there are no poor innocent carnivores or omnivores. All are brutal killers without regard for the suffering of others. Nature is struggle, awful, awful struggle.

But humans have the capacity to be more...humane.

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

#249

Post by dundarious »

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...

See nociception. It’s basically the scientific study of “are we being cruel when we harm or kill X?”

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

#250

Post by musingsole »

crehn wrote: post #223
musingsole wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, their observations of their behavior over a history of catching and eating them. Oh, you mean tabular, quantitative data? Come off it.

> their observations of their behavior over a history of catching and eating them Perhaps "data" is too analytical; I'm interested in how plants convey pain and fear.

It's an open question whether prescribing emotions to plant-life is appropriate, but it is a common model used to explain plant behavior. You could argue botanists are anthropomorphizing their subjects...or you could fixate on the overlap of plant and animal behaviors in response to similar conditions.

But for some science showing botanists using emotional language for plants in action, here ya go: https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/scaring-soybeans-def...

Post reply on HN